MIT Research News' Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View]

Tuesday, September 11th, 2018

    Time Event
    12:00a
    Smoothing out sketches’ rough edges

    Artists may soon have at their disposal a new MIT-developed tool that could help them create digital characters, logos, and other graphics more quickly and easily. 

    Many digital artists rely on image vectorization, a technique that converts a pixel-based image into an image comprising groupings of clearly defined shapes. In this technique, points in the image are connected by lines or curves to construct the shapes. Among other perks, vectorized images maintain the same resolution when either enlarged or shrunk down.

    To vectorize an image, artists often have to hand-trace each stroke using specialized software, such as Adobe Illustrator, which is laborious. Another option is using automated vectorization tools in those software packages. Often, however, these tools lead to numerous tracing errors that take more time to rectify by hand. The main culprit: mismatches at intersections where curves and lines meet.

    In a paper being published in the journal ACM Transactions on Graphics, MIT researchers detail a new automated vectorization algorithm that traces intersections without error, greatly reducing the need for manual revision. Powering the tool is a modified version of a new mathematical technique in the computer-graphics community, called “frame fields,” used to guide tracing of paths around curves, sharp corners, and messy parts of drawings where many lines intersect.

    The tool could save digital artists significant time and frustration. “A rough estimate is that it could save 20 to 30 minutes from automated tools, which is substantial when you think about animators who work with multiple sketches,” says first author Mikhail Bessmeltsev, a former Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) postdoc associate who is now an assistant professor at the University of Montreal. “The hope is to make automated vectorization tools more practical for artists who care about the quality of their work.”

    Co-author on the paper is Justin Solomon, an assistant professor in CSAIL and in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and a principal investigator in the Geometric Data Processing Group.

    Guiding the lines

    Many modern tools used to model 3-D shapes directly from artist sketches, including Bessmeltsev’s previous research projects, require vectorizing the drawings first. Automated vectorization “never worked for me, so I got frustrated,” he says. Those tools, he says, are fine for rough alignments but aren’t designed for precision: “Imagine you’re an animator and you drew a couple frames of animation. They’re pretty clean sketches, and you want to edit or color them on a computer. For that, you really care how well your vectorization aligns with your pencil drawing.”

    Many errors, he noted, come from misalignment between the original and vectorized image at junctions where two curves meet — in a type of “X” junction — and where one line ends at another — in a “T” junction. Previous research and software used models incapable of aligning the curves at those junctions, so Bessmeltsev and Solomon took on the task.

    The key innovation came from using frame fields to guide tracing. Frame fields assign two directions to each point of a 2-D or 3-D shape. These directions overlay a basic structure, or topology, that can guide geometric tasks in computer graphics. Frame fields have been used, for instance, to restore destroyed historical documents and to convert triangle meshes — networks of triangles covering a 3-D shape — into quadrangle meshes — grids of four-sided shapes. Quad meshes are commonly used to create computer-generated characters in movies and video games, and for computer-aided design (CAD) for better real-world design and simulation.

    Bessmeltsev, for the first time, applied frame fields to image vectorization. His frame fields assign two directions to every dark pixel on an image. This keeps track of the tangent directions — where a curve meets a line — of nearby drawn curves. That means, at every intersection of a drawing, the two directions of the frame field align with the directions of the intersecting curves. This drastically reduces the roughness, or noise, surrounding intersections, which usually makes them difficult to trace.

    “At a junction, all you have to do is follow one direction of the frame field and you get a smooth curve. You do that for every junction, and all junctions will then be aligned properly,” Bessmeltsev says.

    Cleaner vectorization

    When given an input of a pixeled raster 2-D drawing with one color per pixel, the tool assigns each dark pixel a cross that indicates two directions. Starting at some pixel, it first chooses a direction to trace. Then, it traces the vector path along the pixels, following the directions. After tracing, the tool creates a graph capturing connections between the solid strokes in the drawn image. Using this graph, the tool matches the necessary lines and curves to those strokes and automatically vectorizes the image.

    In their paper, the researchers demonstrated their tool on various sketches, such as cartoon animals, people, and plants. The tool cleanly vectorized all intersections that were traced incorrectly using traditional tools. With traditional tools, for instance, lines around facial features, such as eyes and teeth, didn’t stop where the original lines did or ran through other lines.

    One example in the paper shows pixels making up two slightly curved lines leading to the tip of a hat worn by a cartoon elephant. There’s a sharp corner where the two lines meet. Each dark pixel contains a cross that’s straight or slightly slanted, depending on the curvature of the line. Using those cross directions, the traced line could easily follow as it swooped around the sharp turn.

    “Many artists still enjoy and prefer to work with real media (for example, pen, pencil, and paper). … The problem is that the scanning of such content into the computer often results in a severe loss of information,” says Nathan Carr, a principal researcher in computer graphics at Adobe Systems Inc., who was not involved in the research. “[The MIT] work relies on a mathematical construct known as ‘frame fields,’ to clean up and disambiguate scanned sketches to gain back this loss of information. It’s a great application of using mathematics to facilitate the artistic workflow in a clean well-formed manner. In summary, this work is important, as it aids in the ability for artists to transition between the physical and digital realms.”

