 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
An efficient operator splitting method for local region ChanVese model
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing volume 2013, Article number: 97 (2013)
Abstract
In this paper, we propose an efficient operator splitting method for local region ChanVese (CV) model for image segmentation. Different from the CV model, we employ the window function and absorb the local characteristics of the image for improving the CV model, which we called the local CV model. The local CV model can deal with the problem of intensity inhomogeneity which widely exists in the realworld images. By employing a Laplacian operator, we present an operator splitting method to update the level set function. Firstly, we solve the proposed model for evolving the level set function, which drives the active contour to move toward the object boundaries. Secondly, we introduce the Laplacian operator to act on the level set function as a diffusion term, which could efficiently ensure the smoothness and stability and eliminate the complex process of reinitialization. Besides, we increase a new constraint term which avoids updating the level set function seriously. Furthermore, we present an extension for vectorvalued images. Experiment results show that our method is competitive with application to synthetic and realworld images.
1 Introduction
In the field of image processing and computer vision, image segmentation is an everlasting fundamental problem. In the past decades, a large number of different approaches to segmentation have been put forward continuously [1, 2]. the active contour model that was firstly presented by Kass et al. [3] is one of the most famous and successful models for extracting objects in image segmentation. The main idea of this model is evolving a parametric curve to extract the objects during a process of minimizing energy functional. However, this model has some intrinsic disadvantages, such as it cannot efficiently handle topological changes like splitting and merging of the evolving curve. In order to overcome this problem, the level set method [4] proposed by Osher and Sethian could easily represent the curve or surface as the zero level set of a highdimensional function which can effectively handle topological changes. With the evolution of the level set function, the curve is moving implicitly, which promotes the combination with the active contour model. Up to now, in order to provide an effective way, active contour models [3, 5–7] based on the theory of curve and surface evolutions and geometric flows have been extensively studied and successfully used in the field of image segmentation.
Generally, active contour models can be roughly categorized into two different classes: edgebased models [6, 8–11] and regionbased models [7, 12–17]. Edgebased models use local image gradient information to attract the active contour toward the object boundaries and stop there. Geodesic active contour (GAC) model [6] is a famous example of this kind, which mainly depends on the local gradient information to control the shrinking or expanding of the contour. This kind of models is sensitive to the initial conditions and sometimes with boundary leakage problems, especially to the weak or fuzzy boundaries. Comparing with the edgebased models, regionbased models aim to identify each region by introducing region descriptors to drive the contour evolution. Depending on the statistical region information, they offer advantages such as that they do not rely on any edge or gradient information and are generally robust to noise and less sensitive to the contour initialization. In this paper, we mainly focus on the regionbased models.
Among the regionbased models, the MumfordShah model [18] is well known in minimizing an energy functional to approximate the image. In the MumfordShah model, the image is decomposed into some regions. In this way, each region is approximated as a smooth function. The CV model [7], as a simplified case of the MumfordShah model, in a piecewise constant way, has achieved a good performance in twophase image segmentation with a fast convergence rate. On the basis of the CV model, in [19, 20], the authors further generalized and proposed some variants which are called piecewise constant models. On the other hand, the energy functional of the CV model is nonconvex, so it is prone to getting struck in undesirable local minima. In [21–23], the authors presented some convex relaxation methods. However, the CV model is based on the assumption that the image is statistically intensity homogeneous in each region, thus it has some limitations in actual applications. In fact, the image with intensity inhomogeneity exists widely in the real world, and it is considered as a challenging problem in image segmentation. In addition, the typical CV model can only deal with the problem of twophase segmentation. As an extension, a multiphase level set framework [24] is presented for the multiregion image segmentation, which can be used to deal with the problem of intensity inhomogeneity. However, reinitialization is required periodically for the level set function so the computational cost is expensive. On the other hand, for the benefit of vectorvalued image segmentation, in [25], the authors extended the CV model to the vectorvalued images. In [16, 17], local region information is incorporated into the active contour models; and it is worth mentioning that the local binary fitting (LBF) model, also called regionscalable fitting model, shows a better performance than the CV model on extracting objects to the images with intensity inhomogeneity. However, the LBF model has a large dependency on the contour initialization; especially if the initial position of the contour is far away from the objects, the LBF model may be prone to getting stuck in local minima. Apart from the LBF model, in [26–28], active contour models mainly based on the local region information are further developed and effectively used to segment the images with intensity inhomogeneity. In [29], Tao et al. integrated the multiple piecewise constant with the GAC model, which can also overcome the problem of intensity inhomogeneity and multiple objects for image segmentation. Besides, in [30], the authors integrated the local region information with the CV model, which is effective for the images with intensity inhomogeneity.
