Social Tag Enrichment via Automatic Abstract Tag Refinement

Collaborative image tagging systems, such as Flickr, are very attractive for supporting keyword-based image retrieval, but some social tags of these collaboratively-tagged social images might be imprecise. Some people may use general or high-level words (i.e., abstract tags) to tag their images for saving time and effort, thus such general or high-level tags are too abstract to describe the visual content of social images precisely. As a result, users may not be able to find what they need when they use the specific keywords for query specification. To tackle this problem of abstract tags, a concept ontology is constructed for detecting the abstract tags from large-scale social images. The co-occurrence contexts of social tags and k-NN algorithm with Gaussian Weight are used to find the most specific tags which can signify out the abstract tags. In addition, all the relevant keywords, which are corresponded with intermediate nodes between the high-level concepts (abstract tags) and object classes (most specific tags) on our concept ontology, are added to enrich the lists of social tags, so that users can have more choices to select various keywords for query specification. We have tested our proposed algorithms on two data sets with different images.

[1]  Dong Liu,et al.  Content-based tag processing for Internet social images , 2010, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[2]  Shuicheng Yan,et al.  Inferring semantic concepts from community-contributed images and noisy tags , 2009, ACM Multimedia.

[3]  Dong Liu,et al.  Image retagging , 2010, ACM Multimedia.

[4]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[5]  B. S. Manjunath,et al.  Texture features and learning similarity , 1996, Proceedings CVPR IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[6]  B. S. Manjunath,et al.  An efficient color representation for image retrieval , 2001, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[7]  Tat-Seng Chua,et al.  NUS-WIDE: a real-world web image database from National University of Singapore , 2009, CIVR '09.

[8]  Jianping Fan,et al.  Harvesting large-scale weakly-tagged image databases from the web , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[9]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[10]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[11]  Delbert Dueck,et al.  Clustering by Passing Messages Between Data Points , 2007, Science.

[12]  John R. Smith,et al.  Large-scale concept ontology for multimedia , 2006, IEEE MultiMedia.

[13]  Qi Tian,et al.  What are the high-level concepts with small semantic gaps? , 2008, 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[14]  Rong Jin,et al.  Multi-label learning with incomplete class assignments , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[15]  Abebe Rorissa,et al.  User-generated descriptions of individual images versus labels of groups of images: A comparison using basic level theory , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  A metric for distributions with applications to image databases , 1998, Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).

[17]  Meng Wang,et al.  Tag Tagging: Towards More Descriptive Keywords of Image Content , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.