i

F WLBP: A Scale Invariant Descriptor for Texture
Classification

arXiv:1801.03228v1 [] 10 Jan 2018

Swalpa Kumar Roy, Nilavra Bhattacharya, Bhabatosh Chanda, Bidyut B. Chaudhuri, Life Fellow, IEEE,
and Dipak Kumar Ghosh

Abstract—In this paper we propose a novel texture recognition
feature called Fractal Weighted Local Binary Pattern (FWLBP).
It has been observed that fractal dimension (FD) measure
is relatively invariant to scale-changes, and presents a good
correlation with human perception of surface roughness. We have
utilized this property to construct a scale-invariant descriptor. We
have sampled the input image using an augmented form of the
local binary pattern (LBP), and then used an indexing operation
to assign FD weights to the collected samples. The final histogram
of the descriptor has its features calculated using LBP, and its
weights computed from the FD image. The proposed descriptor
is scale, rotation and reflection invariant, and is also partially
tolerant to noise and illumination changes. In addition, it is also
shown that the local fractal dimension is relatively insensitive to
the bi-Lipschitz transformations, whereas its extension is able to
correctly discriminate between fundamental texture primitives.
Experimental results show the proposed descriptor has better
classification rates compared to the state-of-the-art descriptors
on standard texture databases.
Index Terms—Fractal Dimension (FD), Fractal weighted local
binary pattern (FWLBP), Scale invariance, Scale space, Texture
classification

C

I. I NTRODUCTION

ONSTRUCTING effective texture feature is a major
challenges in computer vision [1]. It has received a
lot of attention in the past decades due to its value in
understanding how human beings recognize textures. A crucial
issue of texture analysis is constructing an effective texture representation. There are primarily five methodologies
of texture representation: statistical, geometrical, structural,
model-based, and signal processing based [2], [3]. In recent
literature, two categories of texture classification approaches
dominate current research, namely texture descriptor based
methods [4], [5] and deep learning based methods. In the
second category, a convolutional neural network (C NN) is
trained to classify the texture images [6], [7]. The deep
learning based methods offer good classification performance,
however it has following limitations: it requires a large amount
of data and hence is computationally expensive to trains.
S. K. Roy and B. B. Chaudhuri are with the Optical Character Recognition
Lab, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Unit at Indian Statistical
Institute, Kolkata, India (email: swalpa@ieee.org; bbc@isical.ac.in).
Nilavra Bhattacharya is with the School of Information, The University of
Texas, Austin, USA (email: nilavra@ieee.org).
B. Chanda is with the Image Processing Lab, Electronics and Communication Sciences Unit at Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India (email:
chanda@isical.ac.in).
D. K. Ghosh is with the Department of Electronics & Communication
Engineering, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Orissa, India (email:
dipak@ieee.org)

Basically the complex models take weeks to train using
several machines equipped with expensive GPUs. Also, at
present, no strong theoretical foundation on topology/training
method/flavor/hyper-parameters for deep learning exist in the
literature. On the other hand, the descriptor based methods
have the advantage of ease of use, data independence, and
robustness to real-life challenges such as illumination and
scale differences. In this category of methods the design of
effective texture descriptor is regarded as extremely important
for texture recognition.
A picture may be captured under geometric and photometric
varying conditions. An ideal model for describing and recognizing textures should be able to capture essential perceptual
properties of the texture. It should be robust enough against
changes, like view-point alteration, luminance variation, image
rotation, reflection, scale change, and geometry of the underlying surface. Attention has been focussed on the design of
local texture descriptors capable of achieving local invariance
[8]–[11]. The search for invariant descriptors started in the
1990s [12]. Kashyap and Khotanzad first proposed a circular
autoregressive dense model [13] to study rotation invariant
texture classification. Many other models including multiresolution [14], hidden Markov model [15], and Gaussian
Markov model [16] were explored to study rotation invariance.
More recently Varma and Zisserman [10] proposed to learn
a rotation invariant texton dictionary from a training set, and
then classify the texture image based on its texton distribution.
They also proposed another texton based algorithm [11] by
using the local image patch to represent the feature directly.
In addition some works have been done on scale and affine
invariant feature extraction in texture classification. Among
them Varma and Garg [17] extracted a local fractal vector
for each pixel, and computed a statistical histogram. Liu and
Fieguth [18] applied random projection for densely sampled
image patches, and extracted the histogram signature. Yao and
Sun [19] normalized statistical edge feature distribution to
resist the variation in scale. Lazebinik et al. [20] and Zhang et
al. [8] detected Harris and Laplacian key points for extracting
texture signatures. Recently, global scale invariant feature
extraction methods drew more attention because local scale
normalization is slow because of pixel by pixel operations are
needed there. Xu et al. [21] and Quan et al. [5] have classified
the image pixels into multiple point sets by gray intensities or
local feature descriptors. Instead of extracting scale invariant
features, pyramid histograms with shifted matching scheme
was proposed by some researchers [9], [22]. Roy et al. [23]
introduced a complete dual-cross pattern (C DCP) to address

ii

the scale and rotational effects in unconstrained texture classification. Generally, a texture can be characterized by geometric
multi-scale self-similar macro-structure (like fractal dimension
and L BP). Geometric structure of object in the image vary with
scale changes while illumination change does not change the
object structure. Several studies have been done using fractal
based texture classification [17], [24]–[26] but the drawback
of these techniques are that the value of fractal dimension is
continuous, so a quantization stage is required to compute the
histogram. However, an accurate quantization depends upon a
excessive training with large number of samples.
In this paper we approach the quantization problem by
proposing a new descriptor called Fractal Weighted Local
Binary Pattern (F WLBP) based on a commonly used method
of combining fractal dimension proposed by Chaudhuri and
Sarkar [27]. This method is based on differential boxcounting (D BC) algorithm [28]. Where instead of directly
measuring a texture surface, the measures at different scales
are obtained by means of counting the number of boxes of
different size, which can cover the whole surface.
In this paper, our main contributions are summarized below:
• We propose a simple, effective, yet robust fractaldimension based texture descriptor called Fractal
Weighted Local Binary Pattern (Sec. III-A) for texture
classification.
• The F WLBP descriptor achieves sufficient invariance to
address the challenges of scale, translation, and rotation
(or reflection); and is also partially tolerant to noise and
illumination for texture classification.
• The proposed algorithm takes a reasonable amount of
time in the feature extraction stage (Sec. III-B).
• We experimented and observed that our proposed descriptor outperforms the traditional L BP based and other stateof-the-art methods on different texture databases, such as
KTH-TIPS and CUReT (Sec. IV).
The remaining of this the paper is organized as follows.
Sec. II deals with the mathematical background of fractal
dimension, and our approach to convert the input image to
its FD form. The proposed F WLBP feature extraction scheme
is presented in Sec. III. In Sec. IV the performance of texture
classification is compared with the state-of-the-art methods.
Finally, concluding remarks are drawn in Sec. V.
II. F RACTAL D IMENSION
A fractal is a geometrical set whose Hausdorff - Besicovitch
dimension is strictly greater than its topological dimension
[30]. Mandelbrot introduced the term fractal to describe nonEuclidean, self-similar structures. The Fractal Dimension (FD)
of a structure gives an idea of its texture complexity, which
can be used to measure, analyse and classify shape and texture.
Fractal surfaces show the property of self-similarity.
In the Euclidian n-space, a set S is said to be self-similar,
if S is the union of Nr (s) distinct (non-overlapping) copies
of itself, each of which is scaled down by a ratio r > 0. Let
D(s)
(i.e. an exponential function of r), where
Nr (s) = k( 1r )
D(s) is a density function, and k is a constant. Then
1
log Nr (s) = log k + D(s) · log
(1)
r

Then, the local Fractal Dimension (FD) of s becomes
log(Nr (s))
D(s) = lim
.
(2)
r→0 log(1/r)
It is difficult to compute the local Fractal dimension D using
Eqn. (2) directly. In our implementation (Fig. 1), we transform
the texture images into FD images using the differential boxcounting (D BC) algorithm [28]. To achieve scale-invariance,
we construct a Gaussian scale space [31] using Eqn. (3):
Z
Γx,y,r = hGr (x, y)|I(x, y)i =
Gr (x, y)I(x, y)dxdy.
x,y∈R

