Graph matching involves combinatorial optimization based on edge-to-edgeaffinity matrix, which can be generally formulated as Lawler's QuadraticAssignment Problem (QAP). This paper presents a QAP network directly learningwith the affinity matrix (equivalently the association graph) whereby thematching problem is translated into a vertex classification task. Theassociation graph is learned by an embedding network for vertex classification,followed by Sinkhorn normalization and a cross-entropy loss for end-to-endlearning. We further improve the embedding model on association graph byintroducing Sinkhorn based matching-aware constraint, as well as dummy nodes todeal with unequal sizes of graphs. To our best knowledge, this is the firstnetwork to directly learn with the general Lawler's QAP. In contrast, recentdeep matching methods focus on the learning of node and edge features in twographs respectively. We also show how to extend our network to hypergraphmatching, and matching of multiple graphs. Experimental results on bothsynthetic graphs and real-world images show its effectiveness. For pure QAPtasks on synthetic data and QAPLIB benchmark, our method can performcompetitively and even surpass state-of-the-art graph matching and QAP solverswith notable less time cost. Source code will be made public athttps://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/
Quick Read (beta)
Neural Graph Matching Network: Learning Lawler’s Quadratic Assignment Problem with Extension to Hypergraph and Multiple-graph Matching
Graph matching involves combinatorial optimization based on edge-to-edge affinity matrix, which can be generally formulated as Lawler’s Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP). This paper presents a QAP network directly learning with the affinity matrix (equivalently the association graph) whereby the matching problem is translated into a vertex classification task. The association graph is learned by an embedding network for vertex classification, followed by Sinkhorn normalization and a cross-entropy loss for end-to-end learning. We further improve the embedding model on association graph by introducing Sinkhorn based matching-aware constraint, as well as dummy nodes to deal with unequal sizes of graphs. To our best knowledge, this is the first network to directly learn with the general Lawler’s QAP. In contrast, recent deep matching methods focus on the learning of node and edge features in two graphs respectively. We also show how to extend our network to hypergraph matching, and matching of multiple graphs. Experimental results on both synthetic graphs and real-world images show its effectiveness. For pure QAP tasks on synthetic data and QAPLIB benchmark, our method can perform competitively and even surpass state-of-the-art graph matching and QAP solvers with notable less time cost. Source code will be made public at https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/.
1 Introduction and Preliminaries
Graph matching (GM) has been a fundamental problem which is NP-complete in general . It has various applicability and connection with vision and learning, which involves establishing node correspondences between two graphs based on the node-to-node and edge-to-edge affinity [2, 3]. This differs from the point-based techniques e.g. RANSAC  and iterative closest point (ICP)  without considering edge information.
We start with two-graph matching, which can be written as quadratic assignment programming (QAP) , where is a (partial) permutation matrix encoding node-to-node correspondence (with constraints in second line of Eq. (1)), and is its column-vectorized version:
Here means column vector of length whose elements all equal to 1, and is the so-called affinity matrix . Its diagonal and off-diagonal elements store the node-to-node and edge-to-edge affinities. For graph matching, the objective is maximized, assuming perfect matching corresponds to the highest affinity score. One popular embodiment of is fixed Gaussian kernel with Euclid distance over pairs of edge features [2, 8]:
where is the feature vector of the edge in graph 1, from edge in graph 2. is indexed by under its matrix form.
where , are weighted adjacency matrices. is node-to-node affinity matrix. Its connection to Lawler’s QAP becomes clear by letting ( means Kronecker product).
As shown in Tab. I, traditional learning-free solvers have been extensively studied for both QAP formulations in Eq. (1, 3), and there exist some recent advances in learning Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP [16, 17]. In this paper, we propose the first learning-based algorithm tackling the most general QAP form – Lawler’s QAP, and show its generalization to higher-order and multi-graph scenarios.
The above QAP models involve the second-order affinity, and can also be generalized to the higher-order case. A line of works [20, 21, 22, 23] adopt tensor marginalization based model for -order () hypergraph matching, resulting in a higher-order assignment problem:
where is the column-vectorized form, and is the -order affinity tensor whose elements record the affinity between two hyperedges, operated by tensor product :
where can be regarded as tensor marginalization at dimension . Details of tensor multiplication can be referred to Sec. 3.1 in . Most existing hypergraph matching works assume the affinity tensor is invariant w.r.t. the index of the hyperedge pairs for computational tractability.
As discussed above, either graph matching or hypergraph matching problem involves solving a combinatorial optimization problem. However, the objective functions may be biased and even the mathematically optimal solution can depart from the perfect matching in reality, either due to the noise observation or limited modeling capacity, or both. In fact, traditional methods are mostly based on predefined shallow affinity model with limited capacity e.g. Gaussian kernel with Euclid distance (see Eq. (2)), which has difficulty in providing enough flexibility for real-world data. This issue is partially addressed by affinity-learning based graph matching algorithms [17, 25, 26]. Along this promising direction, in this paper, a novel network based solver is proposed to directly learn Lawler’s QAP whereby the affinity learning is also incorporated, as shown in Fig. 1. This approach is further extended to the case of joint matching of multiple graphs, which has been an important scenario in practice and has received wide attention in literature [8, 27, 28, 29, 30] however learning has not been considered. Also hypergraph matching is enabled in our framework.
Specifically, the proposed matching nets consist of several learnable layers as detailed in Fig. 4: 1) CNN layers taking raw images for node (and edge) feature extraction; 2) affinity metric learning layer for generating the affinity matrix i.e. the association graph; 3) vertex embedding layers using the association graph as input for vertex classification; 4) Sinkhorn net to convert the vertex score matrix into doubly-stochastic matrix. Sinkhorn technique is also adopted in the embedding module to introduce matching constraints; 5) cross-entropy loss layer whose input is the output of the Sinkhorn layer.
Note that the first two components are optional and can be treated as a plugin in the pipeline, and have nothing to do with Lawler’s QAP. In contrast, the peer network  only allows for learning of node CNN features on images and their similarity metric i.e. the component 1) and 2). In fact,  is inapplicable to learning the QAP model. Our embedding also differs from [31, 17] as raw individual graphs must be required for embedding in these works. In fact,  shows that embedding on individual graphs can deal with some special cases of Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP, which is also a special case of Lawler’s QAP as discussed above. Direct learning on Lawler’s QAP enables a learning-based solver for real-world combinatorial problems beyond vision, e.g. QAPLIB instances , which can not be handled by previous graph matching learning algorithms.
Furthermore, we devise two generalizations to the above matching network. 1) hypergraph matching by embedding a higher-order affinity tensor; 2) multiple graph matching by devising an end-to-end compatible matching synchronization module by using the popular spectral fusion technique [29, 33]. The performance can also be boosted by adopting edge-embedding layers. The source code will be made publicly available.
