0 views

Original Title: IJVDC

Uploaded by Vijay Kumar

- Bibliographic Coupling
- Dbscan Algorithm
- DATA MINING
- 10.1.1.7.3590
- Multisensor Fusion and Integration Approaches Future Direction 2002
- Entropy Fundamental
- Butter
- 2016 IEEE ns2 Projects| Dynamic Cluster Head Selection Method for Wireless Sensor Network
- face-and-name-matching-in-a-movie-by-grapical-methods-in-dynamic-way
- AE21184188
- Optimizing the Parameters of Wavelets for Pattern Matching Using Ga
- u 24149153
- 10.1.1.87.1722
- jmiv
- Clustering Algorithms for Outlier Detection Performance Analysis
- A Modified Fuzzy ART for Soft Document Clustering
- kmeanseppcsit
- IJCTT-V3I3P112
- p33-zhao
- wavelet based

You are on page 1of 6

Vol.03, Issue.05,

July-2015,

Pages:0683-0688

www.ijvdcs.org

Pixel-Wise Weighting

M. VENU1, P. NAGARAJU2, B. NAGARJUN SINGH3

1

Assoc Prof, Dept of ECE, Sarada Institute Technology and Science, TS, India, E-mail: Venumangapudi1986@yahoo.com.

PG Scholar, Dept of ECE, Sarada Institute Technology and Science, TS, India, E-mail: Nagaraju.parikapalli5@gmail.com.

3

Assoc Prof & HOD, Dept of ECE, Sarada Institute Technology and Science, TS, India, E-mail: nagarjun.singh24@gmail.com.

2

Abstract: In this paper, we propose a de-noising method motivated by our previous analysis of the performance bounds for

image de-noising. Insights from that study are used here to derive a high-performance practical de-noising algorithm. We

propose a patch-based Wiener filter that exploits patch redundancy for image de-noising. Our framework uses both

geometrically and photo metrically similar patches to estimate the different filter parameters. We describe how these parameters

can be accurately estimated directly from the input noisy image. Our de-noising approach, designed for near-optimal

performance (in the mean-squared error sense), has a sound statistical foundation that is analyzed in detail. The performance of

our approach is experimentally verified on a variety of images and noise levels. The results presented here demonstrate that our

proposed method is on par or exceeding the current state of the art, both visually and quantitatively.

Keywords: EPLL, Image Denoising, K-SVD.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the recent years, images and videos have become

integral parts of our lives. Applications now range from

casual documentation of events and visual communication, to

the more serious surveillance and medical fields. This has led

to an ever-increasing demand for accurate and visually

pleasing images. However, images captured by modern

cameras are invariably corrupted by noise. With increasing

pixel resolution, but more or less the same aperture size,

noise suppression has become more relevant. While advances

in optics and hardware try to mitigate such undesirable

effects, software-based de-noising approaches are more

popular as they are usually device independent and widely

applicable. In the last decade, many such methods have been

proposed leading to considerable improvement in de-noising

performance. In, we studied the problem from an estimation

theory perspective to quantify the fundamental limits of denoising. The insights gained from that study are applied to

develop a theoretically sound de-noising method in this

paper. The challenge of any image de-noising algorithm is to

suppress noise while producing sharp images without loss of

finer details. The first modern adaptive method to

successfully address these contradictory goals can be

attributed to where the authors proposed a generalization of

the SUSAN filter, which itself was an extension of the

Yaroslavky filter.

The authors there proposed de-noising by weighted

averaging using pixels similar in intensity within a local

neighborhood. Under strong noise, identifying such similar

pixels can be challenging. In, Takeda et al. proposed a signal

de-noising. This method proved to be much more robust

under strong noise. A patch-based generalization of the

bilateral filter was proposed in where the concept of locality

was extended to the entire image. Although the results there

were encouraging, the true potential for this Non-Local

means (NLM) method was only realized. Another patch

redundancy-based framework, BM3D, adopts a hybrid

approach of grouping similar patches and performing

collaborative filtering in some transform (say, DCT) domain.

