Automated Flower Classification over a Large Number of Classes

We investigate to what extent combinations of features can improve classification performance on a large dataset of similar classes. To this end we introduce a 103 class flower dataset. We compute four different features for the flowers, each describing different aspects, namely the local shape/texture, the shape of the boundary, the overall spatial distribution of petals, and the colour. We combine the features using a multiple kernel framework with a SVM classifier. The weights for each class are learnt using the method of Varma and Ray, which has achieved state of the art performance on other large dataset, such as Caltech 101/256. Our dataset has a similar challenge in the number of classes, but with the added difficulty of large between class similarity and small within class similarity. Results show that learning the optimum kernel combination of multiple features vastly improves the performance, from 55.1% for the best single feature to 72.8% for the combination of all features.

[1]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Learning with kernels , 1998 .

[2]  Edward M. Riseman,et al.  Indexing Flower Patent Images Using Domain Knowledge , 1999, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[3]  Marie-Pierre Jolly,et al.  Interactive Graph Cuts for Optimal Boundary and Region Segmentation of Objects in N-D Images , 2001, ICCV.

[4]  Y.Y. Boykov,et al.  Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in N-D images , 2001, Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. ICCV 2001.

[5]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Multiple kernel learning, conic duality, and the SMO algorithm , 2004, ICML.

[6]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .

[7]  Takeshi Saitoh,et al.  Automatic recognition of blooming flowers , 2004, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004..

[8]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Learning Generative Visual Models from Few Training Examples: An Incremental Bayesian Approach Tested on 101 Object Categories , 2004, 2004 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop.

[9]  Bill Triggs,et al.  Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[10]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Beyond Bags of Features: Spatial Pyramid Matching for Recognizing Natural Scene Categories , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[11]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  SVM-KNN: Discriminative Nearest Neighbor Classification for Visual Category Recognition , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[12]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Local Features and Kernels for Classification of Texture and Object Categories: A Comprehensive Study , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[13]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  A Visual Vocabulary for Flower Classification , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[14]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Delving into the Whorl of Flower Segmentation , 2007, BMVC.

[15]  Manik Varma,et al.  Learning The Discriminative Power-Invariance Trade-Off , 2007, 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[16]  G. Griffin,et al.  Caltech-256 Object Category Dataset , 2007 .

[17]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Representing shape with a spatial pyramid kernel , 2007, CIVR '07.

[18]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Image Classification using Random Forests and Ferns , 2007, 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[19]  Alexei A. Efros,et al.  Recognition by association via learning per-exemplar distances , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.