The highlights of this paper are summarized as follows:
i) We show how to develop a deep network to directly tackle the (most) general graph matching formulation i.e. Lawler’s Quadratic Assignment Problem beyond vision problems, in the sense of allowing the affinity matrix as the raw input. This is fulfilled by regarding the affinity matrix as an association graph, whose vertices can be embedded by a deep graph neural network (GNN)  for classification, with a novel matching-aware graph convolution scheme. In contrast, existing works [26, 25, 31, 17] start with individual graphs’ node and edge features for affinity learning instead of pairwise affinity encoded in affinity matrix.
ii) Our network solver for Lawler’s QAP can be trained either in a supervised setting given ground truth node correspondence from labeled training set (e.g. for image matching), or by the final matching score without supervision (e.g. for QAPLIB problems).
iii) We extend our second-order graph matching networks to the hypergraph (third-order) matching case. This is fulfilled by building the hyperedge based association hypergraph to replace the second-order one. To our best knowledge, this is the first work for deep learning of hypergraph matching (with explicit treatment on the hyperedges).
iv) We also extend our matching network to the multiple-graph matching case by end-to-end spectral multi-graph matching, with explicit treatment for stabilized learning. To our best knowledge, there is no multiple-graph matching neural network in the existing literature.
v) Experimental results on synthetic and real-world data show the effectiveness of our devised components. The extended versions for hypergraph matching and multiple-graph matching also show competitive performance. Our model can learn with the Lawler’s QAP as input while state-of-the-art graph matching networks [25, 17, 31] cannot. This allows for the evaluation of our network on the QAPLIB benchmark directly, which to our best knowledge, is the first test for network-based methods for QAPLIB.
2 Related Work
|method||learned solver||multiple-graph||CNN||GNN module||embedded graph||affinity metric||loss function|
|Nowak et al. ||special case of||none||none||GCN||individual graphs||inner-product||multi-class cross-entropy|
|GMN ||none||none||VGG16||none||none||weighted exponential||pixel offset regression|
|Zhang et al. ||none||none||none||message-passing||individual graphs||inner-product||multi-class cross-entropy|
|PCA-GM ||special case of||none||VGG16||GCN + cross-||individual graphs||weighted exponential||binary cross-entropy (BCE)|
|NGM (ours)||Lawler’s QAP||none||VGG16||matching-aware||association graph||weighted exponential||binary cross-entropy (BCE)|
|NGM+ (ours)||Lawler’s QAP||none||VGG16||matching-aware||association graph||weighted exponential||binary cross-entropy (BCE)|
|(most general)||edge conv.|
|NHGM (ours)||higher-order||none||VGG16||matching-aware||association graph||weighted exponential||binary cross-entropy (BCE)|
|NMGM (ours)||Lawler’s QAP||end-to-end||VGG16||matching-aware||association graph||weighted exponential||binary cross-entropy (BCE)|
|(most general)||spectral method||GCN|
2.1 Learning-free Graph Matching Methods
Two-graph matching and QAP. Lawler’s Quadratic Assignment Problem  is known for its application of matching two graphs by maximizing a quadratic objective function. Traveling salesman problem (TSP) and Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP are two popular variants from Lawler’s QAP, with their wide range of application beyond vision, e.g. economic activities modeled by Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP [19, 32]. The most general Lawler’s QAP also refers to two-graph matching in pattern recognition, and is traditionally addressed in a learning-free setting. Classically, small or medium sized problems are tractable by branch-and-bound with dual bound solved approximately [9, 13]. Modern approximate solvers [7, 2, 35, 14, 15] achieve better accuracy-speed trade-off and thus are more applicable to larger-sized problems. In two-graph matching, most methods focus on seeking approximate solution given fixed affinity model which is often set in simple parametric forms. Euclid distance in node/edge feature space together with a Gaussian kernel to derive a non-negative similarity, is widely used in the above works.
Hypergraph matching methods. Going beyond the traditional second-order graph matching, hypergraphs have been built for matching  and their affinity is usually represented by a tensor to encode the third-order [22, 24, 36] or even higher-order information . The advantage is that the model can be more robust against noise at the cost of exponentially increased complexity for both time and space.
Multiple-graph matching methods. It has been recently actively studied for its practical utility against local noise and ambiguity. The hope is that the joint matching of multiple graphs can provide a better venue to fuse the information across graphs, leading to better robustness against local noise and ambiguity. Among the literature, a thread of works [29, 28] first generate the pairwise matching between two graphs via certain two-graph matching solvers, and then impose cycle-consistency on the pairwise matchings to improve the matching accuracy. The other line of methods impose cycle-consistency during the iterative finding of pairwise matchings and usually can achieve better results [27, 8, 38, 39]. The online setting for solving multiple graph matching is studied in .
Note both hypergraph or multiple graph matching paradigms try to improve the affinity model either by lifting the affinity order or imposing additional consistency regularization. As shown in the following, another possibly more effective and efficient way is adopting learning to find more adaptive affinity model parameters, or further improving the solver with deep neural networks.
2.2 Learning-based Graph Matching Methods
Shallow-learning methods. The structural SVM based supervised learning method  incorporates earlier graph matching learning methods [41, 42, 43, 41]. Learning can also be fulfilled by unsupervised  and semi-supervised . In these earlier works, no network is adopted until the recent seminal work .
Deep-learning methods. A pioneer work  considers the alignment of graphs by embedding on individual graphs, which can be regarded a special case of Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP. Deep learning is recently applied for graph matching on images , whereby convolutional neural network (CNN) is used to extract node features from images followed with spectral matching and CNN is learned using a regression-like node correspondence supervision. This work is improved by introducing GNN to encode structural  or geometric  information, with a combinatorial loss based on cross-entropy loss, and Sinkhorn network  as adopted in .
As shown in the extensive summary of network-based graph matching algorithms in Tab. II, one shortcoming of existing graph matching networks is that they cannot directly deal with the most general Lawler’s QAP form which limits their applicability to tasks when no individual graph information is available (see QAPLIB – http://anjos.mgi.polymtl.ca/qaplib/). In contrast, our approach can directly work with the affinity matrix, and we further extend to dealing with affinity tensor for hypergraph matching, as well as the setting under multiple graphs.
3 Proposed Approaches
In Sec. 3.1, we show the connection between graph matching and association graph, on which our methods are based. Then our Neural Graph Matching (NGM) network is presented in Sec. 3.2, which can solve Lawler’s QAP for two-graph matching directly. In Sec. 3.3 the enhanced model NGM+ is devised by introducing edge embeddings. Also, we show the extension to hypergraph matching, i.e. Neural Hyper-Graph Matching (NHGM) in Sec. 3.4, and to multiple graph matching i.e. Neural Multi-Graph Matching (NMGM) in Sec. 3.5. All these three settings to our knowledge have not been addressed by neural network solvers before.
Our models aim to match weighted graph and (in capital letters), where the superscript means the index of graphs and the subscript represents the index of nodes. Without loss of generality, are all inlier nodes, and contains both inliers and optional outliers. are attributed edge sets with second-order features in graphs and . Lawler’s QAP as given in Eq. (1) is relaxed via popular doubly-stochastic relaxation:
where is a (partial) doubly-stochastic matrix, where all its rows sum to 1 and all its column sums are . For affinity matrix , diagonal elements are first order (node) similarities and off-diagonal elements are second order (edge) similarities, where are similarity measurements for nodes and edges, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 2, graph matching can be viewed in a perspective based on the definition of the so-called association graph [2, 7] (in handwritten letters with superscript ). To avoid ambiguity between graphs and association graphs, we name the entities in graphs () as nodes and the entities in association graph () as vertices. Readers should distinguish these two concepts as they will be repeatedly encountered through this paper.