In the traditional level set methods, in order to keep the regularity and numerical stability during the evolving process, periodical reinitialization [31–33] as a numeric remedy is introduced to maintain the level set function regularity. However, this method is timeconsuming and sometimes it may move the location of the zero level set [34]. Considering these problems, in [35–37], the authors proposed a series of variational level set methods, which can approximately maintain the signed distance property with the level set evolution. Therefore, these methods completely avoid the reinitialization procedure. Besides, in [27, 38], the authors used the Gaussian filtering processing to regularize the level set function.
In particular, Zhang et al. [39] proposed a reaction diffusion method, in which the level set evolving process can be divided two steps, where the reinitialization procedure is also completely unnecessary.
In this paper, we propose an efficient operator splitting method for local region CV model, which employs the local image region information to drive the active contour evolving. Unlike the CV model, we bring in a window function to calculate the local means of image intensities inside and outside the contour, respectively, and apply them to improve the CV model. For the sake of simplicity, we call it as local CV model. In the level set evolving process, the local CV model mainly relies on the local image region information so that it is desirable to segment the images with intensity inhomogeneity. Furthermore, considering the regularity of the level set function, we present an operator splitting method to update the level set function, which performs well in maintaining its smoothness and stability. Specifically, in the first step, the level set formulation is iterated. In the second step, motivated by the relative contributions in [27, 39], we introduce the Laplacian operator to act on the level set function, which forms a diffusion term to regularize the level set function. This diffusion term can ensure the smoothness and stability of the level set function, thus the costly reinitialization procedure is not essential. In addition, we increase a new constraint term, which avoids updating the level set function seriously and maintains its stability as well. Moreover, we extend our method to the vectorvalued image segmentation, as a special case, which can be used to extract the objects on the color images.
The outline of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we mainly review the wellknown MumfordShah model and the CV model and its extension form on the vectorvalued images. In Section 3, we first propose the local region CV model, and then we present an operator splitting method to realize the level set evolution and keep its smoothness and stability at the same time. Furthermore, we also extend our method to the vectorvalued images. In Section 4, we carry out some experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and performance of our method. Finally, we summarize this paper in Section 5.
2 Previous related works
2.1 MumfordShah model and ChanVese model
In [18], Mumford and Shah proposed the MumfordShah model. Its main idea is as follows: given an image I, by minimizing an energy functional to find a pair of (u,C) for partitioning the image into some disjoint subregions, u is an almost piecewise smooth approximation of the original image I, and C denotes the smooth and closed contour. The energy functional is defined as
where Ω defines the image domain, and μ and ν are fixed parameters, and C is the length of the contour C⊂Ω. In this energy functional, the first term is the data fidelity term. The second and third terms are the smooth term and the length restraint term of the contour C. In fact, because of nonconvex property, it is a difficult problem to find the optimal solution of (1). In [7, 24, 40], the authors turned to simplify or modify this problem for practical applications.
Based on the MumfordShah model, Chan and Vese [7] considered a special case by restricting u to a piecewise constant function and proposed an energy functional as follows:
where μ≥0, ν≥0, λ _{1}>0, and λ _{2}>0 are parameters.
In the CV model (2), the combination of the last two terms is called fitting energy, which is based on the statistic region information inside and outside the contour C, respectively. In totality, this fitting energy plays a major role in the process of the contour evolution. In calculus of variations and level set methods, the contour C is readily represented by the zero level set ϕ(x,y)=0. Correspondingly, ϕ(x,y)>0, if (x,y) is inside C, and reversely ϕ(x,y)<0, if (x,y) is outside C. Minimizing the energy functional (2) is equivalent to solving the corresponding level set formulation as follows:
where δ is the Dirac function. Similarly, after fixing ϕ, c _{1} and c _{2} are easily obtained as
where H is the Heaviside function.