It ranks among the best performing methods that define the

current state-of-the-art. A significantly different approach to

de-noising was introduced in K-SVD. Building on the notion

of image patches being sparse-represent able, Elad et al.

proposed a greedy approach for dictionary learning tuned for

de-noising. In, we proposed a hybrid approach (K-LLD) that

bridged such dictionary-based approaches with the

regression-based frameworks. The motivation there was that

similar patches shared similar sub-dictionaries, and such subdictionaries could be used for better image modeling. A

similar observation was exploited in the form of a non-local

sparse model (NLSM)] to improve performance of the KSVD framework.

The dictionary-based methods provide implicit modeling

for natural images. More explicit models have also been used

for de-noising. In, Joshi et al. address the problem of denoising color images by explicitly modeling each pixel as a

combination of two colors, the basis colors themselves being

estimated from a local neighborhood. Denoising is achieved

by enforcing such a model the use of local principal

components as bases for de-noising was proposed by later

filter is an approximation of the optimal filter (in the MSE

refined this idea with a local pixel grouping mechanism such

sense) obtained if one ignores the geometric structure of

that the principal component bases are estimated from only

image patches. Although extensively used for de-noising, the

similar patches within a neighborhood. Another model-based

Wiener filter is usually used in conjunction with some

approach using Markov random fields (MRF) as a Field-oftransform basis. For example, the collaborative Wiener filter

Experts (FoE) was applied to de-noising natural images in,

used in BM3D works in the DCT domain where an estimate

where the parameters for the model are learned from example

of the ground-truth (signal-to-noise ratio) is obtained through

images proposed a method where, in addition to a locally

an initial filtering of the image. Our spatial domain method is

affine signal model, the noise level is also estimated from the

motivated by our analysis of the image de-noising bounds.

input image, leading to a practical de-noising method.

In our framework, graphically illustrated in Fig. 1, we

develop a locally optimal Wiener filter where the parameters

are learned from both geometrically and photometrically

similar patches. For this, the noisy image is first segmented

into regions of similar geometric structure, as shown in Fig.

2. The mean and covariance of the patches within each

cluster are then estimated. Next, for each patch, we identify

photometrically similar patches and compute weights based

on their similarity to the reference patch. These parameters

are then used to perform de-noising patch-wise. To reduce

artifacts, image patches are selected to have some degree of

overlap (shared pixels) with their neighbors. A final

aggregation step is then used to optimally fuse the multiple

estimates for pixels lying on the patch overlaps to form the

de-noised image.

Fig.1.Outline of our proposed patch-based locally optimal

Wiener (PLOW) filtering method.

While most of the above-mentioned approaches work in

the spatial domain, a vast section of image de-noising

literature is devoted to transform domain methods. The main

motivation in such methods is that in the transform (e.g.,

DCT, wavelets, etc.) domain, it is possible to separate image

and noise components, and de-noising can be performed

through shrinkage of the transform coefficients. In, Chang et

al. showed that using a spatially adaptive threshold parameter

along with the over-complete wavelet basis, de-noising

performance can be considerably improved. Another

wavelet-domain method was considered the state-of-the-art,

until recently. There the authors perform de-noising by

modeling the wavelet coefficients of images as mixtures of

Gaussians. Enforcing such a model for noisy images leads to

considerable de-noising. In, an additional global model for

natural images in the form of homogeneous Gaussian

Markov random fields was used to improve performance

considerably. In the proposed a de-noising method aimed at

reducing the estimated mean squared error (MSE) through

wavelet thresholding.

In this paper we propose a new de-noising filter

motivated by our statistical analysis of the performance

bounds for patch-based methods. The contributions of our

work are as follows: We design a patch-based statisticallymotivated redundancy exploiting Wiener filter, where the

parameters of the method are learned from both

geometrically and photometrically similar patches. As will be

clear from our discussions in the next section, our method is

formulated to approach the performance bounds for patchbased de-noising. As a side note, we also show that the NLM

similarity Note how pixels in any particular cluster can

have quite different intensities but similar geometric

structure (edge, corner, flat regions, etc.)