The vertices of association graph encode candidate node-to-node correspondence corresponding to the matching matrix , therefore the vectorized assignment matrix is equivalent to the vertex set of association graph. The edges represent the agreement between two pairs of correspondence modeled by , so that the off-diagonal part of affinity matrix is equivalent to the adjacency matrix of association graph. The matching between two graphs can therefore be transformed into vertex classification on the association graph, following [2, 7]. In this paper, diagonal elements are further assigned as vertex attributes , to better exploit the first-order similarities. Such formulation can also be generalized to hypergraph matching problems, with edges replaced by hyperedges, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The association graph prohibits links that violate the one-to-one matching constraint (e.g. there is no link between vertex ‘1a’ and ‘1c’ in Fig. 2(a)).
3.2 NGM: Neural Graph Matching for QAP
Neural Graph Matching (NGM) solves relaxed Lawler’s QAP in Eq. (6), by vertex classification via Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN)  with novel matching-aware embedding modules. The vertex classification is performed on the association graph induced by the affinity matrix, followed by a Sinkhorn operator. As shown by existing learning-free graph matching solvers [2, 7], graph matching problem is equivalent to vertex classification on the association graph. NGM accepts either raw image (with jointly learned CNN and affinity metric), or affinity matrix (without CNN or affinity metric), and learns end-to-end from ground truth correspondence or by self-supervision for QAPLIB problems.
3.2.1 Affinity matrix building from natural images
Our graph matching net allows either affinity matrix or raw images as input. The image processing module is optional and treated as a plug-in for dealing with images, following the protocol in  whereby the affinity matrix is built from pre-given keypoints in images. As shown in the upper half of Fig. 4, image features are extracted by learnable CNN layers such as VGG16 . Given two input images with labeled keypoints, we adopt CNN layers to extract per-node features for and for , where is feature dimension size and are extracted from different CNN layers (e.g. VGG16 relu5_1 for and relu4_2 for ) and utilized for edge representation and node representation, respectively. Features are obtained by bi-linear interpolation on the CNN feature map. As shown in Fig. 3, the connectivity of two graphs are represented by and , where are the adjacency matrices of two graphs, and means edge links node to node . The edge representations are built by concatenating node features at both ends of the edge:
where means concatenating two matrices along columns. The node-to-node similarity matrix and edge-to-edge similarity are built via
where is the learnable parameter for affinity metric. The QAP affinity matrix is built following the factorized formulation of :
where means building a diagonal matrix from input vector, and means Kronecker product. All the forementioned operations allow back propagation, and we adopt the efficient GPU implementation provided by .
3.2.2 Association graph construction
We derive the association graph that contains vertices and edges, from the affinity matrix . The weighted adjacency matrix of association graph comes from the off-diagonal elements of . We denote as -dimensional vertex embeddings on layer (starting with ). Initial embeddings are scalar, i.e. , taken from the diagonal of .
contains both connectivity and weight information in the association graph. In case when the first-order similarity is absent, we can assign a constant (e.g. 1) for all .
3.2.3 Matching aware embedding of association graph
The matching problem can be transformed to finding the vertices in the association graph that encode the node-to-node correspondence between two input graphs, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Specifically for vertex classification on the association graph, we use GCN  for its effectiveness and simplicity. Firstly, based on (unweighted) adjacency matrix of association graph : if and otherwise 0. Since is symmetric, we compute the degree matrix for normalization:
where builds a diagonal matrix from input vector. The vertex aggregation step is according to:
where the message passing function and vertex’s self update function are both implemented by networks with two fully-connected layers and ReLU activation.
The above general vanilla vertex embedding procedure in Eq. (12) does not consider the one-to-one assignment constraint for matching. Here we develop a matching constraint aware embedding model: in each layer a soft permutation (i.e. doubly-stochastic matrix) is scored via classifier with Sinkhorn network (see discussions in Sec. 3.2.4) followed by vectorization operator . The predicted soft permutation is concatenated to vertex embeddings whereby matching information is considered in embedding layers. With , such a matching-aware embedding scheme is denoted as Sinkhorn embedding in the rest of the paper.
3.2.4 Vertex classification with Sinkhorn network
As graph matching is equivalent to vertex classification on association graph (see Fig. 2), a vertex classifier with Sinkhorn network is adopted to predict the matching result. Specifically we use a single layer fully-connected classifier denoted by , followed by exponential activation with regularization factor :
After reshaping classification scores into , one-to-one assignment constraint is enforced to by Sinkhorn network [45, 49]. It takes a non-negative square matrix as input and outputs a doubly-stochastic matrix [45, 50]. As the scoring matrix can be non-square for different sizes of graphs, the input matrix is padded into a square one (assume ) with small elements e.g. . A doubly-stochastic matrix is obtained by repeatedly running:
where means element-wise division. By taking column-normalization and row-normalization in Eq. (15) alternatively, converges to a doubly-stochastic matrix whose rows and columns all sum to 1. The dummy elements are discarded in the final output, whose column sum may be given umatched nodes from the bigger graph. Sinkhorn operator is fully differentiable and can be efficiently implemented by automatic differentiation techniques . The proposed vertex classifier with Sinkhorn network is denoted as , which is also mentioned in matching-aware Sinkhorn embedding in Eq. (13).
3.2.5 Loss for end-to-end training
Recall the obtained predicted matrix from the above procedure is a doubly-stochastic matrix. Each element can be regarded as a binary classification where each vertex should be classified to 1 (matched) or 0 (unmatched). Hence we adopt the binary cross-entropy as the final loss, given the ground truth node-to-node correspondence :
Our approach also allows self-supervised learning over optimization objectives for QAPLIB problems, which will be discussed in Sec. 4.2 in details.
All the components are differentiable, hence NGM, including optional CNN for keypoint feature extraction from images, is learned via backpropagation and gradient descent. We further enable NGM with edge embedding.
3.3 NGM+: Improved NGM with Edge Embedding
Edge embedding has been confirmed effective to enhance vertex embedding learning  and we improve the model capacity of NGM with additional edge embeddings, resulting in the enhanced method called NGM+.
3.3.1 Edge embedding update
We extend GCN  with -dimensional edge embedding on layer , whose feature is updated from features of the same edge and its adjacent nodes. Initial edge embeddings are scalar, taken from off-diagonal elements of :
Our method starts with edge feature updating from the edge and its adjacent nodes in the previous layer, then concatenated and passed by edge update function :
is a neural network containing two fully-connected layers with ReLU activation. By enforcing , only the edges that originally with positive attributes in association graph are updated.
3.3.2 Channel-wise embedding of association graph
Similar to , along the third dimension, i.e. feature channels of , edge embeddings are regarded as channel-wise aggregation weights for vertex features. The feature aggregation step is performed as follows:
where means expanding the inversed degree matrix along third dimension and denotes matrix multiplication split over feature channels: . are two fully-connected layers with ReLU activation. We also adopt Sinkhorn embedding in NGM+. The other compoments of NGM+ are consistent with NGM in Sec. 3.2.
3.4 NHGM: Neural Hypergraph Matching
For Neural Hyper-Graph Matching (NHGM), the higher-order structure is exploited for more robust correspondence prediction. NHGM owns a nearly identical pipeline compared to NGM, while a more general message-passing scheme is devised for feature aggregation in hypergraphs, as previously shown in [53, 54]. Due to the explosive computational cost ( with order ), here we limit hypergraph to third-order which is also in line with the majority of existing works [22, 24], while the scheme is generalizable to any order .
3.4.1 Association hypergraph construction
The second-order affinity matrix is generalized to affinity tensor of order in hypergraph matching. In line with the hypergraph matching literature [23, 24, 21], the third-order affinity tensor is specified as:
where denotes the angle in graph and of each correspondence , respectively. An illustration of third order affinity can be found in Fig. 5, where the similarity between triplets of nodes is compared. Third order affinity is usually defined on geometric consistency and it preserves both scaling and rotation invariance.
