Automatic image annotation using group sparsity
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

Automatic Image Annotation Using Group Sparsity PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Automatic Image Annotation Using Group Sparsity. Shaoting Zhang 1 , Junzhou Huang 1 , Yuchi Huang 1 , Yang Yu 1 , Hongsheng Li 2 , Dimitris Metaxas 1 1 CBIM, Rutgers University, NJ 2 IDEA Lab, Lehigh University, PA. Introductions.

Download Presentation

Automatic Image Annotation Using Group Sparsity

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Automatic image annotation using group sparsity

Automatic Image Annotation Using Group Sparsity

Shaoting Zhang1, Junzhou Huang1,

Yuchi Huang1, Yang Yu1, Hongsheng Li2,

Dimitris Metaxas1

1CBIM, Rutgers University, NJ

2IDEA Lab, Lehigh University, PA


Introductions

Introductions

  • Goal: image annotation is to automatically assign relevant text keywords to any given image, reflecting its content.

  • Previous methods:

    • Topic models [Barnard, et.al., J. Mach. Learn Res.’03; Putthividhya, et.al., CVPR’10]

    • Mixture models [Carneiro, et.al., TPAMI’07; Feng, et.al., CVPR’04]

    • Discriminative models [Grangier, et.al., TPAMI’08; Hertz, et.al., CVPR’04]

    • Nearest neighbor based methods [Makadia, et.al., ECCV’08; Guillaumin, et.al., ICCV’09]


Introductions1

Introductions

  • Limitations:

    • Features are often preselected, yet the properties of different features and feature combinations are not well investigated in the image annotation task.

    • Feature selection is not well investigated in this application.

  • Our method and contributions:

    • Use feature selection to solve annotation problem.

    • Use clustering prior and sparsity prior to guide the selection.


Outline

Outline

  • Regularization based Feature Selection

    • Annotation framework

    • L2 norm regularization

    • L1 norm regularization

    • Group sparsity based regularization

  • Obtain Image Pairs

  • Experiments


Regularization based feature selection

Regularization based Feature Selection

  • Given similar/dissimilar image pair list (P1,P2)

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

……

FP1

FP2

X


Regularization based feature selection1

Regularization based Feature Selection

1

-1

1

1

X

w

Y


Regularization based feature selection2

Regularization based Feature Selection

  • Annotation framework

Weights

Similarity

Testing

input

High

similarity

Training data


Regularization based feature selection3

Regularization based Feature Selection

  • L2 regularization

  • Robust, solvable: (XTX+λI)-1XTY

  • No sparsity

%

w

Histogram of weights


Regularization based feature selection4

Regularization based Feature Selection

  • L1 regularization

  • Convex optimization

  • Basis pursuit, Grafting, Shooting, etc.

  • Sparsity prior

%

w

Histogram of weights


Regularization based feature selection5

Regularization based Feature Selection

RGB

HSV

  • Group sparsity[1]

  • L2 inside the same group, L1 for different groups

  • Benefits: removal of whole feature groups

  • Projected-gradient[2]

=0

≠0

[1] M. Yuan and Y. Lin. Model selection and estimation in regressionwith grouped variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,Series B, 68:49–67, 2006.

[2] E. Berg, M. Schmidt, M. Friedlander, and K. Murphy. Group sparsityvia linear-time projection. In Technical report, TR-2008-09, 2008. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Software/L1CRF/index.html


Outline1

Outline

  • Regularization based Feature Selection

  • Obtain Image Pairs

    • Only rely on keyword similarity

    • Also rely on feedback information

  • Experiments


Obtain image pairs

Obtain Image Pairs

  • Previous method[1] solely relies on keyword similarity, which induces a lot of noise.

Distance histogram of similar pairs

Distance histogram of all pairs

[1] A. Makadia, V. Pavlovic, and S. Kumar. A new baseline for image annotation. In ECCV, pages 316–329, 2008.


Obtain image pairs1

Obtain Image Pairs

  • Inspired by the relevance feedback and the expectation maximization method.

k1 nearest

k2 farthest

(candidates of

dissimilar pairs)

(candidates of

similar pairs)


Outline2

Outline

  • Regularization based Feature Selection

  • Obtain Image Pairs

  • Experiments

    • Experimental settings

    • Evaluation of regularization methods

    • Evaluation of generality

    • Some annotation results


Experimental settings

Experimental Settings

  • Data protocols

    • Corel5K (5k images)

    • IAPR TC12[1] (20k images)

  • Evaluation

    • Average precision

    • Average recall

    • #keywords recalled (N+)

[1] M. Grubinger, P. D. Clough, H. Muller, and T. Deselaers. The iapr tc-12 benchmark - a new evaluation resource for visual information systems. 2006.


Experimental settings1

Experimental Settings

  • Features

    • RGB, HSV, LAB

    • Opponent

    • rghistogram

    • Transformed color distribution

    • Color from Saliency[1]

    • Haar, Gabor[2]

    • SIFT[3], HOG[4]

[1] X. Hou and L. Zhang. Saliency detection: A spectral residual approach. In CVPR, 2007.

[2] A. Makadia, V. Pavlovic, and S. Kumar. A new baseline for image annotation. In ECCV, pages 316–329, 2008.

[3] K. van de Sande, T. Gevers, and C. Snoek. Evaluating color descriptors for object and scene recognition. PAMI, 99(1),2010.

[4] N. Dalal and B. Triggs. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In CVPR, pages 886–893, 2005.


Evaluation of regularization methods

Evaluation of Regularization Methods

Precision

Recall

N+

Corel5K

IIAPR TC12


Evaluation of generality

Evaluation of Generality

  • Weights computed from Corel5K, then applied on IAPR TC12.

N+

Precision

Recall

λ

λ

λ


Some annotation results

Some Annotation Results


Conclusions and future work

Conclusions and Future Work

  • Conclusions

    • Proposed a feature selection framework using both sparsity and clustering priors to annotate images.

    • The sparse solution improves the scalability.

    • Image pairs from relevance feedback perform much better.

  • Future work

    • Different grouping methods.

    • Automatically find groups (dynamic group sparsity).

    • More priors (combine with other methods).

    • Extend this framework to object recognition.


Thanks for listening

Thanks for listening


  • Login