II. PATCH-BASED LOCALLY OPTIMAL WIENER

FILTER (PLOW)

A. Motivation

In we analyzed the performance bounds for the problem

of image de-noising. This was done from an estimation

theory point of view, where we seek to estimate the pixel

intensity zi at each location i from its noisy observation

(1)

Here, i is assumed to be independent and identically

distributed (iid), and M is the total number of pixels in the

image. In our study, we specifically considered patch-based

methods, where the observation model can be posed as

(2)

with yi Rn representing the vectorized

patch

centered at i. Using a Bayesian Cramer-Rao bound analysis,

we showed that the MSE of de-noising (estimating) any

given patch in the image is bounded from below by

Volume.03, IssueNo.05, July-2015, Pages: 0683-0688

A Novel Approach for Patch-Based Image Denoising Based on Optimized Pixel-Wise Weighting

observed noisy image. The procedure is algorithmically

(3)

represented in Algorithm. 1. We first identify geometrically

where

Rn is the estimate of zi, Ji Rnn is the Fisher

similar patches within the noisy image. Once such patches

information matrix (FIM), Cz Rnn is the patch covariance

are identified, we can use these patches to estimate the

matrix, and ||.|| denotes the l2 norm. This covariance matrix

moments (sz and Cz) of the cluster, taking care to account for

captures the complexity of the patches, and is estimated from

noise (steps 8 & 9 of Algorithm. 1). Next, we identify the

all the geometrically similar patches present in the given

photometrically similar patches and calculate the weights wij

image. Fig. 2 illustrates what we mean by geometric

that control the amount of influence that any given patch

similarity, where it can be seen that each cluster groups

exerts on de-noising patches similar to it. These parameters

together patches containing flat regions, edges in the

are then used to de-noise each patch. Since we use

horizontal or vertical directions, and corners of the simulated

overlapping patches, multiple estimates are obtained for

box image. Note that such grouping is done irrespective of

pixels lying in the overlapping regions. These multiple

the actual patch intensities. This is justified for intensityestimates are then optimally aggregated to obtain the final deindependent noise when de-noising performance is dictated

noised image. Below, we describe each step in greater detail.

by complexity of patches, rather than their actual intensities.

Algorithm 1:

The FIM, on the other hand, is influenced by the noise

characteristics. When additive white Gaussian noise (WGN)

is considered, the FIM takes the form

(4)

where I is the nn identity matrix, is the noise standard

deviation, and Ni is the patch redundancy measured as the

number of patches zj within the latent image that are

photometrically similar to a given patch zi. We define such

similarity as

(5)

In, is chosen as a small threshold dependent on the

number of pixels (n) in each patch. The relationship between

similar patches shown in Eq. 5 is based on the underlying

noise-free patches that are not known in practice. In this

expression was extended to define photometric similarity

between the corresponding noisy patches yj as

(6)

The Ni values can then be estimated directly from the

noisy image as the number of yj patches (including yi) that

satisfy the above criterion. Note that the condition for

photometric similarity, as defined here, is stricter than that

for geometric similarity. As such, photometric similarity can

be expected to imply geometrically similar as well. The

bounds expression (3) thus takes into account the complexity

of the image patches present in the image as well as the

redundancy level and the noise variance corrupting the

image. In, the bound was shown to characterize the

performance of the optimal affine-biased de-noising method.

In particular, for WGN, the right-hand side of (3) is the

performance achieved by the optimal linear minimum mean

squared-error (LMMSE) estimator, with Ji and Cz being the

parameters of the estimator. The Wiener filter is, in fact, the

LMMSE estimator that achieves this lower bound. Thus, a

patch-based Wiener filter, where the parameters are

estimated accurately, can lead to near-optimal de-noising.

This forms the basis of our approach. We outline the theory

behind the proposed approach next.