The CV model is considered as one of the most widely used models for twophase image segmentation. One of the prominent advantages of the CV model is that it performs well on the images with fuzzy or even without edges. However, as a limitation, the CV model always supposes the image with intensity homogeneity. In fact, from Equations 4 and 5, we can observe that c _{1} and c _{2} are mainly related to the global property for they rely on the region information inside and outside the contour, respectively. Without taking the local image region information into account, the CV model cannot effectively deal with the problem of intensity inhomogeneity. In addition, it is unable to segment the multiregion images with different intensities.
2.2 Vectorvalued ChanVese model
In [25], Chan et al. presented a natural extension of the traditional CV model to the vectorvalued images. In this extension, let I _{ i } be the i th channel of an image on Ω, with i=1,⋯, N channels, and C the evolving curve. All the channels originate from the same image with some differences. Let
be two unknown constant vectors. Then the extension of the CV model to the vector case is as follows:
where ${\lambda}_{i}^{+}>0$ and ${\lambda}_{i}^{}>0$ are parameters for the i th channel. For convenience, we call the energy functional (6) as vectorvalued CV model. As an extension, the vectorvalued CV model balances the length of the contour C in the image, with fitting of I, averaged over all channels. In this form, the model (6) can detect edges presented in the last one of the channels and not necessarily in all channels. In the level set methods, the energy functional (6) can be easily rewritten as
Similar to the CV model in minimizing the energy functional (7) with respect to the constants ${c}_{i}^{+}$ and ${c}_{i}^{}$ for i=1,⋯,N, we obtain
Then we assume that $\overline{{c}^{+}}$ and $\overline{{c}^{}}$ are constant vectors, and then we minimize the energy functional (7) with respect to ϕ to have
The vectorvalued CV model can be used to extract complete information of the image, including the missing information in one or more channels. The reason is that each single channel is insufficient for determining the final location of the evolving contour. Thus, the vectorvalued CV model is better with the combinatorial form of all the channels. As a special example in [25], the vectorvalued CV model is effective to segment the color images. In fact, the vectorvalue CV model inherits all the benefits of the traditional CV model, such as robustness to the noise and automatic detection of interior contours. Nevertheless, the vectorvalue CV model still cannot deal well with the image with intensity inhomogeneity.
3 An efficient operator splitting method for local region ChanVese model
3.1 A local region ChanVese model
As discussed in subsection 2.1, in the level set formulation (3) of the CV model, c _{1} and c _{2} represent the global mean intensities of the image inside and outside the contour, respectively. As a result of this simplified representation, the CV model fails in segmenting the image with intensity inhomogeneity. Generally, the intensity inhomogeneity is slowly varying in the image domain. A remarkable characteristic of the image with intensity inhomogeneity is that for each point (x,y)∈Ω, its intensity is not completely similar to its neighboring points, sometimes with a great deal of difference. Therefore, it is unreasonable to only use two constants c _{1} and c _{2} for approximating the image intensities inside and outside the contour, respectively. To address these issues, we assume that for each point (x,y), in a small neighboring region, the image intensities submit to a certain probability distribution function, such as the Gaussian distribution. For the benefit of incorporating the local region information, we introduce a truncated rectangular window function W _{ k }(x,y), where k is related to the size of this rectangular window. Then we define ${c}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ and ${c}_{2}^{\mathrm{L}}$ as follows:
where we choose the truncated rectangular Gaussian window with a standard deviation σ. Comparing with Equations 4 and 5, it is more complex for calculating ${c}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ and ${c}_{2}^{\mathrm{L}}$, which greatly relies on the size of the window function. Due to the effect of the window function, the contributions of the intensities of the neighboring points to the center point are not the same for the different distances. To deal well with the problem of the image with intensity inhomogeneity, we use ${c}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ and ${c}_{2}^{\mathrm{L}}$ to replace c _{1} and c _{2}. Therefore, the level set formulation (3) can be rewritten as
where ${c}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ and ${c}_{2}^{\mathrm{L}}$ are with local region property of the image, thus we call Equation 13 as the local region ChanVese model. Comparing with the level set formulation (3), one of the primary advantages here is that instead of the global region information, we bring in the local image region information to drive the contour evolution. In this way, by adjusting the size and variance of the Gaussian window function, the image region with intensity inhomogeneity can be distinctively treated with the contour evolution, which greatly enhances the improvement of segmentation quality.
