Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6312 CommencedPublicationin1973 FoundingandFormerSeriesEditors: GerhardGoos,JurisHartmanis,andJanvanLeeuwen EditorialBoard DavidHutchison LancasterUniversity,UK TakeoKanade CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA,USA JosefKittler UniversityofSurrey,Guildford,UK JonM.Kleinberg CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY,USA AlfredKobsa UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,CA,USA FriedemannMattern ETHZurich,Switzerland JohnC.Mitchell StanfordUniversity,CA,USA MoniNaor WeizmannInstituteofScience,Rehovot,Israel OscarNierstrasz UniversityofBern,Switzerland C.PanduRangan IndianInstituteofTechnology,Madras,India BernhardSteffen TUDortmundUniversity,Germany MadhuSudan MicrosoftResearch,Cambridge,MA,USA DemetriTerzopoulos UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA,USA DougTygar UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA GerhardWeikum MaxPlanckInstituteforInformatics,Saarbruecken,Germany Kostas Daniilidis Petros Maragos Nikos Paragios (Eds.) Computer Vision – ECCV 2010 11th European Conference on ComputerVision Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5-11, 2010 Proceedings, Part II 1 3 VolumeEditors KostasDaniilidis GRASPLaboratory UniversityofPennsylvania 3330WalnutStreet,Philadelphia,PA19104,USA E-mail:[email protected] PetrosMaragos NationalTechnicalUniversityofAthens SchoolofElectricalandComputerEngineering 15773Athens,Greece E-mail:[email protected] NikosParagios EcoleCentraledeParis DepartmentofAppliedMathematics GrandeVoiedesVignes,92295Chatenay-Malabry,France E-mail:[email protected] LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2010933243 CRSubjectClassification(1998):I.2.10,I.3,I.5,I.4,F.2.2,I.3.5 LNCSSublibrary:SL6–ImageProcessing,ComputerVision,PatternRecognition, andGraphics ISSN 0302-9743 ISBN-10 3-642-15551-0SpringerBerlinHeidelbergNewYork ISBN-13 978-3-642-15551-2SpringerBerlinHeidelbergNewYork Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting, reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965, initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsareliable toprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw. springer.com ©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2010 PrintedinGermany Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyScientificPublishingServices,Chennai,India Printedonacid-freepaper 06/3180 Preface The 2010 edition of the European Conference on Computer Vision was held in Heraklion, Crete. The call for papers attracted an absolute record of 1,174 submissions. We describe here the selection of the accepted papers: (cid:404) Thirty-eight area chairs were selected coming from Europe (18), USA and Canada (16), and Asia (4). Their selection was based on the following criteria: (1) Researchers who had served at least two times as Area Chairs within the past two years at major vision conferences were excluded; (2) Researchers who served as Area Chairs at the 2010 Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition were also excluded (exception: ECCV 2012 Program Chairs); (3) Minimization of overlap introduced by Area Chairs being former student and advisors; (4) 20% of the Area Chairs had never served before in a major conference; (5) The Area Chair selection process made all possible efforts to achieve a reasonable geographic distribution between countries, thematic areas and trends in computer vision. (cid:404) Each Area Chair was assigned by the Program Chairs between 28–32 papers. Based on paper content, the Area Chair recommended up to seven potential reviewers per paper. Such assignment was made using all reviewers in the database including the conflicting ones. The Program Chairs manually entered the missing conflict domains of approximately 300 reviewers. Based on the recommendation of the Area Chairs, three reviewers were selected per paper (with at least one being of the top three suggestions), with 99.7% being the recommendations of the Area Chairs. When this was not possible, senior reviewers were assigned to these papers by the Program Chairs, with the consent of the Area Chairs. Upon completion of this process there were 653 active reviewers in the system. (cid:404) Each reviewer got a maximum load of eight reviews––in a few cases we had nine papers when re-assignments were made manually because of hidden conflicts. Upon the completion of the reviews deadline, 38 reviews were missing. The Program Chairs proceeded