    Next, the researchers plan to augment the tool with a temporal-coherence technique, which extracts key information from adjacent animation frames. The idea would be to vectorize the frames simultaneously, using information from one to adjust the line tracing on the next, and vice versa. “Knowing the sketches don’t change much between the frames, the tool could improve the vectorization by looking at both at the same time,” Bessmeltsev says.

    10:20a
    Artificial intelligence system uses transparent, human-like reasoning to solve problems

    A child is presented with a picture of various shapes and is asked to find the big red circle. To come to the answer, she goes through a few steps of reasoning: First, find all the big things; next, find the big things that are red; and finally, pick out the big red thing that’s a circle.

    We learn through reason how to interpret the world. So, too, do neural networks. Now a team of researchers from MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Intelligence and Decision Technologies Group has developed a neural network that performs human-like reasoning steps to answer questions about the contents of images. Named the Transparency by Design Network (TbD-net), the model visually renders its thought process as it solves problems, allowing human analysts to interpret its decision-making process. The model performs better than today’s best visual-reasoning neural networks.  

    Understanding how a neural network comes to its decisions has been a long-standing challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) researchers. As the neural part of their name suggests, neural networks are brain-inspired AI systems intended to replicate the way that humans learn. They consist of input and output layers, and layers in between that transform the input into the correct output. Some deep neural networks have grown so complex that it’s practically impossible to follow this transformation process. That's why they are referred to as "black box” systems, with their exact goings-on inside opaque even to the engineers who build them.

    With TbD-net, the developers aim to make these inner workings transparent. Transparency is important because it allows humans to interpret an AI's results.

    It is important to know, for example, what exactly a neural network used in self-driving cars thinks the difference is between a pedestrian and stop sign, and at what point along its chain of reasoning does it see that difference. These insights allow researchers to teach the neural network to correct any incorrect assumptions. But the TbD-net developers say the best neural networks today lack an effective mechanism for enabling humans to understand their reasoning process.

    "Progress on improving performance in visual reasoning has come at the cost of interpretability,” says Ryan Soklaski, who built TbD-net with fellow researchers Arjun Majumdar, David Mascharka, and Philip Tran.

    The Lincoln Laboratory group was able to close the gap between performance and interpretability with TbD-net. One key to their system is a collection of "modules," small neural networks that are specialized to perform specific subtasks. When TbD-net is asked a visual reasoning question about an image, it breaks down the question into subtasks and assigns the appropriate module to fulfill its part. Like workers down an assembly line, each module builds off what the module before it has figured out to eventually produce the final, correct answer. As a whole, TbD-net utilizes one AI technique that interprets human language questions and breaks those sentences into subtasks, followed by multiple computer vision AI techniques that interpret the imagery.

    Majumdar says: "Breaking a complex chain of reasoning into a series of smaller subproblems, each of which can be solved independently and composed, is a powerful and intuitive means for reasoning."

    Each module's output is depicted visually in what the group calls an "attention mask." The attention mask shows heat-map blobs over objects in the image that the module is identifying as its answer. These visualizations let the human analyst see how a module is interpreting the image.   

    Take, for example, the following question posed to TbD-net: “In this image, what color is the large metal cube?" To answer the question, the first module locates large objects only, producing an attention mask with those large objects highlighted. The next module takes this output and finds which of those objects identified as large by the previous module are also metal. That module's output is sent to the next module, which identifies which of those large, metal objects is also a cube. At last, this output is sent to a module that can determine the color of objects. TbD-net’s final output is “red,” the correct answer to the question. 

    When tested, TbD-net achieved results that surpass the best-performing visual reasoning models. The researchers evaluated the model using a visual question-answering dataset consisting of 70,000 training images and 700,000 questions, along with test and validation sets of 15,000 images and 150,000 questions. The initial model achieved 98.7 percent test accuracy on the dataset, which, according to the researchers, far outperforms other neural module network–based approaches.

    Importantly, the researchers were able to then improve these results because of their model's key advantage — transparency. By looking at the attention masks produced by the modules, they could see where things went wrong and refine the model. The end result was a state-of-the-art performance of 99.1 percent accuracy.

    "Our model provides straightforward, interpretable outputs at every stage of the visual reasoning process,” Mascharka says.

    Interpretability is especially valuable if deep learning algorithms are to be deployed alongside humans to help tackle complex real-world tasks. To build trust in these systems, users will need the ability to inspect the reasoning process so that they can understand why and how a model could make wrong predictions. 

    Paul Metzger, leader of the Intelligence and Decision Technologies Group, says the research “is part of Lincoln Laboratory’s work toward becoming a world leader in applied machine learning research and artificial intelligence that fosters human-machine collaboration.”

    The details of this work are described in the paper, “Transparency by Design: Closing the Gap Between Performance and Interpretability in Visual Reasoning," which was presented at the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) this summer.

    << Previous Day 2018/09/11
    [Calendar]
    Next Day >>

MIT Research News   About LJ.Rossia.org