Extending from the second-order association graph, a hyper association graph is constructed from . The association hypergraph takes node-to-node correspondence as vertices (which is consistent with second-order association graph) and higher-order similarity among as hyperedges , as shown by Fig. 2(c). Elements of are adjacency weights for the association hypergraph accordingly. In NHGM, hyperedge feature aggregation is defined for hypergraph matching.
3.4.2 Matching aware association hypergraph embedding
As an extension of Eq. (12), vertex embeddings are updated from all vertices linked by hyperedges in association hypergraph. We compute normalized degree tensor of order :
Then an aggregation scheme extended from Eq. (12) is taken:
where abbreviates , denotes tensor product by dimension (see Eq. (5)), denotes element-wise multiply, means expanding along dimension . is message passing function at order . Different orders of features are fused by weighted summation with .
The other modules of NHGM, including classifier and cross-entropy loss, are identical to NGM. Therefore, NGM can be viewed as a special case of NHGM, where the order is restricted to 2. The sparsity of is exploited for efficient implementation. Note that the edge embedding scheme introduced in Sec. 3.3 is also applicable to NHGM, but we stick to the simple version for cost-effectiveness.
3.5 NMGM: Neural Multi-graph Matching
We further explore learning multi-graph matching, where matching information is fused among multiple graphs by so-called cycle-consistency. Cycle-consistency denotes a condition where the matching result between any two graphs is consistent when passed through any other graphs, i.e. for all , which can be viewed as each graph matched to a -sized reference . The pariwise matching between can be represented with . In this paper, we refer to the line of works involving post-synchronization given initial pairwise matchings [29, 28, 55, 33]. Spectral fusion is adopted in NMGM for its effectiveness and simplicity, and most importantly, its capability in end-to-end training. We assume all graphs are of equal size and consider bijection.
3.5.1 Building joint matching matrix
We first obtain initial two-graph matchings by NGM to build a symmetric joint matching matrix . For each pair and with nodes, is computed by NGM as the soft (i.e. doubly-stochastic) matching matrix. For graphs, can be built from all combinations of pairwise matchings :
where is of size . For the diagonal part of , are all identical matrices. Note are all square matrices. The objective of spectral fusion results in getting a cycle-consistent joint matching matrix , whose innerproduct distance against is minimized:
where it holds for all elements in . Since cycle-consistency holds in , it can be decomposed as matching to the reference:
under ideal condition where are all permutation matrices, each column of is linearly independent and are eigenvectors of with eigenvalue . The permutation constraint in is relaxed for computational feasibility and Eq. (24) results in a generalized Rayleigh problem and solved via spectral fusion, as shown follows.
3.5.2 Differentiable spectral fusion of pairwise matchings
Multi-graph matching information can be fused by eigenvector decomposition (i.e. spectral method) on . Based on generalized Rayleigh problem, given nodes in each graph, we extract the eigenvectors corresponding to the top- eigenvalues of symmetric matrix :
where diagonal matrix contains top- eigenvalues and are the corresponding eigenvectors. It has been shown that the computation of eigenvalues and eigenvectors are differentiable  which makes them fixed components in our end-to-end learning network pipeline. The fusion of the input can be written as follows, which can be seen as a smoothed version minimizing :
where denotes the loss, means element-wise multiplication, and is the -th eigenvalue. According to this backward formulation, if there exist non-distinctive eigenvalues, i.e. , a numerical divided-by-zero error will be caused. This issue usually happens when cycle-consistency (i.e. ) is already met in the input , under such circumstances the fused matching results are nearly identical to the original matchings. To avoid numerical issues, we assign to bypass eigendecomposition if the minimum residual among top- eigenvalues is smaller than tolerance , e.g. . This strategy is found effective to stabilize learning.
Final matching results are obtained by differentiable Sinkhorn network:
where the fused two-graph matching is from and performs regularization for Sinkhron. Cross-entropy loss in Eq. (16) is applied to each for supervised learning, which is similar to the supervised two-graph matching case in the paper.
3.6 Further Discussions
3.6.1 Learning of problem structure
The inherent working pattern of our proposed neural solver actually learns the underlying structure of graph matching problems. With the connection between graph matching problem and association graph, the original mathematical form of Lawler’s QAP transforms into a trackable structure with modern deep learning models. The problem structure is learned by GNN, resulting in a simplified Linear Assignment Problem solved with differentiable Sinkhorn algorithm. In  some combinatorial problems over graphs are considered, where problems simplified by GNN are solved greedily. A similar scheme should generalize to other combinatorial problems, by exploiting the representative power of learning problem structures by deep learning.
3.6.2 Matching-aware embedding
The matching-aware Sinkhorn embedding is proposed to add one-to-one matching constraint at shallower embedding layers. Otherwise, the matching constraint is not considered until the output Sinkhorn layer. Early involvement of matching information has been proven effective for both learning-free (RRWM  vs SM ) and learning based (PCA-GM vs PIA-GM ) methods. We show the importance of Sinkhorn embedding by notable improvement in synthetic tests and ablation study on real-world images, additionally further improvement by introducing multi-head Sinkhorn embedding at the cost of increased computation.
|NGM||QAP||Neural Graph Matching model introduced in Sec. 3.2.|
|NGM+||QAP||enhanced NGN with edge embedding in Sec. 3.3.|
|NHGM||hypergraph matching||Neural Hyper-Graph Matching model introduced in Sec. 3.4.|
|NMGM||multi-graph matching||Neural Multi-Graph Matching model introduced in Sec. 3.5.|
|NGM-V||QAP||NGM by replacing Sinkhorn embedding in Eq. (13) with vanilla embedding in Eq. (12).|
|NGM-MH||QAP||NGM model with multi-head Sinkhorn embedding (8 multi-head channels).|
|NGM-SF||multi-graph matching||learned NGM model followed with learning-free spectral fusion.|
|NGM-GX||QAP||sample X times by Gumbel-Sinkhorn and select the solution with the best objective.|
3.6.3 Gumbel sampling for optimization problems
As a common post-processing step, the gap between doubly stochastic matrix and permutation matrix is fulfilled by Hungarian algorithm  in a deterministic manner. From the probabilistic point of view, represents a distribution on the space of permutation matrices, and our cross-entropy loss minimizes the distance between probability and ground truth distribution . Permutation with the highest probability is selected by Hungarian algorithm.
Such a greedy scheme is empirically successful for matching. However, there might exist better solutions from the distribution, especially when minimizing the objective of combinatorial problems. Therefore, we switch to Gumbel-Sinkhorn  by replacing Eq. (14) with
followed by Sinkhorn algorithm. Note the added is sampled from standard Gumbel distribution with cumulative distribution function (CDF):
which models the distribution of extreme values from another distribution. By Eq. (30) sparser doubly-stochastic matrices can be sampled from the original distribution and repeated sampling provides a batch of samples. These sparse matrices are followed by Hungarian discretization, and the objective scores are computed and the best-performing solution is chosen as the final solution. Exploration and speed can be balanced by the number of Gumbel samples.
Experiments are conducted on a Linux workstation with Nvidia RTX8000 (48GB) GPU and Intel Xeon W-3175X CPU @ 3.10GHz with 128GB RAM.