(3)
In Eqn (3) a convolution formalism may be used when
convolution across the entire image is required. However, here
an inner product formalism (h.|.i) is more convenient where
Gr is a Gaussian smoothing kernel with variance r:
−kx2 k
1
Gr (x) = √ exp 2σ2
r 2π
As the 2D Gaussian function is separable [32], [33], its
convolution with the input image can be efficiently computed
by applying two passes of the 1D Gaussian function in the
horizontal and vertical directions:
Gr (x, y, r) = Gr (x)Gr (y).
The scaling operation to obtain Ir = Gr ∗ I (where ∗ represents
convolution operator) can be computed efficiently and stably
because of the properly localization of the Gaussian both in
space and frequency [34] even if the input image (I) is the result of physical measurement, so called directly sampled [35].
After constructing the Gaussian scale space, we use the D BC
algorithm on each layer of the scale space to generate a set
of intermediate images. We combine the intermediate images
into the final FD image using a linear-regression technique
adapted from [29].
The input texture image Ax,y (X × Y ) is used to generate a
Gaussian scale space Γx,y,r (X ×Y ×L) having L layers, with
scaling factor r varying from rmin , to rmax , and total number
of layers L = rmax −rmin +1. Each layer is considered as a 3−
D space, with (x, y) denoting the 2 − D position, and the third
coordinate, g, denoting the gray level. The D BC algorithm
is implemented by applying a varying-size non-linear kernel
bi,j (m × n), which operates on the image surface and finds
the difference between the maximum (gmax ) and the minimum
(gmin ) gray values of the region enclosed within the kernel
(Fig. 2). Non-negative integers α and β are used to center the
kernel b(i, j) on the pixel gx,y in the image layer. The kernel
is calculated as


β
α
X
X
gmax − gmin
b(i, j) =
floor
+1
(4)
r
i=−α
j=−β

where r is the scaling factor of the layer l, and




m−1
n−1
α = ceil
, and β = ceil
. (5)
2
2
The kernel is applied as
 2
β
α
X
X
L
Ω(x, y, r) =
b(i, j)Γ(x + α, y + β, r)
(6)
r
i=−α
j=−β

iii

  rmax

rmax  rmax
Box n

Ax , y ( X  Y )

  rmin

rmin  rmin

Image
intensity
surface

Box 2

(a)

Fx , y ( X  Y )

Box 1

 x , y ,r ( X  Y  L)

(b)

(e)

 x , y ,r ( X  Y  L)

(d)

(c)

Fig. 1. Illustrates the Differential Box Counting (DBC) technique [28] for computing Fractal Dimension. (a) Input texture image. (b) Gaussian Scale Space
with six layers, generated from the input image with box sizes from rmin × rmin , . . . , rmax × rmax . (c) DBC is used to calculate the FD for each image
layer of the scale space. (d) Intermediate images. (e) Final FD image obtained using technique adapted from [29].

The slope can be determined by computing the sums of
squares:
P 2
X
( r)
(9)
Ψ1 =
r2 −
L
P 2 P 2
X
( r) ( Θ)
Ψ2 =
rΘ −
.
(10)
L
Finally, the FD image Fx,y (X × Y ) is calculated as:

g max

g min

F (x, y) = λxy =




=


Fig. 2. Image intensity surface enclosed within a box, showing the difference
between maximum and minimum gray values.

where Ωx,y,r (X × Y × L) is a matrix of intermediate images,
such that the first layer denotes the original image after it
has been filtered by the kernel with scale r = rmin , and the
highest layer denoting the image filtered by the kernel with
scale r = rmax . Thus, we define


g11r g12r · · · g1Y r
 g21r g22r . . . g2Y r 


Ω(x, y, r) =  .
(7)

..
..
..
 ..

.
.
.
gX1r

gX2r

...

gXY r

The slope λx,y of the least square linear regression line
between Ω(x, y, r) and r will denote the pixel value F (x, y)
of the FD image Fx,y (X × Y ). For this purpose, a columnvector Θ is defined, such that the first gray values of all the
layers in Ω(x, y, r) comprise vector θ1 , all the second gray
values comprise vector θ2 etc. as shown in Eqn. (8).




Θ


θ1
θ2
..
.
θX×Y





 
 
=
 

g111
g121
..
.

g112
g122
..
.

···
...
..
.

g11L
g12L
..
.

gXY 1

gXY 2

...

gXY L







(8)

X X
Y
X
Ψ2

x=1 y=1

Ψ1

g11r
g21r
..
.

g12r
g22r
..
.

···
...
..
.

g1Y r
g2Y r
..
.

gX1r

gX2r

...

gXY r





.


(11)

Algorithm 1: Algorithm to compute FD image of input texture image.
1
2
3
4
5
6

Data: Input texture image, Ax,y (X × Y )
Result: Matrix Fx,y (X × Y ) containing FD values of each pixel of A
initialize (rmin = 2, rmax = 7, L = rmax − rmin + 1) ;
while (r ≥ rmin and r ≤ rmax ) do
Gr = Gaussian Kernel([r, r], r/2) ;
Γ(x,y,r) = hGr (x, y)|I(x, y)i;
/* Update D BC kernel b */
h
i
β
α
P
P
min
b(i, j) =
floor gmax −g
+1 ;
r
i=−α j=−β

7
8

/* Compute Ω(x, y, d) Matrix of intermediate FD values */
 2
β
α
P
P
Ω(x, y, d) =
b(i, j)Γ(x + α, y + β, l) L
;
r
i=−α j=−β

9 end while
10 Convert the 3-D matrix Ωx,y,r (X × Y × L) to a column vector Θ, as

per Eqn. (8). ;

11 /* Compute sum of square */
12 Ψ1 =
13 Ψ2 =

P

P

P
( r)2
;
L
P
P
( r)2 ( Θ)2
−
L

r2 −
rΘ

14 Compute FD image F (x, y) =

;
X P
Y
P

x=1 y=1

Ψ2
Ψ1

;

A. Effects of Fractal Transform
An interesting property of the Fractal Transform is its invariance under bi-Lipschitz transform. A transform t : R2 → R2

iv

is called a bi-Lipschitz transform, if there exist two constants
0 < c1 ≤ c2 ≤ ∞ such that for any two points x1 , x2 ∈ R2 ,
c1 kx1 − x2 k < kt(x1 ) − t(x2 )k < c2 kx1 − x2 k

(12)

where kp1 − p2 k is the Euclidean metric between points p1
and p2 . So, any smooth transform (like translation, rotation,
projective transformation, texture warping of a regular surface,
change in viewpoint, and non-rigid deformation) is a biLipschitz transform [36], [37]. Up-sampling or down-sampling
by a factor of n are also special cases of the bi-Lipschitz
transform, where c1 = c2 = n. Then, we can drive the
following theorem:
Theorem 1. Let us consider an image as f (x), x ∈ R2 . Let
the fractal dimension and length of point x be D and L,
respectively. For a sampling function t(x) = nx, where n > 1
means up-sampling, and n < 1 means down-sampling, the
fractal dimension and length at point t(x) become
Dt = D,

Lt = L + D · log n

(13)

where L = log k.
Proof. For a point x, we have log Nr (x) = D · log( 1r ) +
L (from Eqn. (1)). By the definition of t(x) we know that
t is invertible and kt(x1 ) − t(x2 )k = n kx1 − x2 k. The biLipschitz constant ensures that Nr (t(x)) = N nr (x). Hence
we can write,
n
log N nr (x) = D · log + L
r
1
⇒ log Nr (t(x)) = D · log + D log n + L
r
(14)
1
⇒ log Nr (t(x)) = Dt · log + Lt
r
⇒ Dt = D,
Lt = L + D · log n
Hence, from the above theorem, the fractal dimension of an
image is invariant to scale changes, or in other words, invariant
to local bi-Lipschitz transforms, but not the fractal length of
the image. Theoretically, the fractal dimension of an image
remains unchanged when it is sampled-up with a factor of n
and vice-versa. This is our main motivation to take advantage
of the fractal dimension in our proposed descriptor.
III. P ROPOSED T EXTURE D ESCRIPTOR
Scale variations can create a dramatic impact on the appearance of a texture. There is no locally invariant texture
descriptor that can handle scale changes of such image intensity surface. Our goal in this paper is to build texture
descriptors which are invariant to scale changes in the intensity
surface of natural texture. Even local fractal dimension is a
powerful measurement of surface “roughness” of a natural
image, though the fractal dimension alone is not sufficient to
characterize natural texture. However, the FD yields continuous values and so it needs to be quantized. The quantization
process can be done by calculating the feature distribution
from all the training samples to know about the distribution
of feature space. Finally, some threshold value is calculated

to divided the feature space into fixed number of bins and
the quantization of test FD image is done according to the
training threshold values. Fig. 3 illustrates quantization process
of the feature space using four bins. There are the following
important limitations due to the quantization process, which
need to be addressed carefully.
• To determine the threshold values for each bin, it require
a pre-training stage.
• Texture images are captured under different geometric
and photometric varying conditions. So, the quantization
process fully depends on the training samples.
• The choice of number of bins is a challenging task
although there are some techniques [38] to select it. It
is always a trade-off between optimal number of bins for
the best of accuracy and feature size.
Since the distribution has a finite number of entries, choosing
a few bins may fail to provide sufficient discriminative power
while large number of bins may lead to sparse and unreliable
results. Hence, feature matching becomes computationally
inefficient. The method is explained in the following sections.

Fig. 3.