III. PARAMETER ESTIMATION FOR DENOISING

Our proposed de-noising framework, graphically outlined

in Fig. 1, requires us to infer various parameters from the

A. Geometric Clustering

In Sec. II, our proposed filter was derived assuming

geometrically similar patches to be sampled from some

unknown pdf. So far we have assumed such clustering to be

available to us from an oracle. To perform practical

clustering, we need to identify features that capture the

underlying geometric structure of each patch from its noisy

observations. Such features need to be robust to the presence

of noise, as well as to differences in contrast and intensity

among patches exhibiting similar structural characteristics.

An example of such variations among geometrically similar

patches can be seen in Fig.2. Possible choices of features

include contrast adjusted image patches or principal

Volume.03, IssueNo.05, July-2015, Pages: 0683-0688

components in conjunction with pre-determined clustering

We point out that in deriving the bounds (3), and our PLOW

guides. For our purposes, where the image patches can be

filter, we assume that the underlying noise-free patches zi are

considerably noisy, we make use of the Locally Adaptive

independent samples of a random variable z. In practice,

Regression Kernels (LARK) introduced for de-noising and

when working with overlapping patches, this assumption is

subsequently adapted as features for geometric clustering and

not strictly accurate. As with all other patch-based methods,

object detection. We refer the interested reader to where the

since we estimate each patch independently without

designs of the kernels are covered in detail.

explicitly taking into account information from estimates of

other overlapping patches, the estimation framework is in

line with the assumption of independence of underlying

(noise-free) patches. However, in estimating the covariance

matrix (in PLOW and also for the bounds we do not enforce

independence on the patches and the covariance matrix

estimated from overlapping patches is not necessarily

diagonal. Therefore, both in our bounds and our current

work, the correlation among the underlying noise-free

patches are implicitly taken into account.

illustrated on noise-free and noisy Barbara image of

standard deviation 15. Note how clustering in the noisy

image largely corresponds to that from the noise-free

image.

Using the LARK features, we run K-Means to cluster the

noisy image into regions containing geometrically similar

patches. In Fig 3, we illustrate the robustness of clustering

using LARK features, even in the presence of noise of

standard deviation 15. Note that the 5 clusters from the noisy

Barbara image are largely in keeping with those obtained

from the noise-free image. As has been noted in, the number

of clusters chosen affects the de-noising result. In general,

too few clusters can lead to structurally dissimilar patches

being clustered together resulting in incorrect estimation of

the moments. On the other hand, too many clusters lead to

too few patches within each cluster, making the moment

estimation process less robust. Fortunately, the denoised

output is not too sensitive to the choice of the number of

clusters (K). In our experiments we found that using a fixed

value of K=15 yields good results for any given image, with

MSE fairly close to that obtained by tuning the number of

clusters for that particular image.

B. Estimating Cluster Moments

Once the image is segmented into structurally similar

regions, we estimate the moments, namely mean and

covariance, from the noisy member patches of each cluster.

Since the i noise patches are assumed to be zero mean iid,

the mean of the underlying noise-free image can be

approximated by the expectation of the noisy patches within

each cluster as

(7)

where k denotes the k-th cluster with cardinality Mk. Note

that the stability of this estimate is dependent on M k. If too

few patches are present, the mean vector will remain noisy.

noise patches. In that case, our assumption of i patches

being independent is a simplification used mainly for ease of

mathematical derivation. By now this is a standard practice

employed in all patch-based methods (NLM, BM3D, NLSM,

etc.) where information shared among overlapping noisy

patches are not exploited. We hazard a guess that one can

expect some modest improvement in performance if such

information are accounted for in the de-noising process.

Doing so is, however, non-trivial, and may be a good

direction for future research. The parameters estimated from

each cluster of the image can be directly used for de-noising

using however, as mentioned earlier; performance can be

improved by exploiting the self-similarities within an image.

Using photometrically similar patches can then contribute to

better de-noising of the reference patch. We describe this

process next.