To solve the level set formulation (13), similarly in [7, 30], we use a finite difference method in numerical scheme. Then Equation 13 can be discretized as
In numerical implementation, we use the Neumann boundary condition. In fact, we can directly update the level set function by Equation 14 after initialization. Nevertheless, the regularity and stability of the level set function cannot be availably maintained during the evolving process.
3.2 An operator splitting method
In the level set methods, how to maintain the smoothness and stability is a key problem. As discussed in Section 1, the reinitialization [32] has been extensively used as a numerical remedy for maintaining the stability and the signed distance property during the level set evolution. However, the procedure is timeconsuming, and, more importantly, it may lead to the movement of the zero level set location. In [35–37], variational level set methods are presented, all of which effectively eliminate the reinitialization procedure and improve the computational efficiency. But these methods are not easily extended to other level set methods based on partial differential equations [39], and sometimes with the boundary leakage problems, which extremely restrict their extension and utilization on the image segmentation. More specifically, it is essential and extremely important to regularize the level set function during its evolution process. In other words, for our proposed level set formulation (13), the regularization procedure of the level set function is a requisite with its evolution process. Consequently, motivated by the discussion in the works of [27, 39], we present an operator splitting method to evolve the level set function as follows:

Step 1. Based on Equation 14, update the level set function by ϕ ^{n+1/2}=ϕ ^{n}+Δ t _{1}·L(ϕ ^{n}).

Step 2. Compute ϕ ^{n+1}=ϕ ^{n+1/2}+Δ t _{2}·Δ ϕ ^{n+1/2}+Δ t _{3}·(ϕ ^{n+1/2}−ϕ ^{n}).
Remark 1
In this two steps, Δ t _{1} is the time step of step 1. Δ t _{2} and Δ t _{3} represent the two time steps of step 2. In step 1, we obtain ϕ ^{n+1/2} and then utilize it in step 2, where Δ ϕ ^{n+1/2} represents the Laplacian operator that acts on the level set function. The third term of step 2 is a new restraint term to avoid updating the level set function seriously.
The purpose of this operator splitting method is significant. Owing to the execution of step 1, the contour evolves toward the object boundaries. After that, as a smoothing way, step 2 is extremely important as well for it eliminates the costly reinitialization procedure and avoids updating the level set function severely. As indicated in [27, 38], the evolution of a function with its Laplacian is equivalent to a Gaussian filtering process to regularize the level set function. Thus, step 2 plays a natural role for smoothing the level set function and maintaining its stability. Actually, as a following procedure of step 1, step 2 can be influenced by step 1 at the same time. If the level set function is too steep, it needs to properly increase Δ t _{2} so as to smooth more. On the other hand, step 2 has a direct impact on step 1. It is just the mutual cooperation of these two steps that promotes the steady evolution of the level set function and reduces the computational complexity. More significantly, this operator splitting method can be easily extended to other related level set methods based on partial differential equations.
3.3 An extension on vectorvalued images
As the vectorvalued CV model [25], the extension of our model on vectorvalued images is natural. Similarly to the analysis in Subsection 3.1, we calculate each channel singly and combine each other to control the contour evolution. Specifically, for i=1,⋯,N, we define ${c}_{i}^{+L}$ and ${c}_{i}^{L}$ as
where I _{ i } is the i th channel of the image.
Next, a natural idea is to consider using ${c}_{i}^{+L}$ and ${c}_{i}^{L}$ to replace ${c}_{i}^{+}$ and ${c}_{i}^{}$, thus the level set formulation (10) of the vectorvalued CV model can be further rewritten as
From the construction of Equation 17, the evolving contour is driven by the local region force. As a result of this replacement, all the local region information in every channel of the vectorvalued image is integrated with each other, which is beneficial to detecting the object boundaries. In addition, it can also avoid some limitations of using a single channel for the vectorvalued images.