Quantization procedure of the feature space [39]

A. Fractal Weighted Local Binary Pattern (F WLBP)
A good texture descriptor should have four powerful characteristics: reliability, independence, discrimination, and small
size. Hence, we propose a simple, efficient, yet robust texturedescriptor called the Fractal Weighted Local Binary Pattern
(F WLBP) and offer a solution to the above problem based on
the concept of local image patterns exhibiting self-similarity.
The discrimination power of the proposed descriptor is enhanced by using the fractal dimensions as weights of the
histogram where the sampling method of indexing is an
augmentation of the native L BP [38]. We generated multi-scale
indexing images at different scales by varying the sampling
radius (R ∈ [Rmin , Rmax ]). However, to keep reasonable
complexity, we have kept number of sampling points (N )
constant across all the scales. Since fractal dimension is a
logarithmic function (Eqn. (2)), it helps to reduce effects
of illumination, because the log function expands the values
of darker pixels and compresses the brighter pixels in the
image. As a result, the FD values are spread more uniformly
[40]. Thus, the proposed descriptor is insensitive to scale,
translation, rotation or reflection, illumination; and is also
noise-tolerant.
After generating the scale-invariant FD image (Fig. 4b)
of the original texture using the D BC technique (Sec. II),
we proceed to compute the proposed descriptor – Fractal

v

the FD values of these n locations in the FD image are
F (x1 , y1 ), F (x2 , y2 ), . . . , F (xn , yn ), then the weight w of the
L BP value in the feature histogram becomes
(16)

w = F (x1 , y1 ) + F (x2 , y2 ) + . . . + F (xn , yn ).
(b)
(a)

I

Mathematically, it can be expressed as:

I

F WLBPR,N (p) = I(L BPR,N
x,y , Fx,y , p),

Rmin

O

Rmax

where

(e)
I

(c)
(d)

(f)

Fig. 4. Proposed F WLBP algorithm. (a) input texture image (b) computation
of FD image using Gaussian Scale Space and D BC algorithm (c) taking
L BPR,N samples from input image using R ∈ [Rmin , Rmax ] and constant
N (d) L BP images for varying R (e) indexing output FD image with the
different L BP images to calculate fractal weights (f) final feature vector

Weighted Local Binary Pattern (F WLBP). We generate multiresolution L BP images (Fig. 4(d)) from the input texture image
by varying the sampling radius R ∈ [Rmin , Rmax ] (Fig. 4(c)).
The L BP for a given pixel at location (x, y) in the input image
Ax,y (X × Y ) is computed by comparing its gray value ax,y
with a set of N local circularly and equally spaced neighbours
R,N
Px,y
placed at a radius R ( R ∈ [Rmin , Rmax ]) around the
pixel. L BP is computed for only those pixels whose all N
local neighbours lie within the image, and not for pixels along
the image boundary. The final L BP value of a given pixel is
calculated as
LBPR,N
x,y =

N
X

n=1

R,N
2n−1 × sign(Px,y
− ax,y )

p ∈ [0, 2N −1 ] (17)

(15)

where sign is a unit step function to denote whether a given
input is positive or not, and is defined as
(
1, z ≥ 0
sign(z) =
.
0, z < 0
The range of L BPR,N
x,y depends on the number of neighbouring sampling points (N ) around the pixel (x, y) at radius
R to form the pattern, and its value lies in between 0 to
2N −1 . In other words, the range of L BP is [0, 2N −1 ]. Fig. 4(d)
shows the computed local binary patterns (i.e. L BPR,N
x,y |R =
[Rmin , Rmax ]) for a candidate texture image (Fig. 4(a)).
Finally, we use an indexing operation I to combine each of
the L BP images with the previously generated FD image, and
then compute the feature histogram. The indexing operation
works as follows: in order to compute the histogram frequency
R,N
N −1
]) of
(weight) of a given pixel value (pR,N
x,y | px,y ∈ [0, 2
R,N
the L BP image L BPx,y , we refer to the FD image Fx,y (X ×
Y ). For all the pixel locations in the L BP image which have
the same value as pR,N
x,y , we find the sum of the FD values in
all the same pixel locations in the FD image. This sum is the
weight of the value pR,N
x,y in the histogram.
For instance, if the L BP value pR,N
x,y occurs at n locations
in the L BP image, namely (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), . . . , (xn , yn ), and

I(L BPR,N
x,y , Fx,y , p), =

(P

∴ L BPR,N
x,y == p
otherwise

Fx,y ,

0,

where F WLBP(p) gives the weight of the value p in the
histogram, L BPR,N
x,y is the L BP image matrix constructed with
sampling radius R and N sampling points, Fx,y is the FD
image as computed in Sec.( II), and I is the indexing operation. The final F WLBP feature vector (Fig. 4(f)) is constructed
by concatenating all F WLBP(p) values. Since the weights of
the L BP histogram are decided by the value of the fractal dimensions, we named the descriptor as Fractal Weighted Local
Binary Pattern. Given a m texture image, we have created
the feature matrix Mm×n where each row corresponds to
the F WLBP descriptors of a texture. The principal component
analysis (P CA) feature is computed as following. Initially, we
compute the co-variance matrix Σ of feature matrix as,
Pn
(M(., i) − M(., i))(M(., i) − M(., i))T
Σ(i, j) = i=1
n−1
(18)
where Mm×n is the feature matrix, n is the number of feature,
M(., i) represents the ith column of M, and M(., i) is the
mean of respective column. We calculate eigen-vector e of
Σ if it satisfies Σe = λe. Where λ is an eigen-value of Σ.
The eigen-values of Σ are sorted in descending order as λ1 ≥
λ2 ≥ . . . ≥ λn and corresponding eigenvectors e1 , e2 , . . . , en
are used as columns of linear transform matrix U. Finally, M
is multiplied by UT . Thus, the P CA features are provided by
D = UT M. The scatter plot of proposed descriptor without
and with P CA are shown in Fig. 5.

20

200

0.01

15

0.008

150

0.006

10

0.004

100

5

0.002
0

50

140

120
100

80

60

40

20

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

1500

1000

500

(a)

1000

2000

3000

4000

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005

(b)

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

(c)
0.15

300

2000

200

0.1

1000

100

0.05

0

0

0

−1000

−100

−2000

−200

−3000

−300

−4000

200
100

200

0
−100

0
−200

(d)

−200

6000
4000
2000

−0.05
−0.1
−0.15
−0.2
0.2

5000
0
−2000

0
−5000

(e)

0.1

0.2
0.1

0

0

−0.1

−0.1
−0.2

−0.2

(f)

Fig. 5. Top row (a)-(c) represent scatter plot of F WLBP feature, whereas
bottom row (d)-(f) represent F WLBP feature after P CA transform, are extracted
from Brodatz, KTH-TIPS and Outex TC10 databases .

vi

Algorithm 2: Algorithm to extract FWLBPx,y
R,N descriptor, where
N is the number of circular samples taken at radius R.

1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Data: Input texture image, Ax,y (X × Y ), FD image F (x, y)
Result: Normalized Fractal Weighted Local Binary Pattern (F WLBP)
Descriptor
initialize (Rmin = 1, Rmax = 3, N = 8, i = R + 1, j = R + 1,
k = [0, K]);
while (R ≤ Rmax ) do
/* Compute L BP image with sampling radius R, from a sample of
R,N
N local circularly spaced neighbours Px,y
around a central
pixel A(x, y) */
PN
R,N
L BP(x,y)R,N = n=1 2(n−1) × sign(Px,y
− A(x, y);
/* Compute weights of pixel values for histogram by indexing
operation */
R,N
F WLBP(p) = I(L
(PBPx,y , Fx,y , p) ;
Bx,y , f or all Bx,y where Ax,y == k
;
I(A, B, k) =
0,
otherwise
/* Generate histrograms, concatenate, and normalize */
HR,N = H IST(F WLBPR,N );
H FWLBP = concatNormalizeF WLBP(HR,N );
end while

