Object Fusion in Geographic Information Systems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Object Fusion in Geographic Information Systems

Description:

Object Fusion in Geographic Information Systems Catriel Beeri, Yaron Kanza, Eliyahu Safra, Yehoshua Sagiv Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:43
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: kama154
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Object Fusion in Geographic Information Systems


1
Object Fusion in Geographic Information Systems
  • Catriel Beeri, Yaron Kanza,
  • Eliyahu Safra, Yehoshua Sagiv
  • Hebrew University
  • Jerusalem Israel

2
The Goal Fusing Objects that Represent the Same
Real-World Entity
Example three data sources that provide
information about hotels in Tel-Aviv
MAPI the survey of Israel
MAPA commercial corporation
MUNI The municipally of Tel-Aviv
3
The Goal Fusing Objects that Represent the Same
Real-World Entity
MAPI cadastral and building information
MAPA tourist information
MUNI Municipal information
Is there a nearby parking lot?
Hotel Rank
Each data source provides data that the other
sources do not provide
4
The Goal Fusing Objects that Represent the Same
Real-World Entity
MAPI cadastral and building information
MAPA tourist information
MUNI Municipal information
Object fusion enables us to utilize the different
perspectives of the data sources
5
Why Are Locations Used for Fusion?
  • There are no global keys to identify objects that
    should be fused
  • Names cannot be used
  • Change often
  • May be missing
  • May be in different languages
  • It seems that locations are keys
  • Each spatial object includes location attributes
  • In a perfect world, two objects that represent
    the same entity have the same location

6
Why is it Difficult to use Locations?
  • In real maps,
  • locations are inaccurate
  • The map on the left is an overlay of the three
    data sources about hotels in Tel-Aviv

7
Inaccuracy ? Difficult to Use Locations
  • It is difficult to distinguish between
  • A pair of objects that represent close entities
  • A pair of objects that represent the same entity
  • Partial coverage complicates the problem



?
1
a
2
8
Fusion methods
  • Assumptions
  • There are only two data sources
  • Each data source has at most one object for each
    real-world entity i.e., the matching is
    one-to-one

9
Corresponding Objects
  • Objects from two distinct sources that represent
    the same real-world entity

10
Fusion Sets
  • A fusion algorithm creates two types of fusion
    sets
  • A set with a single object
  • A set with a pair of objects one from each data
    source



11
Confidence
  • Our methods are heuristics ? may produce
    incorrect fusion sets
  • A confidence value between 0 and 1 is attached to
    each fusion set
  • It indicates the degree of certainty in the
    correctness of the fusion set

Fusion sets with high confidence

Fusion sets with low confidence

12
The Mutually-Nearest Method
  • The result includes
  • All mutually-nearest pairs
  • All singletons, when an object is not part of pair

Finding nearest objects
Fusion sets
input
nearest
nearest
1
a
2
1
a
2
1
a
2
nearest
13

The Probabilistic Method
  • An object from one dataset has a probability of
    choosing an object from the other dataset
  • The probability is inversely proportional to the
    distance

Confidence the probability that the object is
not chosen by any
Confidence the probability of the mutual
choice

A threshold value is used to discard fusion sets
with low confidence
14
Mutual Influences Between Probabilities
Case I
1
a
2
1
a
2
0.3
0.2
Case II we expect
1
a
2
1
a
2
b
b
0.05
0.8
15
The Normalized-Weights Method
  • Normalization
  • captures mutual
  • influence

Iteration brings to equilibrium
Results are superior to those of the previous
two methods (at a cost of only a small increase
in the computation time)
16
Measuring the Quality of the Result
R Fusion sets in the result
E Entities in the world
C Correct fusion sets in the result
17
A Case Study Hotels in Tel-Aviv
State of the art
Our three methods
The traditional nearest neighbor (Best results) Mutually nearest Proba-bilistic method Normal-ized weights method
Recall 0.48 0.77 0.80 0.85
Precision 0.56 0.85 0.80 0.90
All three methods perform much better than the
nearest-neighbor method
18
  • Extensive tests on synthesized data are described
    in the paper

19
Conclusions
  • The novelty of our approach is in developing
    efficient
  • methods that find fusion sets with high recall
    and
  • precision, using only location of objects.

Thank you!
You are invited to visit our poster And our web
site http//gis.cs.huji.ac.il/
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com