with fast re-assignment of these papers to senior reviewers. Prior to the deadline of submitting the rebuttal by VI Preface the authors, all papers had three reviews. The distribution of the reviews was the following: 100 papers with an average score of weak accept and higher, 125 papers with an average score toward weak accept, 425 papers with an average score around borderline. (cid:404) For papers with strong consensus among reviewers, we introduced a procedure to handle potential overwriting of the recommendation by the Area Chair. In particular for all papers with weak accept and higher or with weak reject and lower, the Area Chair should have sought for an additional reviewer prior to the Area Chair meeting. The decision of the paper could have been changed if the additional reviewer was supporting the recommendation of the Area Chair, and the Area Chair was able to convince his/her group of Area Chairs of that decision. (cid:404) The discussion phase between the Area Chair and the reviewers was initiated once the review became available. The Area Chairs had to provide their identity to the reviewers. The discussion remained open until the Area Chair meeting that was held in Paris, June 5–6. Each Area Chair was paired to a buddy and the decisions for all papers were made jointly, or when needed using the opinion of other Area Chairs. The pairing was done considering conflicts, thematic proximity, and when possible geographic diversity. The Area Chairs were responsible for taking decisions on their papers. Prior to the Area Chair meeting, 92% of the consolidation reports and the decision suggestions had been made by the Area Chairs. These recommendations were used as a basis for the final decisions. (cid:404) Orals were discussed in groups of Area Chairs. Four groups were formed, with no direct conflict between paper conflicts and the participating Area Chairs. The Area Chair recommending a paper had to present the paper to the whole group and explain why such a contribution is worth being published as an oral. In most of the cases consensus was reached in the group, while in the cases where discrepancies existed between the Area Chairs’ views, the decision was taken according to the majority of opinions. (cid:404) The final outcome of the Area Chair meeting, was 38 papers accepted for an oral presentation and 284 for poster. The percentage ratios of submissions/ acceptance per area are the following: Preface VII Thematic area # submitted % over # accepted % over % acceptance submitted accepted in area Object andScene Recognition 192 16.4% 66 20.3% 34.4% Segmentation and Grouping 129 11.0% 28 8.6% 21.7% Face, Gesture, Biometrics 125 10.6% 32 9.8% 25.6% Motion and Tracking 119 10.1% 27 8.3% 22.7% Statistical Modelsand Visual 101 8.6% 30 9.2% 29.7% Learning Matching, Registration, Alignment 90 7.7% 21 6.5% 23.3% Computational Imaging 74 6.3% 24 7.4% 32.4% Multi-view Geometry 67 5.7% 24 7.4% 35.8% Image Features 66 5.6% 17 5.2% 25.8% Video and Event Characterization 62 5.3% 14 4.3% 22.6% Shape Representation and 48 4.1% 19 5.8% 39.6% Recognition Stereo 38 3.2% 4 1.2% 10.5% Reflectance, Illumination, Color 37 3.2% 14 4.3% 37.8% Medical Image Analysis 26 2.2% 5 1.5% 19.2% (cid:404) We received 14 complaints/reconsideration requests. All of them were sent to the Area Chairs who handled the papers. Based on the reviewers’ arguments and the reaction of the Area Chair, three papers were accepted––as posters––on top of the 322 at the Area Chair meeting, bringing the total number of accepted papers to 325 or 27.6%. The selection rate for the 38 orals was 3.2%.The acceptance rate for the papers submitted by the group of Area Chairs was 39%. (cid:404) Award nominations were proposed by the Area and Program Chairs based on the reviews and the consolidation report. An external award committee was formed comprising David Fleet, Luc Van Gool, Bernt Schiele, Alan Yuille, Ramin Zabih. Additional reviews were considered for the nominated papers and the decision on the paper awards was made by the award committee. We thank the Area Chairs, Reviewers, Award Committee Members, and the General Chairs for their hard work and we gratefully acknowledge Microsoft Research for accommodating the ECCV needs by generously providing the CMT Conference Management Toolkit. We hope you enjoy the proceedings. September 2010 Kostas Daniilidis Petros Maragos Nikos Paragios Organization General Chairs Argyros,Antonis University of Crete/FORTH, Greece Trahanias,Panos