We test our methods for Lawler’s QAP in two settings: i) synthetic point registration, which takes affinity matrix/tensor as input, and ii) QAPLIB with large-scale real-world QAP instances where the network learns to minimize the objective score. We also test our methods on Koopmans-Beckmann’s QAP in the sense that CNN features of image keypoints are learned and matched on real images. For keypoint matching, matching accuracy is computed as the percentage of correct matchings among all true matchings.
We also perform hypergraph and multiple graph matching tests to evaluate our NHGM and NMGM. Our PyTorch implementation of NGM, NHGM, NMGM and NGM+ involves a three-layer GNN, with graph feature channels . Other hyperparameters are set as . We set batch size=8. All methods are trained with SGD and 0.9 Nesterov momentum . Detailed learning rate configurations can be found in the following part of this section. Tab. III summarizes all our methods and their variants.
4.1 Synthetic Experiment for QAP Learning
4.1.1 Protocol setting
In the synthetic experiment, sets of random points in the 2D plane are matched by comparison with other competitive learning-free graph matching solvers. For each trial, we generate 10 sets of ground truth points whose coordinates are in the plane . Synthetic points are distorted by random scaling from and additive random noise . From each ground truth set, 200 graphs are sampled for training and 100 for testing, resulting in totally 2,000 training samples and 1,000 testing samples in one trial. We assume graph structure is unknown to the GM solver, therefore we construct the reference graph by Delaunay triangulation, and the target graph (may contain outliers) is fully connected. Outliers are also randomly sampled from . By default there are 10 inliers without outlier, with . We construct the same affinity matrix to formulate Lawler’s QAP for all methods.
4.1.2 Peer methods
As existing learning methods [25, 17, 31] cannot handle learning with Lawler’s QAP with a given affinity matrix, we compare popular learning-free methods: 1) SM  considers graph matching as discovering graph cluster by spectral numerical technique; 2) RRWM  adopts a random-walk view with reweighted jump on graph matching; 3) IPFP  iteratively improves a given solution via integer projection; 4) PSM  improves SM through a probabilistic view; 5) GNCCP  is a novel convex-concave path-following algorithm for graph matching and 6) BPF  improves path following techniques by branch switching, reaching state-of-the-art performance on graph matching. Additionally, hyper-graph matching algorithm 7) RRWHM  extending powerful RRWM to hyper-graph scenarios is also compared. Second-order affinity is integrated into third-order tensor for RRWHM following . In this experiment, second-order affinity is modeled by where is edge length . We empirically set for all experiments. The third-order affinity model follows Eq. (20) with .
We re-implement the parallelization-friendly SM, RRWM and RRWHM solvers with GPU. While the other compared methods involve iterative computing and complicated branching, which are not suitable for GPU. Thus the CPU version released by  are compared. NGM-V means vanilla NGM without Sinkhorn embedding (see discussion between Eq. (12) and Eq. (13)) and NGM-MH means multi-head Sinkhorn embedding with NGM, by concatenating additional 8 Sinkhorn channels to in Eq. (13). The multi-graph matching smoothing technique  is adopted for multi-matching baseline NGM-SF, where learned NGM is followed with spectral fusion. The learning rate starts at decays by 10 every 5,000 steps. Multi-graph matching involves 4 graphs by default. The Hungarian algorithm is used as the common discretization step.
4.1.3 Result and discussions
Fig. 6(a-c) shows our proposed NGM performs comparatively with state-of-the-art solvers in matching accuracy, and can even surpass under severe random scaling Fig. 6(b). Further improvement in accuracy is achieved via multi-head Sinkhorn embedding model NGM-MH. NMGM gains steadily from NGM by fusing multi-matching information, and in Fig. 6(d) we show the improvement in NMGM by introducing more graphs, and the necessity of learning joint matching as NMGM steadily outperforms NGM-SF whose weights are from two-graph NGM. With the third-order affinity, NHGM shows state-of-the-art robustness to noise, scaling and outliers. Compared to learning-free hyper-graph matching RRWHM , our NHGM performs comparatively in the precense of outliers as shown in Fig. 6(c). While it performs more robustly to noises and scaling in Fig. 6(a&b). As shown in Fig. 6(h), NGM, NGM-V and NGM-MH are among the fastest graph matching algorithms, and due to efficient GPU parallelization, NHGM is comparatively fast against PSM  and more time-efficient compared to state-of-the-art BPF . In contrast, traditional hypergraph matching algorithms e.g. RRWHM  are usually much slower than second-order graph matching and unscalable to larger size of problems.
We report the QAP objective score solved by two-graph matching methods in Fig. 6(e-g), where interestingly our learning-based solvers reach relatively low scores compared to their corresponding accuracy. As have been discussed in Sec. 1, the QAP objective may be biased under noisy conditions i.e. the optimal solution to QAP may not correspond to true matching. Our solvers learns to ignore the noisy patterns in input affinity matrix. Such a phenomenon becomes more severe in matching real-world images, and the strength of learning-based solvers becomes more significant, as will be shown in Sec. 4.3.1 in details.
The effectiveness of matching-aware Sinkhorn embedding is shown in the accuracy gap between NGM and NGM-V. Further improvement is achieved by multi-head Sinkhorn embedding in NGM-MH, especially with random scaling in Fig. 6(b). As discussed in Sec. 3.6.2, NGM-V without Sinkhorn embedding works in a way similar to SM as the embedding procedure does not consider the assignment constraint, and they also perform closely to each other. On the other hand, by exploiting Sinkhorn embedding, NGM and NGM-MH are conceptually similar to RRWM as all of them try to incorporate the assignment constraint on the fly. Their performances are also very close.
4.2 Learning Real-world QAP Instances
4.2.1 Experiment setting
Our NGM solves the most general Lawler’s QAP, which has a wide range of applications beyond vision. Evaluation on QAPLIB  is performed to show the capability of NGM on learning the QAP objective score, which should be minimized in QAPLIB (in contrast, objective score is maximized in graph matching). The QAPLIB contains 134 real-world QAP instances from 15 categories, e.g. planning a hospital facility layout . The problem size is defined as from Lawler’s QAP in Eq. (1), and ranges from 12 to 256. Results are reported on 133 instances with , as the most challenging tai256c is computationally intractable with our testbed (275GB video memory is required for intermediate computing). We set the loss function as the objective score of QAP, keeping the model architecture unchanged. It turns out a self-supervised learning task where the objective is minimized:
where is from the output Sinkhorn layer of NGM. Given optimal is reached, the learned is a double-stochastically relaxed solution to original QAP. To explore the feasible space, Gumbel-Sinkhorn discussed in Sec. 3.6.3 is adopted during inference.
We train one model for each category, and report the normalized objective score. In consideration of compact and intuitive illustration, the normalized objective score is computed with the upper bound (primal bound) provided by the up-to-date online benchmark11 1 http://anjos.mgi.polymtl.ca/qaplib/inst.html and normalized by the baseline solver spectral matching (SM) :
Detailed per-instance scores and timing statics are available in Tab. IX&X. Both standard NGM model (NGM) and NGM with different Gumbel sampling numbers (NGM-GX, X = number of samples) are validated for their performance. The learning rate is initialized at and decays by 10 every 50,000 steps. Batch size is set to 1 and the regularization of Gumbel Sinkhorn . Our proposed methods are compared fairly with our GPU implementation of RRWM  and SM , and results provided in the paper of Sinkhorn-JA  (runs on Intel Xeon CPU @ 2.40 GHz). For the problem instances not reported in , we assume Sinkhorn-JA fails to reach any feasible solution, as there is no explanation of missing instances in the original paper.