3.4 Numerical implementation
In numerical implementation, as discussed in [39], the second time step Δ t _{2} should be set small, which can reduce the risk of moving the zero level set away from its original location. Δ t _{1} is related to updating of the level set function and has an impact on its smoothness. Generally, the choices of this two time steps should be comparable with Δ t _{2}<Δ t _{1}. Furthermore, except for maintaining the smoothness and numerical stability, choosing a small Δ t _{2} is reasonable for avoiding the emergence of boundary leakage problems. Similarly, Δ t _{3} should be selected small for maintaining the stability of the level set function satisfactorily.
For the convenience of calculation, as mentioned in [7, 17], the Heaviside function H and the Dirac function δ are usually approximated by a smooth function H _{ ε } and its derivative δ _{ ε } as
Summarizing the descriptions on Subsections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, the main steps of our method for image segmentation are presented as follows:

1.
Input an original image I. Initialize the level set function ϕ, where we can choose a signed distance function [7, 25] or a binary function [27, 35, 36, 39].

2.
If I is a gray scale image, compute ${c}_{1}^{\mathrm{L}}$ and ${c}_{2}^{\mathrm{L}}$ by Equations 11 and 12. On the other hand, if I is a vectorvalued image, compute ${c}_{i}^{+L}$ and ${c}_{i}^{L}$ by Equations 15 and 16.

3.
Implement the presented operator splitting method in Subsection 3.2 sequentially.

4.
Check whether the level set function satisfies the stationary condition. If not, return to step 2.
Remark 2
In step 2, we first need to judge whether the imputing image is a gray scale image or not, where we can test it with the help of some simple experiments, such as the MATLAB program (MathWorks Inc, Natick, MA, USA). Especially, in most cases, the color image can be distinguished by direct observation.
Remark 3
Our method is different from the methods in [41, 42]. Even if the authors also introduced the local region model by employing the maximum a posteriori estimation and Parzen method, they mainly focused on the statistical interpretation and application of the MumfordShah model. Besides, they approximated it from a maximum a posteriori model where each region is modeled by the mean estimated in a local Gaussian neighborhood. However, focusing on the improvement of the CV model, our method use the local region information to replace the global region information and present an operator splitting method for implementation. Furthermore, our method is easily extended to the vectorvalued images.
4 Experimental results
In this section, a series of synthetical and realworld images are used to test the effectiveness and performance of our method. All the experiments are implemented in Matlab 7.0 on a personal computer with Intel Pentium D (Intel Corp, Sta. Clara, CA, USA) CPU 3.00 GHz and 1 GB of memory. We choose the size of the truncated Gaussian window as 4k+1 by 4k+1, where k is the greatest integer smaller than the standard deviation σ. Unless otherwise specified, the default parameters are set as Δ t _{1}=0.1, Δ t _{2}=0.01, Δ t _{3}=0.01, ε=1.0, and λ _{1}=λ _{2}=1.0, and for i=1,⋯,N, ${\lambda}_{i}^{+}={\lambda}_{i}^{}=1.0$. Besides, the parameters σ and μ should be set as different values according to the image characteristics, such as intensity, shape, and color.
Comparing with the CV model in the beginning, we test the performance of our method on some synthetic images. Figure 1 shows the comparison results of the CV model and our method. In row 1 and row 2, the two test images are with noise. With the same initial contours, the comparison results illustrate that our method can obtain similar performances as the CV model. Besides, our method performs well for the noisy image with lowintensity inhomogeneity. In our method, we choose σ=10.0, μ=0.1×255^{2} in the first image, and σ=3.0, μ=0.005×255^{2} in the last two images.
Figure 2 shows our method with application to the images with intensity inhomogeneity. In every row, there are the initial contour, middle results, and the final result from left to right. The evolving process indicates that the contour is driven by the local region fitting energy and moves toward the object boundaries. The results illustrate that our method has a satisfying performance to deal with the problem of intensity inhomogeneity, which demonstrates the advantage of the introduction of the local image region information. Here, we set σ=10.0, μ=0.001×255^{2} in the first image, and σ=3.0, μ=0.003×255^{2} in the second image.
