320 likes | 416 Views
sky. building. Large-Scale Nonparametric Image Parsing. car. road. Joseph Tighe and Svetlana Lazebnik University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. CVPR 2011. Workshop on Large-Scale Learning for Vision. Small-scale image parsing Tens of classes, hundreds of images.
E N D
sky building Large-Scale Nonparametric Image Parsing car road Joseph Tighe and Svetlana Lazebnik University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CVPR 2011 Workshop on Large-Scale Learning for Vision
Small-scale image parsingTens of classes, hundreds of images Figure from Shotton et al. (2009) He et al. (2004), Hoiem et al. (2005), Shotton et al. (2006, 2008, 2009), Verbeek and Triggs (2007), Rabinovich et al. (2007), Galleguillos et al. (2008), Gould et al. (2009), etc.
Large-scale image parsingHundreds of classes, tens of thousands of images Non-uniform class frequencies
Large-scale image parsingHundreds of classes, tens of thousands of images Non-uniform class frequencies Evolving training set http://labelme.csail.mit.edu/
Challenges • What’s considered important for small-scale image parsing? • Combination of local cues • Multiple segmentations, multiple scales • Context • Graphical model inference (CRFs, etc.) • How much of this is feasible for large-scale, dynamic datasets?
Our first attempt: A nonparametric approach • Lazy learning: do (almost) nothing at training time • At test time: • Find a retrieval set of similar images for each query image • Transfer labels from the retrieval set by matching segmentation regions (superpixels) • Related work: SIFT Flow (Liu et al. 2008, 2009)
Step 1: Scene-level matching Gist (Oliva & Torralba, 2001) Spatial Pyramid(Lazebnik et al., 2006) Color Histogram Retrieval set: Source of possible labels Source of region-level matches
Step 2: Region-level matching Superpixel features Superpixels(Felzenszwalb & Huttenlocher, 2004)
Step 2: Region-level matching Road Tree Pixel Area (size) Sky Building Snow
Step 2: Region-level matching Road Absolute mask(location) Sidewalk
Step 2: Region-level matching Road Texture Snow Sky Sidewalk
Step 2: Region-level matching Road Sidewalk Color histogram Building
Region-level likelihoods • Nonparametric estimate of class-conditional densities for each class c and feature type k: • Per-feature likelihoods combined via Naïve Bayes: Features of class c within some radius of ri Total features of class c in the dataset kth feature type of ith region
Region-level likelihoods Building Car Crosswalk Road Window Sky
Step 3: Global image labeling • Compute a global image labeling by optimizing a Markov random field (MRF) energy function: Likelihood score for region ri and label ci Smoothing penalty Co-occurrence penalty Neighboring regions Regions Vector of region labels
Step 3: Global image labeling • Compute a global image labeling by optimizing a Markov random field (MRF) energy function: Likelihood score for region ri and label ci Smoothing penalty Co-occurrence penalty Neighboring regions Regions Vector of region labels Maximum likelihood labeling Edge penalties Final labeling Final edge penalties sky sky building building window car car road road
Step 3: Global image labeling • Compute a global image labeling by optimizing a Markov random field (MRF) energy function: Likelihood score for region ri and label ci Smoothing penalty Co-occurrence penalty Neighboring regions Regions Vector of region labels Maximum likelihood labeling Edge penalties Original image MRF labeling sky sky road tree sea sea road sand sand
Joint geometric/semantic labeling • Semantic labels: road, grass, building, car, etc. • Geometric labels: sky, vertical, horizontal • Gould et al. (ICCV 2009) Original image Semantic labeling Geometric labeling sky sky tree vertical car horizontal road
Joint geometric/semantic labeling • Objective function for joint labeling: Geometric labels Semantic labels Cost of geometric labeling Cost of semantic labeling Geometric/semantic consistency penalty Original image Semantic labeling Geometric labeling sky sky tree vertical car horizontal road
Understanding scenes on many levels To appear at ICCV 2011
Overall performance *SIFT Flow: 74.75
Results on LM+SUN dataset Image Ground truth Initial semantic Final semantic Final geometric 55.3 92.2 93.6
Results on LM+SUN dataset Image Ground truth Initial semantic Final semantic Final geometric 58.9 57.3 93.0
Results on LM+SUN dataset Image Ground truth Initial semantic Final semantic Final geometric 0.0 11.6 60.3 93.0
Results on LM+SUN dataset Image Ground truth Initial semantic Final semantic Final geometric 75.8 87.7 65.6
Running times Barcelona dataset SIFT Flow
Conclusions • Lessons learned • Can go pretty far with very little learning • Good local features, global (scene) context more important than neighborhood context • What’s missing • A rich representation forscene understanding • The long tail • Scalable, dynamiclearning sky building car road