B. Complexity of FWLBP
Assuming the image is of size M × M and the kernel is
of size r × r, the algorithmic complexity of the proposed
descriptors is computed as follows. To create the FD image
×M
of an input texture image with the number of blocks Mr×r
using Algorithm 1, the following operations are performed:
2M 2 comparisons, 4(M/r)2 addition, 5(M/r)2 subtractions,
4(M/r)2 multiplication and 2(M/r)2 divisions. Therefore
overall complexity of Algorithm 1 is O(M 2 ). In Algorithm 2,
assuming that neighboring pixels are considered with respect
to each center pixel for the evaluation of the L BP for FD image
of size M × M . The time complexity to evaluate Step 4 of
Algorithm 2 is O(p × M 2 ) [41] because p circular shifting
are required for each pixel, and there are M 2 pixels in total.
Step 6 of Algorithm 2 takes O(M 2 ) for Indexing operation
and Step 9 takes O(M 2 ) for building histogram. The overall
time complexity to compute the proposed F WLBP descriptor
using the combined Algorithms 1 and 2 is O(M 2 ).
C. Comparing Distribution of FWLBP
After computing the F WLBP descriptors, as elaborated in
the previous section, we need to represent their distributions
in the training (model) and test (sample) images. This is done
since the dissimilarity of sample and model histograms is a
test of goodness-of-fit, which can be measured with a nonparametric statistical test. Examples of metrics for evaluating
the fit between two histograms are histogram intersection,
log-likelihood ratio, and chi-square (χ2 ) statistic [38]. In this
paper, the classification is performed via a non-parametric
classifier called nearest subspace classifier (N SC) [42]. Here
we have chosen N SC over popular parametric classifier like
S VM due to the following reasons: the N SC finds an estimation
of the underlying subspace within each class and assigns data
points to the class that corresponds to its nearest subspace,
which does not required any parameter tuning, while S VM
has limitations in speed during both training and testing phase,
and there is always a trade-off between the selection of kernel

function, tuning of its hyper-parameters and classification
performance. In order to avoid the over emphasizing patterns
with large frequency, a pre-processing step is applied to the
proposed feature before using N SC, similar to that in [43]:
p
(19)
X¯m = Xm , m = 1, 2, ..., M

where M is the number of bins, and Xm is the original
frequency of the F WLBP at mth bin. The nearest subspace
classifier (N SC) first calculates the distance from the test
sample y to the ith class and measures the projection residual
ri from y to the orthogonal principle subspace Bi ∈ RM ×m
of the training sets
is spanned by the principal
P Xi , which
T
th
eigenvectors of
=
X
X
class, given as
i i for the i
i
follows,
ri = k(I − PBi )yk2 = k(I − Bi BT
i )yk2

(20)

where P = I ∈ RM ×M is a identity matrix where M rows
are selected uniformly at random. The test sample y is then
assigned to the one of the C classes with the smallest residual
among all classes, i.e.
i∗ = arg min ri

(21)

i=1,...,C

IV. E XPERIMENTAL E VALUATION
A. Texture Databases
We have evaluated the performance of our proposed descriptor on five standard texture databases: Outex TC-00010 (Outex TC10) [4], Outex TC-00012 (Outex TC12) [4], Brodatz album [44], KTH-TIPS [45], and CUReT [46] texture
database. We have compared the performance of the proposed
F WLBP descriptor with L BPR,N [38], L BPu2
R,N , D LBP R,N [41],
su2
riu2
riu2
[47],
multiscale
C
LBP
S
L BPsri
R,N
R,N /MR,N /C(1, 8 +
3, 16 + 5, 24) [48], B IF [9] and other state-of-the-art descriptors. We have tested the classification accuracy using a nonparametric classifiers – N SC, and have reported the classification accuracy using k-fold cross-validation test. In k-fold
cross-validation test, the feature set is randomly partitioned
into k equal sized subsets (k = 10). Of the k subsets, a
single subset is retained as the validation data for testing
the classifier, and the remaining (k − 1) subsets are used as
training data. The average of the classification accuracies over
k rounds give us a final cross-validation accuracy. We have
normalized each input image to have an average intensity of
128 and a standard deviation of 20 [38]. In VZ-MR8 and VZPatch methods, the texture samples are normalized to have an
average intensity of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 [10], [11],
[17]. This is done to remove global intensity and contrast. The
details of two experimental setups are given as follows:
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF T EXTURE DATABASE USED IN E XPERIMENT #2
Texture
Database
KTH-TIPS
Brodatz
CUReT

Image
Rotation
X
X
X

Illumination
Variation
X
X

Scale
Variation
X
X

Texture
Classes
10
32
61

Sample
Size (pixels)
200 x 200
64 x 64
200 x 200

Samples
per Class
81
64
92

Total
Samples
810
2048
5612

E XPERIMENT #1: Brodatz [44] album is chosen to allow a
direct comparison with the state-of-the-art results [41]. There

vii

are 32 homogeneous texture classes 1 . Each image is partitioned into 25 non-overlapping sub-images of size 128 × 128,
and each sub-image is down-sampled to 64 × 64 pixels.

Fig. 6. Ten texture images randomly taken from each class of KTH-TIPS
database.

For the CUReT database [46], we have used the same
subset of images as in [8], [10], [18], which contain 61 texture
classes with 92 images per class. It is designed to contain
large intra-class variation and is widely used to assess the
classification performance. The images are captured under
different illumination and viewing directions with constant
scale. All 92 images of 61 texture classes are cropped into
200 × 200 region and converted to gray scale [10].
The KTH-TIPS database [45] is extended by imaging new
samples of ten CUReT textures as shown in Fig. 6. It contains
texture images with 3 different poses, 4 illuminations, and 9
different scales of size 200×200 and hence each class contains
81 samples. The KTH-TIPS, Brodatz, and CUReT, databases
are summarized in Table I.
TABLE II
S UMMARY OF T EXTURE DATABASE USED IN E XPERIMENT #2
Texture
Database
Outex TC10
Outex TC12

Image
Rotation
X
X

Illumination
Variation
X

Scale
Variation

Texture
Classes
24
24

Sample
Size (pixels)
128 x 128
128 x 128

Samples
per Class
180
200

Total
Samples
4320
4800

E XPERIMENT #2: 24 different homogeneous texture classes
are selected from the Outex texture databases [4], each having the size of 128 × 128 pixels. Outex TC 00010 (Outex TC10) contains texture with illuminant “inca”, and Outex TC 00012 (Outex TC12) contains textures with illuminants “inca”, “horizon”, and “tl84”. Both of the Outex
test suites are collected under 9 different rotation angles
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
(0 , 5 , 10 , 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 , and 90 ) in each texture
class. The test suites Outex TC10, and Outex TC12 are
summarized in Table II. Running experiments on the whole

Fig. 7. 24 texture images randomly taken from each class of Outex TC10
and Outex TC12 database

database is challenging due to a large number of texture
classes, small number of samples per class, and lack of intraclass variation.
1 The 32 Brodatz textures are Bark, Beachsand, Beans, Burlap, D10, D11,
D4, D51, D52, D5, D6, D95, Fieldstone, Grass, Ice, Image09, Image15,
Image17, Image19, Paper, Peb54, Pigskin, Pressedcl, Raffia2, Raffia, Reptile,
Ricepaper, Seafan, Straw2, Tree, Water, Woodgrain;

TABLE III
C OMPARISON WITH OTHER VARIANTS OF L BP

Methods

Classifier

L BPV [49]
B RINT [50]
L BPriu2
1,8 [38]
D LBP3,24 [41]
sri
L BP1,8 su2 [47]

N NC
N NC
N NC
S VM
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
S VM
N NC
N NC
N NC
N SC

L BP(1,8+2,16+3,24) [38]
C LBP SMC [48]
S SLBP [43]
P RI C O L BPg [51]
L BPHF S [52]
L BPHF S M [53]
C OA L BP [54]
Proposed F WLBP

Classification Accuracy (%)
KTH-TIPS [45]
Brodatz [44]
CUReT [46]
95.50
93.80
94.00
97.75
99.22
97.06
82.67
82.16
80.63
86.99
99.16
84.93
89.73
69.50
85.00
95.17
91.60
95.84
97.19
94.80
97.40
97.80
98.55
98.40
96.90
98.40
97.00
94.60
95.90
97.00
94.60
95.90
97.00
94.20
98.00
99.75
99.62
99.10

B. Results of Experiment #1
To test the scale invariance performance of the proposed
descriptor, we have used the KTH-TIPS database, which
contains relatively small variations in scales (i.e, 9 scales,
continually from 0.5 to 2) [45].
In literature, for texture classification task usually L BP
variants were used, in this section, we compared F WLBP
descriptor with some powerful variant of L BPs, which includes
su2
C LBP [48], L BPV [49], LTP [55], Dlbp [41], L BPsri
[47],
R,N
P RI C OLBP [51], B RINT [50], and C OA L BP [54]. The classification performance is evaluated on three well known benchmark texture databases (KTH-TIPS, Brodatz, and CUReT)
and results are shown in Table III. The observations noted
su2
from Table III are as follows: The scale-invariant L BPsri
R,N
riu2
descriptor performs better than L BPR,N . However, the perriu2
formance is worse than multi-resolution L BPR,N
descriptor,
riu2
riu2
and C LBP SR,N /MR,N /C descriptor; and much worse than
the proposed descriptor. This is because extracting consistent
and accurate scale for each pixel is difficult. However, the
su2
L BPsri
R(i,j),8 provides good performance in controlled environment [47], but it fails over more complex databases. The
D LBP, when combined with Gabor features, attains a higher
classification rate than the conventional L BP with N NC. However, its performance is quite less than the proposed F WLBP,
as it does not consider changes in scale. F WLBP achieves remarkably better classification performance than C LBP, L BPV,
L BPHF S and L BPHF S M on KTH-TIPS, Brodatz and
CUReT, texture datasets and yields comparable performance
with D LBP. Note that L BP, L BPHFS , L BPHF S M , C LBP,
and L BPV generally encode multi-scale information whereas
the proposed F WLBP descriptor encodes the spatial fractal
dimension to characterize the local scale information into the
1-D L BP histogram.
Table IV shows performance of texture classification performance other than L BP variants. Lazebinik et al. [20]
proposed to detect interest regions using Harris-affine corner
and Laplacian-affine blobs and then extracted S PIN and R IFT
as texture signatures after normalizing these regions. Finally,
texture classification is performed using nearest neighbor
classifier (N NC). Caputo et al. [56] used S VM kernel instead
of N NC and reveal that the S VM classifier could achieve
reasonably better performance. Zhang et al. [8] proposed

viii

0.8
FWLBP
LBP

0.6
1

S

3

S

4

S

5

S

6

S

7

S

8

S

9

S

(d)