In Figure 3, we show the comparison results of the CV model, the LBF model, and our method. The test image is a typical synthetic image with intensity inhomogeneity [17]. We choose two different initial contours, that is, a square curve in the first row and a cycle curve in the second row. All the parameters in the CV model and the LBF model are tried many times and selected for the best performance. In the first row, the level set function initialization is a binary function. By relying on the global region information, the CV model cannot segment the image with intensity inhomogeneity satisfactorily. The LBF model is sensitive to the location of the initial contour [30], and therefore it fails in detecting the object boundaries. It is clear that only our method obtains desirable results. In the second row, even if we initialize the level set function as a signed distance function, the CV model still performs badly. However, the LBF model and our method detect the object boundaries successfully. In our method, we set σ=5.0, μ=0.003×255^{2}. All the iterations and CPU time are presented in Table 1. From the comparison results in Figure 3 and Table 1, we can easily observe that the different kinds of the level set initialization for our method still lead to similar segmentation results, which is better than the LBF model. In addition, in our method, different initial contours need different iterations and time. As a whole, our method spends more time than the CV model and the LBF model.
Figure 4 shows that the comparison results for some synthetic images, which have multiobjects with different intensities. We compare our method with the CV model and the selective binary and Gaussian filtering regularized level set (SBGFRLS) method [38]. In the first row, as the same experiment to be tested in [38], the background intensity is 200, and the three objects are 120, 100, and 50 from left to right, where all three methods extract objects successfully. In the second row, the left object intensity is 180, which is close to the background intensity. As discussed in [38], the results of the CV model and the SBGFRLS method are unsatisfactory because the left object with intensity 180 is not extracted. The most important reason is that the two methods mainly depend on the global region information. However, because of introducing the local image region information effectively, our method extracts all the objects successfully. Moreover, in the third row, the background intensity is 220, and the intensities of six objects are 50, 80, 110, 140, 170, and 200 from left to right and top to bottom, respectively. The CV model and the SBGFRLS method fail in extracting two objects with intensities 170 and 200 in the bottom. However, our method extracts all the objects as before. Therefore, owing to the local property, our method performs well for segmenting the multiobjects with different intensities. All the iterations and CPU time are shown in Table 2, from which we can see that our method takes more iterations and CPU time than other two methods. Even so, our method is very competitive for it can satisfactorily segment multiobjects with different intensities. We choose σ=6.0, μ=0.001×255^{2} in our method.
The next experiments are focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of our method with application to the vectorvalued images. As a special example, we use the color image. By dividing the image into three channels using red, green, and blue colors, one can extract objects that normally undetectable when the color image is transformed to a scalar intensity image [25]. Figure 5 takes on the evolving process of the contours and the final results of two realworld color images, which specifies that our method can extract the objects clearly. We set σ=3.0, μ=0.01×255^{2}.
In comparing with the vectorvalued CV model [25], Figure 6 shows three examples to illustrate the performance between our method and the vectorvalued CV model with application to the color images. From the comparison results, it is clear that the performance of the two kinds of methods are roughly similar, but there are some difference in details. Because of the global property, the vectorvalued CV model extracts all the prominent objects of the images. However, for the realworld images with complicated background, we usually pay attention to some big or desirable objects. Thus, we can consider to initialize the contours near the object boundaries; and largely owing to the influence of the local image region information, our method obtains more desirable results. To be specific, for the leaf image with single object in the first row, the two kinds of results are similar to each other. The second image with complex background, comparing with the vectorvalued CV model, our method demonstrates better in visual perception. In the third image, a major concern is the rabbit in the grass. Therefore, the comparison results illustrate that our method performs better than the vectorvalued CV model. We choose σ=3.0 in our method and with the same other parameters as the vectorvalued CV model. Specifically, we set μ=0.01×255^{2} in the first row and the second row, and μ=0.05×255^{2} in the last row.
To further test the sensitivity of the proposed method to the standard deviation of the truncated Gaussian window, we design several different values for σ, and their results are presented in Figure 7. We borrow the same image as in Figure 2, where σ=3.0. Though we choose different values, the results are similar and satisfying, which demonstrates that our method is less sensitive to the choice of σ. We set μ=0.01×255^{2}.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we have proposed an efficient operator splitting method for local region CV model. By introducing the window function, we increased the local image region information to improve the CV model, which performs better than the traditional CV model on segmenting images with intensity inhomogeneity. In order to regularize the level set function and maintain the numerical stability during the level set evolution, we presented an operator splitting method. In this method, we employed the Laplacian operator to act on the level set function and increased a new restraint term to prevent updating the level set function seriously. Comparing with other related methods [7, 17, 42], the motivation and superiority of our method have been discussed in details. Furthermore, our method has been extended to the vectorvalued image segmentation, such as the color image. Our method can effectively eliminate the reinitialization procedure and ensure the numerical calculation stability. A large number of numerical experiments have been used to test and demonstrate that our method can effectively segment the gray scale images with intensity inhomogeneity and multiobjects with different intensities, and perform well on the realworld color images.