IV. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS

In this section, we test the proposed weighting approach

under three representative de-noising algorithms: K-SVD,

EPLL, and BM3D. Due to space limitation, we list the

experimental results done on frequently used standard images

in image de-noising domain here, and list the other

supportive results on our webpage. For the K-SVD

algorithm, we find the de-noising performance can be

improved most significantly under high noise levels using the

practical profile with negative *s. For each noise level, *

is pre-learned from a training set with three standard images.

Taking = 50 as an example, as shown in Fig. 4, we compute

the PSNR gain of using w()for R, and find that * = 0.25 can lead to almost the maximum PSNR gain for any of

the training images. Therefore, we set * =-0.25 under =50

to de-noise all the images. After the training process, we

apply the practical profile to the other 8 standard images

under from 30 to 50, and compare the PSNR with the original

K-SVD algorithm. As shown in Table I, the averaged PSNR

gain increases from about 0.1 dB to 0.2 dB as increases.

For the EPLL algorithm, we apply the proposed weighting

approach for multiple times since it is an iterative algorithm.

Volume.03, IssueNo.05, July-2015, Pages: 0683-0688

A Novel Approach for Patch-Based Image Denoising Based on Optimized Pixel-Wise Weighting

We find both of the two profiles are effective for moderate

noise levels, while the approximation profile performs even

better. Therefore, we choose the approximation profile to

improve the EPLL algorithm. As shown in Table II, for noise

level from = 5 to = 20, the averaged PSNR gain can reach

around 0.1dB. The proposed weighting approach is not

effective for high noise levels probably because: It is

designed to minimize the MSE under only one F&W process

when it is used for multiple times, minimizing the MSE

within each iteration may not be the optimal. As the noise

level increases, the number of iteration also increases, which

enlarges the impact of the misleading objective. For the

BM3D algorithm, we find the PSNR improvement by using

the proposed weighting approach is insignificant, no matter

which profile is used. This is probably because BM3D has

much more estimates for the same pixel compare to K-SVD

and EPLL, and their correlation is also more complicated,

Fig.4. The PSNR gain by using w () under = 50 for Kwhich makes approximating the hidden covariance matrix

SVD. Each curve represents one training image and the

Covi accurately very hard. Therefore, we need to design

circle indicates the position of the optimal that leads to

more sophisticated profiles for BM3D in the future.

the maximum gain for that image.

TABLE I: PSNR Comparison Under K-SVD Under Each

V. CONCLUSION

Noise Level, The Left Column Uses The Original Weight,

In this paper, we have proposed a method of de-noising

The Right Column Uses Weight Of The Practical Profile

motivated from our previous work in analyzing the

performance bounds of patch-based de-noising methods. We

have developed a locally optimal Wiener-filter-based method

and have extended it to take advantage of patch redundancy

to improve the de-noising performance. Our de-noising

approach does not require parameter tuning and is practical,

with the added benefit of a clean statistical motivation and

analytical formulation. We analyzed the framework in depth

to show its relation to nonlocal means and residual filtering

methods. Through experimental validation, we have shown

that our method produces results quite comparable with the

state of the art. While mainly developed for grayscale

images, with trivial modification, our method achieves near

state-of-the-art performance in de-noising color images as

well. The de-noising performance can be expected to

TABLE II: PSNR Comparison under Epll Under Each

improve further by taking into account the correlation across

Noise Level, The Left Column Uses The Original Weight,

color components. Since the method works by learning the

The Right Column Uses Weight Of The Approximation

moments in geometrically similar patches, the inter channel

Profile

color dependences can be implicitly captured in this

framework. In a more practical setting where signaldependent noise is observed, the clustering step needs to take

into account color (or intensity) information as well. The

noise in each cluster can be then assumed to be

homogeneous, and the proposed filter can be independently

applied in each cluster.

VI. REFERENCES

[1] Jianzhou Feng, Li Song, Xiaoming Huo, Xiaokang Yang,

and Wenjun Zhang, An Optimized Pixel-Wise Weighting

Approach for Patch-Based Image Denoising, IEEE Signal

Processing Letters, Vol. 22, No. 1, January 2015.