S

2

0.4

0.2

0

(a)

(b)

1

2

3

4

5

Scales

6

7

8

(c)

Fig. 8. (a)-(c) represent the individual histograms (HR,N of F WLBP, where R = 1, 2, 3 and N = 8) for a texture sample taken from the KTH-TIPS database
[45], having 9 different scales. The abscissa and ordinate represent number of bins and feature probability distribution, respectively. As the histograms of
individual F WLBP for the 9 different scales are overlapping, it implies that the F WLBP descriptor is scale invariant. (d) represents the Chi-square (χ2 ) distance
of proposed F WLBP and L BP descriptor extracted from original texture image (S 1 ) and 8 texture image with different scale (S 2 − S 9 ).

Methods

Classifier

VZ-MR8 [10]
VZ-Patch [11]
Lazebnik et al. [20]
Zhang et al. [8]
Liu et al. [18]
M FS [24]
Capato et al. [56]
P FS [5]
B IF [9]
Proposed F WLBP

N NC
N NC
N NC
S VM
S VM
N NC
S VM
S VM
Shift N NC
N SC

Classification Accuracy (%)
KTH-TIPS [45]
Brodatz [44]
CUReT [46]
94.50
94.62
97.43
92.40
87.10
98.03
91.30
88.20
72.50
96.10
95.90
95.30
94.20
98.50
81.62
94.80
95.00
98.50
97.35
98.50
98.47
98.60
99.75
99.62
99.10

It is interesting to note that even for the database having
large number of variations and a few number of samples, this
property can make the proposed descriptor suitable for other
applications where the number of features plays an important
role.
100
99
98
Accuracy (%)

TABLE IV
T EXTURE C LASSIFICATION R ESULTS ON KTH-TIPS, B RODATZ , AND
CUR E T

97
96
95
Outex_TC10
KTH−TIPS
Brodatz

94
93

object and texture classification by analyzing different texture
features and kernels. Recently, global scale invariant feature
extraction methods drew attention because local scale normalization is usually slow due to pixel by pixel operations. Xu et
al. [21] and Quan et al. [5] have classified the image pixels
into multiple point sets by gray intensities or local feature
descriptors. Multi-scale B IF [9] at scales σ, 2σ, 4σ, and 8σ
gives better performance than the proposed F WLBP with N NC
classifier. This is mainly because B IF uses pyramid histogram
with time inefficient shift matching scheme. Also, the feature
dimension of B IF descriptor [9], C LBP [48], S SLBP [43] and
P RI C OLBP [51] are larger (64 = 1296, 2200, 480 × 5 = 1000
and 590 × 2 = 1180) than the dimension of proposed F WLBP
descriptor (256×3 = 768). The performance of B IF is reduced
when scale shifting scheme is not considered [9]. Apart from
bag-of-words model, the variant of L BP based descriptors,
sri su2
e.g., C LBP 2 , L BPV, LTP, D LBP, L BPR,N
, P RI C OLBP,
B RINT, C OA L BP, and S S L BP also perform reasonably well
on texture classification task. The observations noted from
Table IV are as follows: F WLBP also exceeds the classification
performance of several bag-of-words methods, [8], [11], [18],
[20], [54], [56]. Fig. 9 shows the graph of success rates
against the number of selected feature on Brodatz, KTHTIPS and Outex TC10 texture databases. The classification
rate of proposed descriptor rapidly increases due to P CA
transform, which carries the most relevant information with
large variance among the first component of the feature matrix.
2 We

used the best C LBP settings i.e., C LBP S/M/C in this paper

92
50

100

150
200
Feature Dimension

250

300

Fig. 9. Success rate against the number of descriptors on Brodatz, KTH-TIPS
and Outex TC10 texture databases

Although the images are captured under scale, rotation,
and illumination variations, the proposed F WLBP gives sound
performance as given by results in Table IV, and achieves
comparable, and sometimes even better performance, than the
state-of-the-art methods. It validates that the encoding strategy
preserves the relative information about local scale change
along with orientation angle are effective. An illustration of
the scale invariance property of the proposed descriptor is
given in Fig. 8, where S1 -S9 show nine KTH-TIPS texture
images of “corduroy” class at different scales from 0.5 to
2, and (a)-(c) depict the histograms (HR,N |R ∈ [1, 2, 3])
of individual F WLBPR,N descriptor with R = 1, 2, 3, and
N = 8. It is evident from Fig. 8(a)-(c) that the histograms of
individual F WLBP for the 9 different scales are approximately
identical. In addition Fig. 8(d) shows the Chi-square (χ)
distance [11] between extracted F WLBP and L BP descriptor
from original texture image (S 1 ) and 8 texture images with
different scale (S 2 − S 9 ), its shown that proposed descriptor
has less χ-distance compared to L BP. Therefore, from both
the observations it implies that the F WLBP descriptor is not
sensitive to small scale variations. The proposed descriptor
achieves scale invariance by utilizing the properties of Fractal Dimension and Gaussian Scale Space, as explained in

ix

Theorem 1. Fig. 10(a)-(b) represent images of two texture
classes taken form Brodatz database and Fig. 10(c) shows P CA
transformed F WLBP descriptor extracted from three images
per texture class and respective feature probability distribution
functions (P DF). Since both texture classes contain very small
intra-class variation even though their P DF provides a strong
indication about the discriminative power of the proposed
descriptor.
3
class 1
class 2

2.8
2.6

PDF

2.4

(a)

2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1

2

4

6

8

10

Descriptors

(b)

(c)

Fig. 10.
Discriminative power of the proposed F WLBP descriptors are
visualized using P CA. We have taken 6 images from two classes of Brodatz
textures and extracted the F WLBP. Notice that the classes are substantially
separated by the curves.
TABLE V
T HE C LASSIFICATION ACCURACIES OF PROPOSED F WLBP AND F WLBPu2
DESCRIPTORS USING DIFFERENT SCALING FACTORS OF D BC ALGORITHM
ON BRODATZ TEXTURE DATABASE .
Methods

Proposed
FWLBP
Std.
Error
Proposed
FWLBPu2
Std.
Error

Classification Rates With Different box sizes ranges rmin to rmax
2×2
2×2
2×2
2×2
2×2
to
to
to
to
to
2×2
3×3
4×4
5×5
6×6
7×7
99.24

99.25

99.27

99.27

99.31

99.62

±0.9216
0.0052

±0.9688
0.0052

±0.7547
0.0052

±0.6701
0.0104

±0.6484
0.0104

±0.3257
0.0002

98.05

98.16

98.30

98.45

98.53

98.57

±0.6717
0.0156

±0.8426
0.0208

±0.8590
0.0208

±0.8058
0.0156

±0.7514
0.0104

±0.7243
0.0260

C. Analysis of parameter rmax
The proposed fractal based descriptor has only one hyperparameter rmax , which is the maximum value of the scaling
factor of the D BC algorithm. The rmax represents how much a
specific intrinsic structure is self-similar [36] to its surrounding
pixels. The different values of rmax influence the deviation of
classification accuracies. Table V shows recognition accuracy
for Brodatz textures using proposed F WLBP and F WLBPu23 ,
where rmax values are ranging from 2 to 7. Its shows clearly
that both the descriptors have similar trends towards rmax and
recognition rate increases till it reaches rmax to 7. Table V also
indicates that for different scaling factors the proposed F WLBP
descriptor significantly outperforms F WLBPu2 on well-known
Brodatz texture database (includes images of scale and rotation
or view-point variations). To compute fractal dimension of an
image of size less than let say, 200 × 200 fast, Faraji and
Qi [40] recommend rmax to be used in between 7 and 10 to
3 Where