References
 1.
Cremers D, Rousson M, Deriche R: A review of statistical approaches to level set segmentation: integrating color, texture, motion and shape. Int. J. Comput. Vis 2007, 72(2):195215. 10.1007/s1126300687111
 2.
Mitiche A, Ayed IB: Variational and level set methods in image segmentation. Berlin,Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag; 2010.
 3.
Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D: Snakes: active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vis 1988, 1(4):321331. 10.1007/BF00133570
 4.
Osher S, Sethian JA: Fronts propagating with curvaturedependent speed: algorithms based on HamiltonJacobi formulation. J. Comput. Phys 1988, 79(1):1249. 10.1016/00219991(88)900022
 5.
Caselles V, Catte F, Coll T, Dibos F: A geometric model for active contours in image processing. Numer. math 1993, 66(1):131. 10.1007/BF01385685
 6.
Caselles V, Kimmel R, Sapiro G: Geodesic active contours. Int. J. Comput. Vis 1997, 22(1):6179. 10.1023/A:1007979827043
 7.
Chan TF, Vese LA: Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2001, 10(2):266277. 10.1109/83.902291
 8.
Park J, Keller J: Snakes on the watershed. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell 2001, 23(10):12011205. 10.1109/34.954609
 9.
Goldenberg R, Kimmel R, Rivlin E, Rudzsky M: Fast geodesic active contours. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2001, 10(10):14671475. 10.1109/83.951533
 10.
Vasilevskiy A, Siddiqi K: Fluxmaximizing geometric flows. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell 2002, 24(12):15651578. 10.1109/TPAMI.2002.1114849
 11.
Xiang Y, Chung A, Ye J: An active contour model for image segmentation based on elastic interaction. J. Comput. Phys 2006, 219(1):455476. 10.1016/j.jcp.2006.03.026
 12.
Samson C, BlancFeraud L, Aubert G, Zerubia J: A level set model for image classification. Int. J. Comput. Vis 2000, 40(3):187197. 10.1023/A:1008183109594
 13.
Tsai A, Yezzi A, Willsky AS: Curve evolution implementation of the MumfordShah functional for image segmentation, denoising, interpolation, and magnification. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2001, 10(8):11691186. 10.1109/83.935033
 14.
Kim J, Fisher J, Yezzi A, Cetin M, Willsky A: A nonparametric statistical method for image segmentation using information theory and curve evolution. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2005, 14(10):14861502.
 15.
A Sarti C, Corsi E, Mazzini C: Lamberti, Maximum likelihood segmentation of ultrasound images with Rayleigh distribution. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2005, 52(6):947960.
 16.
Li C, Kao JC, Gore Z: Ding, Implicit active contours driven by local binary fitting energy, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (IEEE Press. USA 2007, 17.
 17.
Li C, Kao C, Gore JC, Ding Z: Minimization of regionscalable fitting energy for image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2008, 17(10):19401949.
 18.
Mumford D, Shah J: Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems. Commun. Pure Appl. Math 1989, 42(5):577685. 10.1002/cpa.3160420503
 19.
Lie J, Lysaker M, Tai X: A variant of the level set method and applications to image segmentation. Math. Comp 2006, 75(255):11551174. 10.1090/S0025571806018357
 20.
Lie J, Lysaker M, Tai X, A binary level set model and some applications to MumfordShah image segmentation: IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2006, 15(5):11711181.
 21.
Chan TF, Esedoglu S, Nikolova M: Algorithms for finding global minimizers of image segmentation and denoising models. SIAM. J. Appl. Math 2006, 66(5):16321648.
 22.
Bresson X, Esedoglu S, Vandergheynst P, Thiran J, Osher S: Fast global minimization of the active contour/snake model. J. Math. Imaging Vis 2007, 28(2):151167. 10.1007/s1085100700020
 23.