[2] M. Elad and M. Aharon, Image de-noising via sparse

and redundant representations over learned dictionaries,

Volume.03, IssueNo.05, July-2015, Pages: 0683-0688

IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 37363745,

Dec. 2006.

[3] K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian,

Image de-noising

by sparse 3d transform-domain

collaborative filtering, IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 16,

no. 8, pp. 20802095, Aug. 2007.

[4] J. Mairal, F. Bach, J. Ponce, G. Sapiro, and A. Zisserman,

Non-local sparse models for image restoration, in Proc.

IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision, 2009, pp. 22722279.

[5] K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, and K. Egiazarian,

Bm3d image de-noising with shape-adaptive principal

component analysis, in Proc. Workshop on Signal

Processing with Adaptive Sparse Structured Representations

(SPARS09, 2009), 2009.

[6] G. Yu, G. Sapiro, and S. Mallat, Image modeling and

enhancement via structured sparse model selection, in Proc.

IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process, Sep. 2010, pp. 16411644.

[7] W. Dong, X. Li, L.Zhang, and G. Shi, Sparsity-based

image de-noising via dictionary learning and structural

clustering, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and

Pattern Recognition, Jun. 2011.

[8] D. Zoran and Y. Weiss, From learning models of natural

image patches to whole image restoration, in Proc. IEEE Int.

Conf. Computer Vision, 2011, pp. 479486.

[9] J. Feng, L. Song, X. Huo, X. Yang, and W. Zhang,

Image restoration via efficient Gaussian mixture model

learning, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Process, Sep. 2013.

[10] O. G. Guleryuz, Weighted averaging for de-noising

with over complete dictionaries, IEEE Trans. Image

Process., vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 30203034, 2007.

[11] A. Buades, B. Coll, and J.Morel, A non-local algorithm

for image de-noising, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Computer

Vision and Pattern Recognition, Jun. 2005.

Authors Profile:

M. VENU, Assoc Prof, Dept of ECE,

Sarada Institute Technology and Science,

TS, India, E-mail:

Venumangapudi1986@yahoo.com.

Sarada Institute Technology and Science,

TS, India, E-mail:

Nagaraju.parikapalli5@gmail.com.

Dept of ECE, Sarada Institute Technology

and Science, TS, India, E-mail:

nagarjun.singh24@gmail.com.

Volume.03, IssueNo.05, July-2015, Pages: 0683-0688

- Bibliographic CouplingUploaded byTajammal Hussain
- Dbscan AlgorithmUploaded byhites34
- DATA MININGUploaded bysomeoneLovesBlack
- 10.1.1.7.3590Uploaded byJose Luis Rattia
- Multisensor Fusion and Integration Approaches Future Direction 2002Uploaded bySoleil
- Entropy FundamentalUploaded bySolenir Figueredo
- ButterUploaded byravi maheshwari
- 2016 IEEE ns2 Projects| Dynamic Cluster Head Selection Method for Wireless Sensor NetworkUploaded byLakshmiDhanam
- face-and-name-matching-in-a-movie-by-grapical-methods-in-dynamic-wayUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- AE21184188Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Optimizing the Parameters of Wavelets for Pattern Matching Using GaUploaded byIAEME Publication
- u 24149153Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- 10.1.1.87.1722Uploaded bydoe9oel
- jmivUploaded byĐỗ Luyến
- Clustering Algorithms for Outlier Detection Performance AnalysisUploaded byIntegrated Intelligent Research
- A Modified Fuzzy ART for Soft Document ClusteringUploaded bySaid Al Faraby
- kmeanseppcsitUploaded bychandrashekarbh1997
- IJCTT-V3I3P112Uploaded bysurendiran123
- p33-zhaoUploaded byDi Wang
- wavelet basedUploaded bysafu_117
- K-Means_1Uploaded byiksoft
- Lecture2-DataPreparationUploaded byAshoka Vanjare
- Fault Detection and Diagnosis Ingears Using WaveletUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Wavelet SpieUploaded byawhan
- A.H.OSMANUploaded byRavi Teja
- unsupervised_learning.pptUploaded byJeonghun Lee
- Scikit Learn DocsUploaded byVignesh Googler
- Chapter 11 2 Applications and Trends in Data MiningUploaded bybharathimanian
- IJETTCS-2015-02-25-109Uploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- CS583 Unsupervised LearningUploaded byJrey Kumalah