University of Crete/FORTH, Greece Tziritas, George University of Crete, Greece Program Chairs Daniilidis, Kostas University of Pennsylvania, USA Maragos,Petros National Technical University of Athens, Greece Paragios,Nikos Ecole Centrale de Paris/INRIA Saclay ˆıle-de-France, France Workshops Chair Kutulakos, Kyros University of Toronto, Canada Tutorials Chair Lourakis,Manolis FORTH, Greece Demonstrations Chair Kakadiaris,Ioannis University of Houston, USA Industrial Chair Pavlidis, Ioannis University of Houston, USA Travel Grants Chair Komodakis,Nikos University of Crete, Greece X Organization Area Chairs Bach, Francis INRIA Paris - Rocquencourt, France Belongie, Serge University of California-San Diego, USA Bischof, Horst Graz University of Technology, Austria Black, Michael Brown University, USA Boyer,Edmond INRIA Grenoble - Rhoˆne-Alpes, France Cootes, Tim University of Manchester, UK Dana, Kristin Rutgers University, USA Davis, Larry University of Maryland, USA Efros, Alyosha Carnegie Mellon University, USA Fermuller, Cornelia University of Maryland, USA Fitzgibbon, Andrew Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK Jepson, Alan University of Toronto, Canada Kahl, Fredrik Lund University, Sweden Keriven, Renaud Ecole des Ponts-ParisTech,France Kimmel, Ron Technion Institute of Technology, Ireland Kolmogorov,Vladimir University College of London, UK Lepetit, Vincent Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland Matas, Jiri Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic Metaxas, Dimitris Rutgers University, USA Navab, Nassir Technical University of Munich, Germany Nister, David Microsoft Research, Redmont, USA Perez, Patrick THOMSON Research, France Perona,Pietro Caltech University, USA Ramesh, Visvanathan Siemens Corporate Research,USA Raskar, Ramesh Massachusetts Institute of Technology,USA Samaras,Dimitris State University of New York - Stony Brook, USA Sato, Yoichi University of Tokyo, Japan Schmid, Cordelia INRIA Grenoble - Rhoˆne-Alpes, France Schnoerr, Christoph University of Heidelberg, Germany Sebe, Nicu University of Trento, Italy Szeliski, Richard Microsoft Research, Redmont, USA Taskar, Ben University of Pennsylvania, USA Torr, Phil Oxford Brookes University, UK Torralba,Antonio Massachusetts Institute of Technology,USA Tuytelaars, Tinne Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Weickert, Joachim Saarland University, Germany Weinshall, Daphna Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Israel Weiss, Yair Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Israel Organization XI Conference Board Horst Bischof Graz University of Technology, Austria Hans Burkhardt University of Freiburg, Germany Bernard Buxton University College London, UK Roberto Cipolla University of Cambridge, UK Jan-Olof Eklundh Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Olivier Faugeras INRIA, Sophia Antipolis, France David Forsyth University of Illinois, USA Anders Heyden Lund University, Sweden Ales Leonardis University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Bernd Neumann University of Hamburg, Germany Mads Nielsen IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark Tomas Pajdla CTU Prague,Czech Republic Jean Ponce Ecole Normale Superieure, France Giulio Sandini University of Genoa, Italy Philip Torr Oxford Brookes University, UK David Vernon Trinity College, Ireland Andrew Zisserman University of Oxford, UK Reviewers Abd-Almageed, Wael Bahlmann, Claus Bougleux, Sebastien Agapito, Lourdes Baker, Simon Boult, Terrance Agarwal,Sameer Ballan, Luca Boureau, Y-Lan Aggarwal,Gaurav Barbu, Adrian Bowden, Richard Ahlberg, Juergen Barnes, Nick Boykov,Yuri Ahonen, Timo Barreto, Joao Bradski, Gary Ai, Haizhou Bartlett, Marian Bregler, Christoph Alahari, Karteek Bartoli, Adrien Bremond, Francois Aleman-Flores, Miguel Batra, Dhruv Bronstein, Alex Aloimonos, Yiannis Baust, Maximilian Bronstein, Michael Amberg, Brian Beardsley, Paul Brown, Matthew Andreetto, Marco Behera, Ardhendu Brown, Michael Angelopoulou, Elli Beleznai, Csaba Brox, Thomas Ansar, Adnan Ben-ezra, Moshe Brubaker, Marcus Arbel, Tal Berg, Alexander Bruckstein, Freddy Arbelaez, Pablo Berg, Tamara Bruhn, Andres Astroem, Kalle Betke, Margrit Buisson, Olivier Athitsos, Vassilis Bileschi, Stan Burkhardt, Hans August, Jonas Birchfield, Stan Burschka, Darius Avraham, Tamar Biswas, Soma Caetano, Tiberio Azzabou, Noura Blanz, Volker Cai, Deng Babenko, Boris Blaschko, Matthew Calway, Andrew Bagdanov,Andrew Bobick, Aaron Cappelli, Raffaele