Bae E, Yuan J, Tai X: Global minimization for continuous multiphase partitioning problems using a dual approach. Int. J. Comput. Vis 2009, 92(1):112129.
 24.
Vese LA, Chan TF: A multiphase level set framework for image segmentation using the Mumford and Shah model. Int. J. Comput. Vis 2002, 50(3):271293. 10.1023/A:1020874308076
 25.
Chan TF, Sandberg BY, Vese LA: Active contours without edges for vectorvalued images. J. Visual Communic. Imag. Representation 2000, 11(2):130141. 10.1006/jvci.1999.0442
 26.
Wang L, He L, Mishra A, Li C: Active contours driven by local Gaussian distribution fitting energy. Signal Process 2009, 89(12):24352447. 10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.03.014
 27.
Zhang K, Song H, Zhang L: Active contours driven by local image fitting energy. Pattern Recognit 2010, 43(4):11991206. 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.10.010
 28.
Lankton S, Tannenbaum A: Localizing regionbased active contours. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2008, 17(11):20292039.
 29.
Tao W, Tai X: Multiple piecewise constant with geodesic active contours (MPCGAC) framework for interactive images segmentation using graph cut optimization. Image Vis. Comput 2011, 29(8):499508. 10.1016/j.imavis.2011.03.002
 30.
Wang X, Huang D, Xu H: An efficient local ChanVese model for image segmentation. Pattern Recognit 2010, 43(3):603618. 10.1016/j.patcog.2009.08.002
 31.
Sussman M, Smereka P, Osher S: A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible twophase flow. J. Comput. Phys 1994, 119(1):146159.
 32.
Sussman M, Fatemi E: An efficient, interface preserving level set redistancing algorithm and its application to interfacial incompressible fluid flow. SIAM J. Sci. Comput 1999, 20(4):11651191. 10.1137/S1064827596298245
 33.
Gomes J, Faugeras O: Reconciling distance functions and level sets. J. Visual Communic. Imag. Representation 2000, 11(2):209223. 10.1006/jvci.1999.0439
 34.
Peng D, Merriman B, Osher S, Zhao H, Kang M: A PDEbased fast local level set method. J. Comput. Phys 1999, 155(2):410438. 10.1006/jcph.1999.6345
 35.
Li C, Xu C, Gui C, Fox MD: Level set evolution without reinitialization: a new variational formulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. USA: IEEE Press; 2005:430436.
 36.
Li C, Xu C, Gui C, Fox MD: Distance regularized level set evolution and its application to image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2010, 19(12):32433254.
 37.
Xie X: Active contouring based on gradient vector interaction and constrained level set diffusion. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2010, 19(1):154164.
 38.
Zhang K, Zhang L, Song H, Zhou W: Active contours with selective local or global segmentation: a new formulation and level set method. Image Vis. Comput 2010, 28(4):668676. 10.1016/j.imavis.2009.10.009
 39.
Zhang K, Zhang L, Song H, Zhang D: Reinitialization free level set evolution via reaction diffusion. IEEE Trans. Image Process 2013, 22(1):258271.
 40.
Shen J: A stochasticvariational model for soft MumfordShah segmentation. Int. J. Biomed. Imaging 2006, 2006: 114.
 41.
Brox T, Cremers D: On the statistical interpretation of the piecewise smooth MumfordShah functional. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Scale Space and Variational Methods in Computer Vision. Berlin: Springer; 2007:203213.
 42.
Brox T, Cremers D: On local region models and a statistical interpretation of the piecewise smooth MumfordShah functional. Int. J. Comput. Vis 2009, 84(2):184193. 10.1007/s1126300801535
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous referee for their valuable comments and suggestions, which are very helpful for revising and improving this paper. This research is supported by NSFC (no. 61170311), Chinese Universities Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program (20110185110020), Sichuan Provincial Department of Science & Technology Research Project (no. 12ZC1802), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (no. 09CX04003A).
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, H., Huang, TZ. & Liu, J. An efficient operator splitting method for local region ChanVese model. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2013, 97 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/16876180201397
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Active Contour Model
 Intensity Inhomogeneity
 Operator Splitting Method
 Contour Evolution
 Local Binary Fitting Model