4.2.2 Result and analysis
In Fig. 7(a), our method beats RRWM  and SM  and is comparative and even superior against state-of-the-art Sinkhorn-JA . As there is no learning-based QAP solver, only non-learning methods are compared. The effectiveness of Gumbel sampling discussed in Sec. 3.6.3 is validated in Fig. 7(b), where Gumbel-based NGM-G5k consistently outperforms deterministic NGM, which always picks the permutation with the highest probability by Hungarian algorithm. The performance of Gumbel-based methods gradually degenerates concerning decreased sampling number, proving more exploration over sampling space guarantees higher expectations on better solutions.
Further evaluation is given in Tab. IV and Fig. 8. With learning and Gumbel sampling, our NGM-G5k finds the best solution among 72 out of 133 instances, while state-of-the-art learning-free solver Sinkhorn-JA  outperforms on 46 instances so that learning-based solvers e.g. NGM can fit a wider range of problems compared to traditional solvers. More importantly, our best-performing model NGM-G5k is of a magnitude faster than Sinkhorn-JA, and adjusting the sampling number of Gumbel method enables balancing between solution quality and computational demand. Finally, we show the generalization ability among different instances in Fig. 9, where NGM-G5k is trained and tested on different randomly picked instances. Our model generalizes soundly to unseen instances with different problem sizes. In conclusion, our learning QAP solvers achieve the best accuracy-speed trade-off on QAPLIB and owns generalizability among different problems.
4.2.3 Further discussion
As shown in Tab. IV and Fig. 7(a), learning-free Sinkhorn-JA  and our NGM-G5k performs better on separate categories of QAPLIB, e.g. Sinkhorn-JA performs better on chr and lipa instances while our method is more powerful on bur, esc, nug, scr and tai. Some statistical studies are conducted to discover the relation between model behavior and problem patterns, shedding light for future research on both learning-based and learning-free solvers.
For each problem instance, some statistics are summarized from each instance’s affinity matrix: problem size , mean value , minimum value , maximum value , standard deviation , number of zeros , mean degree (of association graph) , minimum degree , maximum degree and standard deviation of degree . The performance of algorithms is represented by the of the solved objective score against upper bound:
It means the percentage of improvement can be made compared to best-known optima (usually solved at extremely high complexity). Pearson correlation coefficients are computed between each and corresponding statistics, additionally some meaningful combinations of the statistics. Items with are listed in Tab. V, where positive correlation means a negative effect on solver’s performance because a lower is better. The correlation between problem statistics and the difference between two methods are also reported.
|ImgNet-NGM solver (ours)||30.8||42.5||44.3||33.8||39.8||52.2||49.2||53.9||27.5||42.4||29.3||49.1||45.1||45.1||24.0||48.3||49.9||29.9||70.2||73.3||44.0|
|NGM (ours)-RRWM ||41.5||54.7||54.3||50.3||67.9||74.3||70.3||60.6||42.3||59.1||48.1||57.3||59.1||56.2||40.6||69.6||63.1||52.2||76.3||87.8||59.3|
In the first two columns, the higher sparsity (, proportion of zeros in affinity matrix) makes the problem significantly more challenging for both NGM-G5k and Sinkhorn-JA, so as a larger number of zeros . Then the normalized standard deviation shows some weak negative effect for NGM-G5k, but little correlation to Sinkhorn-JA. In the last five columns both methods are affected by higher degrees in association graph, while Sinkhorn-JA seems more sensitive to the normalized standard deviation of degrees . In summary, sparsity is the key challenge for both NGM-G5k (where message passing paths are blocked) and Sinkhorn-JA (where it becomes harder to find tight lower bounds). Furthermore, learning with the association graph can restrain the noisy deviation in degrees. Future improvement may be achieved by designing graph learning models with higher capacity, and designing global communication mechanisms against sparse association graphs.
4.3 Real Image for Joint CNN and QAP Learning
Our matching net allows for raw image input, from which a CNN is learned (see Fig. 4). We evaluate semantic keypoint matching on Pascal VOC dataset with Berkeley annotations22 2 https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/Projects/CS/vision/ shape/poselets/voc2011_keypoints_Feb2012.tgz  and Willow ObjectClass dataset .
4.3.1 Results on Pascal VOC Keypoint dataset
This natural image dataset  consists of 20 instance classes with semantic keypoint labels. We follow the problem setting in , where image pairs with inlier positions are fed into the model. We consider it a challenging dataset because instance may vary from its scale, pose and illumination, and the number of keypoints in each image varies from to . The shallow learning method HARG-SSVM  incorporates a fix-sized reference graph, therefore it is inapplicable to our experiment setting where instances from the same category have different inliers. As our multi-matching mechanism in Sec. 3.5 requires the same number of nodes among graphs, our multi-graph model NMGM is not compared either.
In line with the protocol of the peer methods [25, 17], we filter out poorly annotated images. Then we get 7,020 training samples and 1,682 testing samples. Instances are cropped around their ground truth bounding boxes and resized to before fed into the network. As discussed in Sec. 3.2.1, we adopt VGG16 backbone  and construct the affinity matrix from the same CNN layers: relu4_2 for node features and relu5_1 for edge features. The learning rate starts at and decays by every 10,000 steps. For two input images, one graph is constructed by Delaunay triangulation and the other is fully-connected. is set for third-order affinity of NHGM.
We compare GMN , PCA-GM , by which affinity functions are learned for graph matching. Results in Tab. VI show that with CNN feature and QAP solver learned jointly, our methods surpass competing methods on most categories, especially best performs in terms of mean accuracy. Specifically, NGM surpasses the state-of-the-art deep graph matching method PCA-GM, and it is worth noting that PCA-GM incorporates explicit modeling on higher-order and cross-graph affinities, while only second-order affinity is considered in our QAP formulation (and third-order for hypergraph matching). NHGM further improves by hypergraph affinities and NGM+ best performs among all methods by exploiting edge embeddings.
On the gray methods in Tab. VI, the first entry represents the CNN weights comes from whether pretrained ImageNet classifier (ImgNet)  or learned graph matching model (NGM); the second entry means either learning-free solver RRWM or learning-based solver NGM is adopted for QAP. The necessity of learning on both CNN and QAP solver is validated, and our joint CNN and QAP learning NGM best performs among them. Learning with CNN unsurprisingly mitigates the gap between classification task and matching task, while it is worth noting the learned QAP solver is nearly twice accurate against RRWM with ImageNet CNN (44.0% vs 24.0%), showing the robustness against noisy affinity matrices in real-world image matching. The GPU memory cost and running speed during training are listed: NGM (4761MB, 13.4 pairs/s); NGM+ (5441MB, 13.3 pairs/s); and NHGM (9251MB, 10.1 pairs/s), which is comparable to PCA-GM  (5165MB, 14.4 pairs/s).
