1 / 26

Hierarchical Semantic Indexing for Large Scale Image Retrieval

Hierarchical Semantic Indexing for Large Scale Image Retrieval. Jia Deng(Princeton University) Alexander C. Berg(Stony Brook University) Li Fei-Fei (Stanford University). Outline. Introduction Exploiting Hierarchy for Retrieval Efficient Indexing Experiments Conclusion. Introduction.

caitir
Download Presentation

Hierarchical Semantic Indexing for Large Scale Image Retrieval

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. Hierarchical Semantic Indexing for Large Scale Image Retrieval Jia Deng(Princeton University) Alexander C. Berg(Stony Brook University) Li Fei-Fei(Stanford University)

  2. Outline • Introduction • Exploiting Hierarchy for Retrieval • Efficient Indexing • Experiments • Conclusion

  3. Introduction

  4. Introduction • Prior knowledge: • Known semantic labels and a hierarchy relation relating them • Contributions: • Exploiting retrieval with semantic hierarchically • Novel hashing scheme

  5. Work Flow

  6. Low-lv Features to semantic vector • Using method of : Beyond Bags of Features: Spatial Pyramid Matching for Recognizing Natural Scene Categories[24] (SPM)

  7. Result from SPM

  8. Low-lv Features to semantic vector • Classification is done with SVM trained using the one-versus-all rule: • a classifier is learned to separate each class from the rest, and the test image is assigned the label of the classifier with the highest response. • Train linear SVM with semantic attributes by LIBLINEAR • 2-fold cross validation to determine C parameter

  9. Hard Assign / Probability Calibration • Hard Assign : • δi(a) ∈ {0,1} , image a has attribute i or not • Example : image a is a person δperson(a) = 1 • xi=δi • The binary entry here called “hard assign” • Probability Calibration • Fit sigmoid function to SVM classifier to get prob. • xi=Pr(δi(a)=1|a) , prob. of image a has attribute i

  10. Hierarchy • Let Sij = ξ(π(i,j)) , similarity between attributes • π(i,j) is lowest common ancestor of attribute i and j • ξ : {1,..,K}=> R , similarity function (We can assign scores base on height of node) Example: • In experiment, define ξ=1-h(π(i,j))/h* h* is total height of node Equine Donkey Horse

  11. Flat • When attributes are mutually exclusive • No hierarchical relationship between relationships • This is the most existing system developed and evaluated • Equivalent to setting S matrix to identity

  12. Similarity • Similarity between image a and b is ∑ijδi(a)Sijδj(b) , S ∈RKxK,S is matching score between attribute i and j,K is number of attributes (like vector multiplication xTSy, author refer this as bilinear similarity) *Cosine Similarity is

  13. Multinomial Distribution • Suppose • P(蝦) = 0.2 • P(蟹) = 0.35 • P(魚) = 0.45 • P(N蝦= 8, N蟹= 10, N魚= 12) • = (0.2)8(0.35)10(0.45)12

  14. Sampling • For each trial, draw an auxiliary variable X from a uniform (0, 1) distribution. The resulting outcome is the component • This is a sample for the multinomial distribution with n = 1

  15. Hashing • Prior condition: • S is symmetric • S is element-wise non-negative • S is diagonally dominant, i.e.

  16. Hashing • Define a K × (K + 1) matrix Θ : Θij(i,j ≤K) • Each row of Θ sums to one, and Θ without last column is symmetric

  17. Hashing • Consider hash functions of the form h outputs a subset in 2N, • 2N is all subsets of natural numbers. • h(x) = h(y) is defined as “set equality”, that is {a,b,c} = {b,a,c}

  18. Hashing • To construct H(S,ε), let N ≥ 1/ ε, Then h(x; S, ε) is computed as follows: • (1) Sample α ∈ {1, . . . , K} ∼multi(x) • (2) Sample β ∈ {1, . . . , K + 1} ∼ multi(θα) where θαis the αth row of Θ; • (3) If β ≤ K, return {α, β}; • (4) Randomly pick γ from {K+1, . . . , K+N} and return {γ}.

  19. Experiments • Used Datasets: • Caltech 256 • ILSVRC (for precision evaluation) • (half for train, half for test) • 21k dimensional vectors formed by three-level SPM on published SIFT visual words from 1000 word codebook • Train linear SVM with semantic attributes by LIBLINEAR, 2-fold cross validation for C

  20. Precision • Suppose we have retrieved 2 images with similarity 0.8 and 0.7, but ground truth is 5 images with similarity {0.8,0.7,0.6,0.5,0.4} • Ordinary Precision : 2/5 = 0.4 • Proposed Precision : (0.8+0.7)/(0.8+0.7+0.6+0.5+0.4) = 0.5

  21. Precision Definition • Precision measure for a query q • Numerator(分子) : sum of ground truth similarities for most similar k database items • Denominator(分母): sum of ground truth similarities for the best possible k database items

  22. Experiments

  23. Experiments

  24. Experiments

  25. Conclusion • Present an approach that can exploit prior knowledge of a semantic hierarchy for similar image retrieval • Outperform state-of-art similarity learning (OASIS) with more accuracy and less computation • A hashing scheme for bilinear similarity on probability distributions

  26. End Thank You

More Related