‘u2’ indicates uniform pattern encoding;

compromise between good texture recognition accuracy and
computational overheads. In our experimental setup, we use 7
as rmax value for all the texture databases.
D. Results of Experiment #2
The results of Experiment #2, carried out on Outex TC10
and Outex TC12 are tabulated in Table VI. It shows the average classification accuracy obtained by k-fold cross-validation
test (k = 10) for proposed descriptor, and the comparative
summary of the results for variants of L BP e.g., L BP(R,N )
[38], VZ-MR8 [10], VZ-Patch [11] and recent state-of-theart bag-of-word methods. The observations made from the
results of Experiment #2 are stated as follows. L BP and L BPV
have similar feature dimensions, but the later one incorporates additional contrast measures to the pattern histogram,
it produces a significant performance improvement compared
to the conventional L BP. L BPriu2
R,N /VAR R,N provides better
performance compared to L BPVriu2
R,N , because L BP and local
variance of a texture image are complementary; and hence
the joint distribution of L BP and local variance gives better
results than any one alone. C LBP S/M/C is created by fusing
C LBP S and C LBP M/C. It provides better performance
compared to other variants of C LBP as it has complementary
features of sign and magnitude, in addition to the center pixel
representing the gray value of the local patch. C DCP [23]
achieves improved performance over C LBP since in C DCP
patterns are extracted from component and holistic levels.
The state-of-the-art bag-of-words statistical algorithms, VZTABLE VI
AVERAGE CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY (%) ON O UTEX TC10 AND
O UTEX TC12 USING STATE - OF - THE - ART SCHEMES
Method

Classifier

Outex TC10

VZ-MR8 [10]
VZ-Patch [11]
LTP [55]
VAR [57]
L BP [38]
L BPriu2
R,N
L BP/VAR
riu2
L BPVR,N [49]
C LBP S/M/C [48]
T
L BPN
R,N [58]
D LBPR=3,N =24 [41]
B RINT C S C M [50]
P TP [59]
C DCP [23]
Proposed F WLBP

N SC
N SC
N NC
N NC
S VM
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
S VM
N NC
N NC
N SC
N SC

93.59
92.00
76.06
90.00
97.60
84.89
96.56
91.56
98.93
99.24
98.10
99.35
99.56
99.76
99.97

Outex TC12
horizon
tl84
92.82
92.55
92.06
91.41
63.42
62.56
64.35
62.93
85.30
91.30
63.75
65.30
78.08
79.31
77.01
76.62
92.29
90.30
96.18
94.28
87.40
91.60
97.69
98.56
98.08
97.94
99.82
99.62
99.98
99.93

Average
92.99
91.82
67.34
72.42
91.40
71.31
84.65
81.73
93.84
96.56
92.36
98.12
98.52
99.72
99.96

MR8 and VZ-Patch, take dense response from multiple filters.
However, their performance is poor compared to the proposed
F WLBP. Also, feature extraction and matching complexity
of these two techniques is quite high [11], when compared
to the proposed F WLBP due to the MR8 needs to find 8
maximum responses after 38 filters convolving with the image
and compares every 8-dimension vector in an image with all
the textons to build histograms using clustering technique.
D LBP + N GF utilizes the top ranking 80% of L BP pattern
to improve the recognition, as compared with the results
obtained using original L BPu2
R,N . But like VAR R,N , it neglects local spatial structure which is important for texture
discrimination. Also, D LBP needs pre-training stage, and the
dimensionality of the D BLP varies with the training samples.

x

0.7
FWLBP

0.6

5

10

15

30

45

60

75

LBP

0.5

90

(d)

0

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(a)

(b)

1

2

3

4

5

Angles

6

7

8

(c)

Fig. 11. (a)-(c) represent individual F WLBP histograms (F W LBPR,N |R ∈ [1, 2, 3]) of a texture sample taken from the Outex database, with 9 different
orientations. The abscissa and ordinate represent the number of bins and feature probability distribution, respectively. The histograms show that the feature
distribution for the different texture orientations are approximately overlapping, which signify the rotation invariance property of the proposed F WLBP descriptor.
◦
◦
◦
(d) represents the Chi-square (χ) distance between original texture image (0 ) and 8 texture image with different angles (5 − 90 )

Though the trend is clear from the performance Table VI,

we have further analysed the performance using one way
statistical analysis of variance (A NOVA) test [60]. A NOVA is
a collection of statistical tests used to analyze the differences
among group means and their associated procedures. In other
word, one-way A NOVA is used to test the equality of two
or more means at one time using the variances. The null
hypothesis H0 for the test is, there is no significant difference
among group means. We have taken the significance level α
= 0.05 for this A NOVA test. We can reject H0 if the p-value
for an experiment is less than the selected significant level,
which implies that the at least one group mean is significantly
different from the others. To understand why the performance
of proposed F WLBP descriptor was significantly different from
well-known descriptors such as VZ-Patch, VZ-MR8, B RINT,
D LBP, C LBP, and L BPriu2 , we conduct one way A NOVA test
with significance level α = 0.05. The test results are shown
in Table VII where the p-value (1.6460e−07 ) is much lesser
than the pre-select significance level α = 0.05. This indicates
that the performance of proposed descriptor significantly better
than other descriptors and hence we can reject the hypothesis
H0 . In addition, the box plot corresponding to aforementioned
A NOVA test is shown in Fig. 12, which also clearly indicates
that the mean performance of F WLBP descriptor is significantly better than the well-known descriptors such as VZ-MR8
[10], VZ-Patch [11], B RINT [50], D LBP [41], C LBP [48], and
L BPriu2 [38].

100

Recognition rates (%)

For comparison, we have taken the best results of D LBP with
T
R = 3 and N = 24 in Table. VI. The L BPN
R,N [58] based
methods and B RINT [50] give better performance compared
to other state-of-the-art L BP methods. However, compared
to the proposed F WLBP, their accuracies are lower. This is
T
because L BPN
R,N extracts features by locally rotation invariant
riu2
L BPR,N approach, which produces only 10 bins. Such small
features cannot represent each class well. On the other hand,
B RINT extracts a large number of features from multiple
resolution (R = 1, 2, 3, 4) by utilizing rotation invariant
L BPri
R,N approach, but it loses some global image information.
From Table VI, it is evident that our proposed descriptor
provides better classification performance compared to other
state-of-the-art methods. The better performance is due to
generation of a six-layer Gaussian Scale Space to provide
basic scale-invariance (Fig. 1), transforming the scale space to
fractal dimension (FD) images, which also provides additional
levels of scale invariance and some degree of illumination
invariance (Sec. III), and finally using the FD as weights for
the values in the feature vector histograms. When all these are
put together we achieve high degree of invariance to scale,
rotation, and reflection, and are able to capture the micro
structure in the different illumination controlled environments
(for images like “inca”, “horizon” and “tl84”). To visualize the
rotation invariant characteristic of our proposed descriptor, an
example of the F WLBP feature distribution for a texture sample
is taken from the Outex TC10 database (with 9 orientations –
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
0 , 5 , 10 , 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 , 75 , and 90 ) and is shown in
Fig. 11. Fig 11(a)-(c) represent the histograms (HR,N |R ∈
[1, 2, 3]) of individual (F WLBPR,N |R ∈ [1, 2, 3]). The histograms show that the F WLBP feature distribution for the
different texture orientations are approximately overlapping,
which signify the rotation invariance property of the F WLBP
descriptor. In addition, Fig. 11(c) represents the histograms of
individual F WLBP for the 9 different rotational angles, which
are approximately identical. In addition, Fig. 8(d) shows the
Chi-square (χ) distance [11] between extracted F WLBP and
◦
L BP features from original texture image (0 ) and 8 texture
◦
◦
images with different rotational view-points (5 − 90 ), it
is shown that the proposed descriptor has less χ-distance
compared to L BP.

95
90
85
80
75
70
65
FWLBP VZ−Patch VZ−MR8

BRINT

DLBP

CLBP

LBP_riu2

State−of−the−art descriptors

Fig. 12. The box plot (Descriptor vs. Accuracy) corresponding to one way
statistical A NOVA test for proposed F WLBP and state-of-the-art descriptors on
Outex, KTH-TIPS, Brodatz, CUReT databases.

xi

TABLE VII
O NE WAY STATISTICAL A NOVA TEST RESULTS FOR O UTEX , KTH-TIPS,
B RODATZ , AND CUR E T DATABASES , WHERE THE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL α
IS 0.05.
Source
Groups
Error
Total

SS
1923.34
0621.82
2515.67

df
06
28
34

MS
325.557
022.208

F
14.36

Prob (p) > F
1.6460e−07

where the convolution filters are pre-defined as wavelet and
no learning process is needed. Inspired by ScatNet, a simple
deep learning network, P CA N ET is proposed by chan et al.
[64] which is based on cascading of multistage P CA, binary
hashing and histogram pooling.