Some visualization of real-world matching result among competing methods can be found in Fig. 10. The error patterns of NGM, NHGM and NGM+ are similar but differ from PCA-GM, and our NHGM and NGM+ improves NGM by correcting some existing errors, e.g. in “aeroplane”, “bike” and “motorbike”. In general, our proposed methods are more powerful on rigid categories, e.g. aeroplane, bike, car, motorbike, pottedplant and sofa. The node-wise and edge-wise affinity formulation is helpful in modeling structural information, as shown in visualization of “car”. In contrast, PCA-GM seems more powerful on non-rigid objects such as birds and horses. Our methods, however, fail when the objects vary a lot in their pose and appearance (see “bird” and “bus”). Additionally, as there exists many non-rigid and pose-varying objects, the effect of adding geometric-based higher-order information in NHGM seems not significant. In contrast, NGM+ provides more convincing result, which is probably due to the increased model capacity with edge embedding.
The generalization ability is further validated by confusion matrices for NGM and NGM+ as shown in Fig. 11. Models are trained only with categories on the x-axis and tested with all categories. The color map is determined by the accuracy in current cell normalized by the highest accuracy in its column. As shown in the confusion matrices, both NGM and NGM+ own some generalization ability between visually similar categories, e.g. chair and sofa, cat and dog. Compared to peer deep graph matching methods [17, 25], NGM fits better on the training categories on the diagonal of confusion matrices. In contrast, higher-capacity NGM+ seems less powerful than NGM when trained with single category, which may be caused by overfitting as the size of training set shrinks by around 20 times.
|NGM-SF (ours +)||3||99.4||84.6||91.3||83.1||94.6|
|NGM-SF (ours +)||6||99.5||87.3||90.4||82.3||94.3|
|NGM-SF (ours + )||16||97.2||90.6||93.1||83.9||95.5|
4.3.2 Results on Willow ObjectClass
This natural image dataset covers 5 categories. Each category contains at least 40 images, and all instances in the same class share 10 distinctive image keypoints. We mainly evaluate multi-graph matching learning of NMGM on Willow ObjectClass. Following the protocol in , we directly train our methods on the first 20 images and report testing results on the rest. The learning rate starts at and decays by 10 every 500 steps.
The performance of HARG-SSVM , GMN  and PCA-GM  reported in  are listed and compared. Learning-free spectral fusion multi-matching algorithm  is also integrated and tested as NGM-SF, by post-processing on NGM pairwise matching. Tab. VII shows NGM and NHGM performs comparatively to PCA-GM especially on rigid objects, and NMGM surpasses PCA-GM by learning multi-graph information. Learning joint matching on more graphs can achieve further improvement, as NMGM with 6 graphs outperforms 3 graphs. However, the multi-matching capacity seems saturated as there is little improvement by involving 16 graphs. With no learning on multi-graph matching, little improvement is observed for NGM-SF from 3 graphs to 6 graphs and 16 graphs, except the accuracy on motorbikes. The WILLOW dataset is relatively small for deep graph matching as there are only training images. With higher model capacity, NGM+ suffers overfitting with training loss but it performs poorly on test data.
4.3.3 Ablation study on Pascal VOC Keypoint
Ablation study is performed on our proposed modules in NGM+ and experimental results on Pascal VOC Keypoint dataset are shown in Tab. VIII. The baseline model is built following NGM introduced in Sec. 3.2, however node affinity is ignored in model input, i.e. and Sinkhorn embedding (Sec. 3.6.2) is excluded. The effectiveness of node affinity, Sinkhorn embedding, and NGM+’s edge embedding are evaluated by adding these components successively to the model. Based on the NGM model with node affinity and Sinkhorn embedding (64.1%), we also test other novel edge-embedding schemes including EGNN(C)  and HyperConv , and it is discovered not all edge-embedding models are suitable for learning with the complicated association graph.
We have presented a novel neural graph matching network. There are three main highlights: i) The first graph matching network directly learning Lawler’s QAP which is general with a wide range of applications e.g. on QAPLIB beyond visual matching. This is in contrast to many existing works that can only take separate graphs as input. ii) The first deep network for hypergraph matching which involves third-order edges. iii) The first network for deep learning of multiple graph matching. Extensive experimental results on synthetic and real-world data show the state-of-the-art performance of our approach. In particular, it shows the notable cost-efficiency advantages against learning-free methods. The source code will be made publicly available. The future work will explore the more scalable approach for handling large-scale QAP problem. For graph matching, it indicates larger graph and more graphs for matching.
|Upper||SM ||RRWM ||SK-JA ||NGM||NGM-G5||NGM-G50||NGM-G500||NGM-G5k||SM||RRWM||SK-JA||NGM||NGM||NGM||NGM||NGM|
|Upper||SM ||RRWM ||SK-JA ||NGM||NGM-G5||NGM-G50||NGM-G500||NGM-G5k||SM||RRWM||SK-JA||NGM||NGM||NGM||NGM||NGM|
The work is partially supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018AAA0100704, 2016YFB1001003), NSFC (61972250, U19B2035), STCSM (18DZ1112300), and the Open Project Program of the National Laboratory of Pattern Recognition (NLPR).
-  M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability; A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, 1990.
-  M. Cho, J. Lee, and K. M. Lee, “Reweighted random walks for graph matching,” in ECCV, 2010.
-  S. Gold and A. Rangarajan, “A graduated assignment algorithm for graph matching,” TPAMI, 1996.
-  M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. ACM, 1981.
-  Z. Zhang, “Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces,” IJCV, 1994.
-  E. M. Loiola, N. M. de Abreu, P. O. Boaventura-Netto, P. Hahn, and T. Querido, “A survey for the quadratic assignment problem,” EJOR, 2007.
-  M. Leordeanu and M. Hebert, “A spectral technique for correspondence problems using pairwise constraints,” in ICCV, 2005.
-  J. Yan, M. Cho, H. Zha, X. Yang, and S. Chu, “Multi-graph matching via affinity optimization with graduated consistency regularization,” TPAMI, 2016.
-  C. Edwards, “A branch and bound algorithm for the koopmans-beckmann quadratic assignment problem,” in Combinatorial optimization II. Springer, 1980, pp. 35–52.
-  A. P. Punnen and S. N. Kabadi, “A linear time algorithm for the koopmans–beckmann qap linearization and related problems,” Discrete Optimization, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 200–209, 2013.
-  G. Erdoğan and B. Tansel, “A branch-and-cut algorithm for quadratic assignment problems based on linearizations,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1085–1106, 2007.
-  T. Dokeroglu and A. Cosar, “A novel multistart hyper-heuristic algorithm on the grid for the quadratic assignment problem,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 52, pp. 10–25, 2016.
-  P. Hahn, T. Grant, and N. Hall, “A branch-and-bound algorithm for the quadratic assignment problem based on the hungarian method,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 629 – 640, 1998.
-  T. Wang, H. Ling, C. Lang, and S. Feng, “Graph matching with adaptive and branching path following,” TPAMI, 2017.
-  Y. Kushinsky, H. Maron, N. Dym, and Y. Lipman, “Sinkhorn algorithm for lifted assignment problems,” SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 716–735, 2019.
-  A. Nowak, S. Villar, A. Bandeira, and J. Bruna, “Revised note on learning quadratic assignment with graph neural networks,” in DSW, 2018.
-  R. Wang, J. Yan, and X. Yang, “Learning combinatorial embedding networks for deep graph matching,” in ICCV, 2019.
-  E. L. Lawler, “The quadratic assignment problem,” Management Science, 1963.
-  T. C. Koopmans and M. Beckmann, “Assignment problems and the location of economic activities,” Econometrica, pp. 53–76, 1957.
-  M. Chertok and Y. Keller, “Efficient high order matching,” TPAMI, 2010.
