1 / 1

Dataset: 3581 images from Photo [Datta et al., 2006] Aesthetics scoring scale 1-7

Apply N. Bayes Pick K images from top where H = +1, and. Apply N. Bayes Pick K images from top where H = -1, and. Learning the Consensus on Visual Quality for Next-Generation Image Management Ritendra Datta, Jia Li, and James Z. Wang

peri
Download Presentation

Dataset: 3581 images from Photo [Datta et al., 2006] Aesthetics scoring scale 1-7

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Apply N. Bayes Pick K images from top where H = +1, and Apply N. Bayes Pick K images from top where H = -1, and Learning the Consensus on Visual Quality for Next-Generation Image Management Ritendra Datta, Jia Li, and James Z. Wang The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA PROBLEM SPECIFICATION METHODOLOGY EXPERIMENTS • Dataset: 3581 images from Photo.net [Datta et al., 2006] • Aesthetics scoring scale 1-7 • We have averages scores and count nkof ratings for Ik • Characteristics of Dataset: • Results: • Formally, define consensus on quality for image Ik as • where qk,i is the ith user rating received • Actually, estimated over a finite set of ratings  • Useful for the average user – Our target audience • May not be useful for the outlier user – Personalized recommendations? • Let us have D visual features that correlate with quality • In the literature – [Datta et al., ECCV 2006] – 56 features + higher-order terms • Brightness, Contrast, DOF, Saturation, Region Composition, etc. • (A) Learn a Weighted Least Squares Linear Regressor: • Directly learn a mapping from features to consensus scores • Weights related to trust associated with score: • Greater the no. of samples n, better estimate is of • Formulation: • Convenient parameter estimation: • Here, and denotes pseudoinverse. • Inferencing based on • (B) Learn a Naïve Bayes Classifier: • Motivation: Non-overlapping performance advantages over regressor • By some threshold HIGH we can map  (binary) • Parameters to estimate: Pr(H = h) and Pr( Xk(d) | H = h) • Former estimated by counting, latter fitted with single-component Gaussian p.d.f. • Inferencing based on • Photo-sharing is getting popular • Dedicated Websites: • Flickr, Photobucket, Photo.net, etc. • Bundled with social networking sites: • Facebook, Orkut, MySpace, etc. • Personal Photo Collections are growing • Cheap digital cameras and storage • Organizing them can be time-consuming • Many methods for topic-based management • Image classification • Content-based image search/annotation • Collaborative tagging architectures • How about quality-based*photo management? • Can we distinguish these photos • (Rated over 6 out of 7 on average by many Photo.net users) • from these ones? • (Rated below 4 out of 7 on average by many Photo.net users) • Specifically, for a photo collection, can we • Select high-quality pictures? • As representatives, for front-page display • Enhanced quality-aware image search/browsing • Eliminate low-quality ones? • Cleaning up, limited space/slots (Orkut - 12 photos) • * What is Quality Here? • A measure of visual appeal (referred to as aesthetics • by our data-source Photo.net), as decided by consensus • over a population. On an average, picks 20 high-quality (HIGH=5.5) photos with ~82% precision, while SVM-based method gets less than 50% On an average, eliminates 50 low-quality (LOW=4.5) photos with ~65% precision, while wrongly eliminating only ~9% high-quality photos. The SVM figures are 43% and 28% resp. Selection/Elimination Sort Descending HIGH QUALITY CONCLUDING REMARKS Apply Regressor: Predict N scores • Encouraging results, moving toward real-world applicability. • Proposed features in [Datta et al. 2006] show more promise. • Weighting training data by confidence improves performance. Sort Ascending Collection of N images LOW QUALITY

More Related