E. Robustness to Noise

S NR = 5
24.06
99.74
51.22
57.37
50.88
88.31
99.93

Table VIII demonstrates the noise robustness of different
methods on Outex TC10 database based on classification rates
of various noise levels (measured using S NR i.e Signal to
Noise Ratio). The proposed descriptor achieves state-of-theart results in term of accuracy mean and standard deviations
100 ± 0%, 100 ± 0%, 99.97 ± 0.0732%, 99.95 ± 0.0976%,
and 99.93 ± 0.1118% on S NR = 100 dB, 30 dB, 15 dB, 10
dB, and 5 dB, respectively. It can be observed from Table VIII
that the proposed F WLBP descriptor is very modestly improved
as compared with other L BP based descriptors. The proposed
descriptor has inherited this property from the calculation of
fractal dimension in Gaussian scale space representation in
contrast to the L BP and its variants.
F. Comparison of Proposed F WLBP with state-of-art deep
learning based methods
A key characteristic of deep convolutional neural networks
(C NN)(see Fig. 13) is a hierarchical representation which is
universal and directly generated from the data, used to perform
image classification task. Deep C NNs have universal shown
their power of pattern recognition. However, the robustness for
recognition is limited due to the lack of geometric invariance
of global C NN activations. An effective texture descriptor FVCNN has been introduced by Cimpoi et al. [7], where at first
C NN features are extracted at multiple scales. Then an orderless Fisher Vector pooling operation is performed. Despite
significant progress of deep C NN models, not much analytical
insights into its internal operation and behaviour is available.
Mallat et al. [62], [63] have introduced scale and rotation
invariant wavelet convolution scattering network (ScatNet)

TABLE IX
T HE TEXTURE CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE AND FEATURE
DIMENSIONALITY OF THE PROPOSED L MP AND STATE - OF - ART DEEP
LEARNING BASED METHODS

Classification Accuracy (%)
Methods

FV-VGGDM (S VM) [7], [65]
FV-AlexNet (S VM) [65], [67]
S CAT N ET (P CA) [62], [63]
S CAT N ET (N NC) [62], [63]
P CA N ET (N NC) [64]
P CA N ETriu2 (N NC) [64]
R AND N ET (N NC) [64]
R AND N ETriu2 (N NC) [64]
Proposed F WLBP (N NC)
Proposed F WLBP (N RS)

80.00
67.30
99.69
98.59
39.87
35.36
47.43
43.54
99.79
99.86

82.30
72.30
99.06
98.10
45.53
40.88
52.45
45.70
99.41
99.73

88.20
77.90
68.92
63.66
59.43
52.15
60.67
56.90
98.37
99.87

99.80
99.10
96.15
88.64
57.70
49.80
56.57
48.20
97.12
99.90

Feature

C LBP SMC [48]
LTPriu2
R=3,N =24 [55]
N RLBPriu2
R,N [61]
B RINT [50]
Proposed F WLBP

Classification Accuracy (%)
S NR = 30
S NR = 15
S NR = 10
86.93
67.24
49.79
99.79
99.76
99.76
98.12
94.58
86.07
98.31
93.44
84.32
81.16
77.52
70.16
96.48
95.47
92.97
100
99.97
99.95

Dimention

N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC
N NC

S NR = 100
95.03
99.30
99.45
84.49
97.76
100

UIUC

Classifier

L BPriu2
R,N [38]
T
L BPN
R,N,k [58]

KTH-TIPS

Methods

A simple variation of P CA N ET, named R AND N ET, in which
the cascaded filters are randomly selected but not learned, was
also proposed by Chan et al. [64]. One of the major trends
in deep C NN research community is to use more and more
complex networks to improve the classification performances.
However, it needs the powerful and large memory computer
and GPUs to train very deep and computationally expensive
networks. The comparative results of texture classification performance with feature dimensionality of the proposed F WLBP
and state-of-art deep learning based methods such as F V-C NN
[7], [65], S CAT N ET [62], [63], P CA N ET, P CA N ETriu2 , and
R AND N ET [64], are tabulated in Table IX. It is observed from
Table IX that the proposed F WLBP provides comparable or
better classification performance compared to state-of-art deep
learning based methods. In addition, the feature dimension
of proposed F WLBP descriptor is less than the deep learning
based models4 .

Outex TC12

TABLE VIII
C LASSIFICATION ACCURACY (%) OF P ROPOSED M ETHOD AND
D IFFERENT STATE - OF - THE - ART M ETHODS ON O UTEX TC10 WITH
D IFFERENT N OISE L EVELS IN TERM OF D B .

Fig. 13. A Deep C NN architecture where the input is processed in a feed
forward manner through the stage of convolutions and sub-sampling and
finally classified with a linear or non-linear classifier.

Outex TC10

To evaluate the performance of the proposed method in
noisy environment, the experiments are carried out on Outex TC10 texture database (discussed in subsec. IV-A) by
adding white Gaussian noise, resulting in different Signal to
Noise Ratio (S NR). The training and testing set-up are the
same as in noise-free situation.

65536
32768
596
596
2048
80
2048
80
354
354

V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have proposed a simple, efficient yet robust
descriptor, called the Fractal Weighted Local Binary Pattern
(F WLBP) for texture classification. At first, a Gaussian Scale
Space representation of the texture image is generated, and
4 The

results of deep learning based methods are taken from Liu et al. [66]

xii

then Differential Box Counting (D BC) algorithm is used to
transform the images into fractal dimension. An augmented
form of Local Binary Pattern (L BP), with fixed sample size
and varying radius is used, and the weights for the samples are
calculated using an indexing function. Finally, the normalized
feature vector is formed by concatenating the histogram of
F WLBP for all elements of L BP. Experimental results show
that our proposed F WLBP descriptor provides promising performance under scale, rotation, reflection, and illumination
variation. Comparative study indicates that our descriptor also
performs better, as compared to other state-of-the-art methods.
In addition, the dimensionality of the extracted feature vector
is significantly less the state-of-the-art method, making it
computationally efficient. As it offers reasonably high speed
to extract the features, this descriptor may be applied to
real time scenarios. Our current work is focused on texture
classification. In future, this work can be utilized in texture
classification in multi-texture scenario, also in other domains
like face and object recognition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors sincerely thank the Machine Vision Group
(MVG), University of Oulu, Finland, Visual Geometry Group
(VGG), University of Oxford, UK, Department of Computing,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China, and Department of Computer Science, University College London, UK
for sharing the source codes of L BP, VZ-MR8, C LBP, and
B IF descriptors. The authors would also like to thank Manik
Varma, Timor Kadir and Andrew Zisserman for providing
preprocessed CUReT datasets.
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Xie and M. Mirmehdi, “A Galaxy of Texture Features,” in Handbook
Of Texture Analysis. World Scientific, 2008, pp. 375–406.
[2] R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam et al., “Textural features for image
classification,” IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics,
no. 6, pp. 610–621, 1973.
[3] T. Randen and J. H. Husoy, “Filtering for texture classification: A
comparative study,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine
intelligence, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 291–310, 1999.
[4] T. Ojala, T. Maenpaa, M. Pietikainen, J. Viertola, J. Kyllonen, and
S. Huovinen, “Outex-new framework for empirical evaluation of texture
analysis algorithms,” in Pattern Recognition, 2002. Proceedings. 16th
International Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. 701–706.
[5] Y. Quan, Y. Xu, and Y. Sun, “A distinct and compact texture descriptor,”
Image and Vision Computing, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 250–259, 2014.
[6] V. Andrearczyk and P. F. Whelan, “Using filter banks in convolutional
neural networks for texture classification,” Pattern Recognition Letters,
vol. 84, pp. 63–69, 2016.
[7] M. Cimpoi, S. Maji, I. Kokkinos, and A. Vedaldi, “Deep filter banks
for texture recognition, description, and segmentation,” International
Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 65–94, 2016.
[8] J. Zhang, M. Marszałek, S. Lazebnik, and C. Schmid, “Local features
and kernels for classification of texture and object categories: A comprehensive study,” International journal of computer vision, vol. 73, no. 2,
pp. 213–238, 2007.
[9] M. Crosier and L. D. Griffin, “Using basic image features for texture
classification,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 88, no. 3,
pp. 447–460, 2010.
[10] M. Varma and A. Zisserman, “A statistical approach to texture classification from single images,” International Journal of Computer Vision,
vol. 62, no. 1-2, pp. 61–81, 2005.
[11] ——, “A statistical approach to material classification using image
patch exemplars,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine
intelligence, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 2032–2047, 2009.