-  O. Duchenne, F. Bach, I. Kweon, and J. Ponce, “A tensor-based algor ithm for high-order graph matching,” TPAMI, 2011.
-  J. Yan, C. Zhang, H. Zha, W. Liu, X. Yang, and S. Chu, “Discrete hyper-graph matching,” in CVPR, 2015.
-  R. Zass and A. Shashua, “Probabilistic graph and hypergraph matching,” in CVPR, 2008.
-  J. Lee, M. Cho, and K. M. Lee, “Hyper-graph matching via reweighted randomwalks,” in CVPR, 2011.
-  A. Zanfir and C. Sminchisescu, “Deep learning of graph matching,” in CVPR, 2018.
-  M. Cho, K. Alahari, and J. Ponce, “Learning graphs to match,” in ICCV, 2013.
-  J. Yan, J. Wang, H. Zha, X. Yang, and S. Chu, “Consistency-driven alternating optimization for multigraph matching: A unified approach,” TIP, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 994–1009, 2015.
-  Y. Chen, L. Guibas, and Q. Huang, “Near-optimal joint object matching via convex relaxation,” in ICML, 2014.
-  D. Pachauri, R. Kondor, and S. Vikas, “Solving the multi-way matching problem by permutation synchronization,” in NIPS, 2013.
-  Q. Wang, X. Zhou, and K. Daniilidis, “Multi-image semantic matching by mining consistent features,” in CVPR, 2018.
-  Z. Zhang and W. Lee, “Deep graphical feature learning for the feature matching problem,” in ICCV, 2019.
-  R. Burkard, S. Karisch, and F. Rendl, “Qaplib – a quadratic assignment problem library,” Journal of Global optimization, 1997.
-  E. Maset, F. Arrigoni, and A. Fusiello, “Practical and efficient multi-view matching,” in ICCV, 2017, pp. 4568–4576.
-  F. Scarselli, M. Gori, A. C. Tsoi, M. Hagenbuchner, and G. Monfardini, “The graph neural network model,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61–80, 2008.
-  R. Burkard, M. DellAmico, and S. Martello, Assignment Problems. SIAM, 2009.
-  J. Yan, C. Li, Y. Li, and G. Cao, “Adaptive discrete hypergraph matching,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2018.
-  Q. Ngoc, A. Gautier, and M. Hein, “A flexible tensor block coordinate ascent scheme for hypergraph matching,” in CVPR, 2015.
-  J. Yan, Y. Tian, H. Zha, X. Yang, Y. Zhang, and S. Chu, “Joint optimization for consistent multiple graph matching,” in ICCV, 2013.
-  J. Yan, Y. Li, W. Liu, H. Zha, X. Yang, and S. Chu, “Graduated consistency-regularized optimization for multi-graph matching,” in ECCV, 2014.
-  T. Yu, J. Yan, W. Liu, and B. Li, “Incremental multi-graph matching via diversity and randomness based graph clustering,” in ECCV, 2018.
-  L. Torresani, V. Kolmogorov, and C. Rother, “Feature correspondence via graph matching: Models and global optimization,” in ECCV, 2008.
-  T. Caetano, J. McAuley, L. Cheng, Q. Le, and A. J. Smola, “Learning graph matching,” TPAMI, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1048–1058, 2009.
-  M. Leordeanu, R. Sukthankar, and M. Hebert, “Unsupervised learning for graph matching,” IJCV, 2012.
-  M. Leordeanu, A. Zanfir, and C. Sminchisescu, “Semi-supervised learning and optimization for hypergraph matching,” in ICCV, 2011.
-  R. Adams and R. Zemel, “Ranking via sinkhorn propagation,” arXiv:1106.1925, 2011.
-  T. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” ICLR, 2017.
-  K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” in ICLR, 2014.
-  F. Zhou and F. Torre, “Factorized graph matching,” IEEE PAMI, 2016.
-  G. Mena, D. Belanger, S. Linderman, and J. Snoek, “Learning latent permutations with gumbel-sinkhorn networks,” ICLR, 2018.
-  R. Santa Cruz, B. Fernando, A. Cherian, and S. Gould, “Visual permutation learning,” TPAMI, 2018.
-  F. Serratosa, A. Solé-Ribalta, and X. Cortés, “Automatic learning of edit costs based on interactive and adaptive graph recognition,” in GbR, 2011.
-  L. Gong and Q. Cheng, “Exploiting edge features for graph neural networks,” in CVPR, 2019.
-  S. Bai, F. Zhang, and P. H. S. Torr, “Hypergraph convolution and hypergraph attention,” 2019.
-  Y. Feng, H. You, Z. Zizhao, R. Ji, and Y. Gao, “Hypergraph neural networks,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 3558–3565, 07 2019.
-  X. Zhou, M. Zhu, and K. Daniilidis, “Multi-image matching via fast alternating minimization,” in ICCV, 2015.
-  C. Ionescu, O. Vantzos, and C. Sminchisescu, “Matrix backpropagation for deep networks with structured layers,” in ICCV, 2015.
-  E. Khalil, H. Dai, Y. Zhang, B. Dilkina, and L. Song, “Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs,” in NIPS, 2017.
-  I. Sutskever, J. Martens, G. Dahl, and G. Hinton, “On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning,” in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 28, ser. ICML’13. JMLR.org, 2013, p. III–1139–III–1147.
-  M. Leordeanu, M. Hebert, and R. Sukthankar, “An integer projected fixed point method for graph matching and map inference,” in NIPS, 2009.
-  A. Egozi, Y. Keller, and H. Guterman, “A probabilistic approach to spectral graph matching,” TPAMI, 2013.
-  Z. Liu, H. Qiao, and L. Xu, “An extended path following algorithm for graph-matching problem,” TPAMI, pp. 1451–1456, 2012.
-  P. M. Hahn and J. Krarup, “A hospital facility layout problem finally solved,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 12, no. 5-6, pp. 487–496, 2001.
-  L. Bourdev and J. Malik, “Poselets: Body part detectors trained using 3d human pose annotations,” in ICCV, 2009.
-  J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in CVPR, 2009.
-  J. Jiang, Y. Wei, Y. Feng, J. Cao, and Y. Gao, “Dynamic hypergraph neural networks,” in IJCAI, 2019, pp. 2635–2641.
Runzhong Wang is currently a PhD Candidate with Department of Computer Science and AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He obtained B.E. in Electrical Engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He serves a reviewer for CVPR 2020. His research interests include machine learning and computer vision. He open-sourced and maintains the deep graph matching solver available at: https://github.com/Thinklab-SJTU/PCA-GM
Junchi Yan (M’10) is currently an Associate Professor with Department of Computer Science and Engineering, and AI Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Before that, he was a Senior Research Staff Member and Principal Scientist with IBM Research – China, where he started his career in April 2011. He obtained the Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He received the ACM China Doctoral Dissertation Nomination Award and China Computer Federation Doctoral Dissertation Award. His research interests include machine learning and computer vision. He serves as an Associate Editor for IEEE ACCESS, Area Chair for ICPR 2020, CVPR 2021 and Senior PC for CIKM 2019.
Xiaokang Yang (M’00-SM’04-F’19) received the B. S. degree from Xiamen University, in 1994, the M. S. degree from Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1997, and the Ph.D. degree from Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2000. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of School of Electronic Information and Electrical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. His research interests include visual signal processing and communication, media analysis and retrieval, and pattern recognition. He serves as an Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, IEEE Signal Processing Letters. He is a Fellow of IEEE.