- askhareesh.com-PLSQL interview questions - part1.pdfUploaded byVijay Kumar
- askhareesh.com-PLSQL interview questions - part1.pdfUploaded byVijay Kumar
- SQL QueriesUploaded byAnkit Gupta
- Frequently used UNIX commands.pdfUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Frequently used UNIX commands.pdfUploaded byVijay Kumar
- intervewUploaded byVijay Kumar
- intervewUploaded byVijay Kumar
- UnixUploaded byivaylo
- UnixUploaded byivaylo
- UnixUploaded byivaylo
- intervewUploaded byVijay Kumar
- pstuafiedt.buf.txtUploaded byVijay Kumar
- paperUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Project QuestionsUploaded byVijay Kumar
- intervewUploaded byVijay Kumar
- 07A3EC03-SWITCHINGTHOERYANDLOGICDESIGNUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Pay ScaleUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Pay ScaleUploaded byVijay Kumar
- The Eyegaze Communication Syste1Uploaded byrahulrv
- Signal Lab ManualUploaded byVijay Kumar
- AbstractsUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Steg No GraphyUploaded byVijay Kumar
- algberaUploaded byVijay Kumar
- Abstr CtUploaded byVijay Kumar
- ....Quant Mock Test_2Uploaded byVijay Kumar
- CH5 Slides 001Uploaded byVijay Kumar
- 1quantUploaded byVijay Kumar
- iris dipUploaded byVijay Kumar

- Leave Policy-4.docUploaded bySaimoon Chowdhury
- 2b_WLANUploaded bynksarathy
- Resume For1Uploaded byumakirananurag
- Rad Sa TomomUploaded bydusanmih86
- MCA SyllabusUploaded byi2bruas
- 75848059-Bricks-Properties.pdfUploaded bynadiah sabana
- Cable in pipeUploaded byÄmsiParker
- Six Things You Need to Know About Executive ProtectionUploaded byGatot Teguh Imanto
- Thermowell Wake Frequency and Stress CalculationUploaded byJawahar Bhattacharya
- Fix It - Fund It - Make It FairUploaded byWJLA-TV
- drug-loading-and-release-from-functionalized-multiwalled-carbon-nanotubes-loaded-with-6mercaptopurine-using-incipient-wetness-impr.pdfUploaded byFlorea Marian
- Super Austenetic Steels P45.pdfUploaded bySyed Mahmud Habibur Rahman
- LNK419Uploaded byleechulmiu
- CSE Guide - StandaloneUploaded byCSE
- IPAMUploaded byShyam Ji Sahu
- Muniz 2010Uploaded byseyedmohamad
- 36980037 Chattel Mortgage DigestUploaded byAnne Janelle Guan
- Gmail - FW_ Itinerary Receipt.pdfUploaded byDeepa Gautam
- Msds Black DynamicUploaded byAndrés García Morales
- Review Question in Data CommunicationUploaded byasdfghjkl26
- Romanians in the NetherlandsUploaded byLeon Tomsa
- Cloud_Potential.pdfUploaded byursimmi
- JM20337 Datasheet v1.1Uploaded byk4k4zim
- 06739367.pdfUploaded byAbrar Ahmad
- azim premjiUploaded byUmesh Shakya
- Mitho Mitho ReportUploaded byRahul Rathi
- Anonymous’ Homemade Air Conditioner _ gmilburnUploaded byClams Most
- PDC Monthly News Commentary - June 2011-EnglishUploaded byminhtunlay
- DIFFIE-HELLMAN KEY EXCHANGE TECHNIQUE AND VIDEO STEGANOGRAPHY BASED ON LSBUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Navy Worker Asbestos Protection 1979Uploaded byBruno Thieme