[12] I. WEISS, “Geometric invariants and object recognition,” International
journal of computer vision, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 207–231, 1993.
[13] R. L. Kashyap and A. Khotanzad, “A model-based method for rotation
invariant texture classification,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis
and Machine Intelligence, no. 4, pp. 472–481, 1986.
[14] J. Mao and A. K. Jain, “Texture classification and segmentation using
multiresolution simultaneous autoregressive models,” Pattern recognition, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 173–188, 1992.
[15] J.-L. Chen and A. Kundu, “Rotation and gray scale transform invariant
texture identification using wavelet decomposition and hidden Markov
model,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 208–214, 1994.
[16] H. Deng and D. A. Clausi, “Gaussian MRF rotation-invariant features
for image classification,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and
machine intelligence, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 951–955, 2004.
[17] M. Varma and R. Garg, “Locally invariant fractal features for statistical
texture classification,” in Computer Vision, 2007. ICCV 2007. IEEE 11th
International Conference on. IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–8.
[18] L. Liu and P. Fieguth, “Texture classification from random features,”
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 574–586, 2012.
[19] C.-H. Yao and S.-Y. Chen, “Retrieval of translated, rotated and scaled
color textures,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 913–929, 2003.
[20] S. Lazebnik, C. Schmid, and J. Ponce, “A sparse texture representation
using local affine regions,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1265–1278, 2005.
[21] Y. Xu, H. Ji, and C. Fermüller, “Viewpoint invariant texture description using fractal analysis,” International Journal of Computer Vision,
vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 85–100, 2009.
[22] J. Zhang, J. Liang, and H. Zhao, “Local energy pattern for texture classification using self-adaptive quantization thresholds,” IEEE transactions
on image processing, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31–42, 2013.
[23] S. K. Roy, B. Chanda, B. B. Chaudhuri, D. K. Ghosh, and S. R. Dubey,
“A complete dual-cross pattern for unconstrained texture classification.”
[24] Y. Xu, H. Ji, and C. Fermuller, “A projective invariant for textures,” in
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2006 IEEE Computer Society
Conference on, vol. 2. IEEE, 2006, pp. 1932–1939.
[25] J. B. Florindo, A. R. Backes, M. de Castro, and O. M. Bruno, “A
comparative study on multiscale fractal dimension descriptors,” Pattern
Recognition Letters, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 798–806, 2012.
[26] Y. Quan, Y. Xu, Y. Sun, and Y. Luo, “Lacunarity analysis on image patterns for texture classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference
on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2014, pp. 160–167.
[27] B. B. Chaudhuri and N. Sarkar, “Texture segmentation using fractal
dimension,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 72–77, 1995.
[28] N. Sarkar and B. B. Chaudhuri, “An efficient differential box-counting
approach to compute fractal dimension of image,” IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 115–120, 1994.
[29] O. S. Al-Kadi, D. Watson et al., “Texture analysis of aggressive
and nonaggressive lung tumor ce ct images,” IEEE transactions on
biomedical engineering, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1822–1830, 2008.
[30] B. B. Mandelbrot and R. Pignoni, The fractal geometry of nature. WH
freeman New York, 1983, vol. 173.
[31] T. Lindeberg, “Scale-space theory: A basic tool for analyzing structures
at different scales,” Journal of applied statistics, vol. 21, no. 1-2, pp.
225–270, 1994.
[32] D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,”
International journal of computer vision, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91–110,
2004.
[33] L. D. Griffin and M. Lillholm, “Symmetry sensitivities of derivativeof-gaussian filters,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine
intelligence, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1072–1083, 2010.
[34] J. D. Victor and B. W. Knight, “Simultaneously band and space limited
functions in two dimensions, and receptive fields of visual neurons,” in
Perspectives and Problems in Nolinear Science. Springer, 1994, pp.
375–419.
[35] J. J. Koenderink, “The structure of images,” Biological cybernetics,
vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 363–370, 1984.
[36] K. Falconer, Fractal geometry: mathematical foundations and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
[37] R. Van Den Boomgaard and A. Smeulders, “The morphological structure
of images: The differential equations of morphological scale-space,”
IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 16,
no. 11, pp. 1101–1113, 1994.

xiii

[38] T. Ojala, M. Pietikainen, and T. Maenpaa, “Multiresolution gray-scale
and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns,”
IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 24,
no. 7, pp. 971–987, 2002.
[39] M. Pietikäinen, A. Hadid, G. Zhao, and T. Ahonen, Computer Vision
Using Local Binary Patterns. Springer Science & Business Media,
2011, vol. 40.
[40] M. R. Faraji and X. Qi, “Face recognition under varying illumination
with logarithmic fractal analysis,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters,
vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1457–1461, 2014.
[41] S. Liao, M. W. Law, and A. C. Chung, “Dominant local binary patterns
for texture classification,” IEEE transactions on image processing,
vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1107–1118, 2009.
[42] J. Wright, A. Y. Yang, A. Ganesh, S. S. Sastry, and Y. Ma, “Robust
face recognition via sparse representation,” IEEE transactions on pattern
analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 210–227, 2009.
[43] Z. Guo, X. Wang, J. Zhou, and J. You, “Robust texture image representation by scale selective local binary patterns,” IEEE Transactions on
Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 687–699, 2016.
[44] P. Brodatz, Textures: a photographic album for artists and designers.
New York, NY, USA: Dover Pubns, 1966.
[45] E. Hayman, B. Caputo, M. Fritz, and J.-O. Eklundh, “On the significance of real-world conditions for material classification,” in European
conference on computer vision. Springer, 2004, pp. 253–266.
[46] K. J. Dana, B. Van Ginneken, S. K. Nayar, and J. J. Koenderink,
“Reflectance and texture of real-world surfaces,” ACM Transactions On
Graphics (TOG), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 1999.
[47] Z. Li, G. Liu, Y. Yang, and J. You, “Scale-and rotation-invariant local
binary pattern using scale-adaptive texton and subuniform-based circular
shift,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 2130–
2140, 2012.
[48] Z. Guo, L. Zhang, and D. Zhang, “A completed modeling of local binary
pattern operator for texture classification,” IEEE Transactions on Image
Processing, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1657–1663, 2010.
[49] ——, “Rotation invariant texture classification using LBP variance
(LBPV) with global matching,” Pattern recognition, vol. 43, no. 3, pp.
706–719, 2010.
[50] L. Liu, Y. Long, P. W. Fieguth, S. Lao, and G. Zhao, “Brint: binary
rotation invariant and noise tolerant texture classification,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 3071–3084, 2014.
[51] X. Qi, R. Xiao, C.-G. Li, Y. Qiao, J. Guo, and X. Tang, “Pairwise
rotation invariant co-occurrence local binary pattern,” IEEE Transactions
on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 2199–
2213, 2014.
[52] T. Ahonen, J. Matas, C. He, and M. Pietikäinen, “Rotation invariant
image description with local binary pattern histogram fourier features,”
Image analysis, pp. 61–70, 2009.
[53] G. Zhao, T. Ahonen, J. Matas, and M. Pietikainen, “Rotation-invariant
image and video description with local binary pattern features,” IEEE
Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1465–1477, 2012.
[54] R. Nosaka, Y. Ohkawa, and K. Fukui, “Feature extraction based on cooccurrence of adjacent local binary patterns,” in Pacific-Rim Symposium
on Image and Video Technology. Springer, 2011, pp. 82–91.
[55] X. Tan and B. Triggs, “Enhanced local texture feature sets for face
recognition under difficult lighting conditions,” in International Workshop on Analysis and Modeling of Faces and Gestures. Springer, 2007,
pp. 168–182.
[56] B. Caputo, E. Hayman, M. Fritz, and J.-O. Eklundh, “Classifying
materials in the real world,” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 28, no. 1,
pp. 150–163, 2010.
[57] T. Ojala, M. Pietikäinen, and D. Harwood, “A comparative study of
texture measures with classification based on featured distributions,”
Pattern recognition, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 51–59, 1996.
[58] A. Fathi and A. R. Naghsh-Nilchi, “Noise tolerant local binary pattern
operator for efficient texture analysis,” Pattern Recognition Letters,
vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1093–1100, 2012.
[59] K. Wang, C.-E. Bichot, C. Zhu, and B. Li, “Pixel to patch sampling
structure and local neighboring intensity relationship patterns for texture
classification,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 853–
856, 2013.
[60] G. R. Iversen and H. Norpoth, Analysis of variance. Sage, 1987, no. 1.
[61] J. Ren, X. Jiang, and J. Yuan, “Noise-resistant local binary pattern with
an embedded error-correction mechanism,” IEEE Transactions on Image
Processing, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 4049–4060, 2013.
[62] J. Bruna and S. Mallat, “Invariant scattering convolution networks,”
IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 35,
no. 8, pp. 1872–1886, 2013.

[63] L. Sifre and S. Mallat, “Rotation, scaling and deformation invariant
scattering for texture discrimination,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2013, pp. 1233–
1240.
[64] T.-H. Chan, K. Jia, S. Gao, J. Lu, Z. Zeng, and Y. Ma, “Pcanet: A simple
deep learning baseline for image classification?” IEEE Transactions on
Image Processing, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 5017–5032, 2015.
[65] M. Cimpoi, S. Maji, and A. Vedaldi, “Deep filter banks for texture
recognition and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 3828–3836.
[66] L. Liu, P. Fieguth, X. Wang, M. Pietikäinen, and D. Hu, “Evaluation of
lbp and deep texture descriptors with a new robustness benchmark,” in
European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2016, pp. 69–86.
[67] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification
with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2012, pp. 1097–1105.

