Conservation of effort in feature selection for image annotation

This paper describes an evaluation of a number of subsets of features for the purpose of image annotation using a non-parametric density estimation algorithm (described in [1]). By applying some general recommendations from the literature and through evaluating a range of low-level visual feature configurations and subsets, we achieve an improvement in performance, measured by the mean average precision, from 0.2861 to 0.3800. We demonstrate the significant impact that the choice of visual or low-level features can have on an automatic image annotation system. There is often a large set of possible features that may be used and a corresponding large number of variables that can be configured or tuned for each feature in addition to other options for the annotation approach. Judicious and effective selection of features for image annotation is required to achieve the best performance with the least user design effort. We discuss the performance of the chosen feature subsets in comparison with previous results and propose some general recommendations observed from the work so far.

[1]  Jianjiang Lu,et al.  Feature selection based-on genetic algorithm for image annotation , 2008, Knowl. Based Syst..

[2]  Fabio Ciravegna,et al.  Exploring multimedia in a keyword space , 2008, ACM Multimedia.

[3]  中澤 篤志,et al.  IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR2008)報告(会議報告,アンビエント環境知能) , 2008 .

[4]  James Ze Wang,et al.  Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age , 2008, CSUR.

[5]  Michael Grubinger,et al.  Analysis and evaluation of visual information systems performance , 2007 .

[6]  Thierry Pun,et al.  The Truth about Corel - Evaluation in Image Retrieval , 2002, CIVR.

[7]  Hermann Ney,et al.  Features for image retrieval: an experimental comparison , 2008, Information Retrieval.

[8]  R. Manmatha,et al.  Multiple Bernoulli relevance models for image and video annotation , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004..

[9]  Jorma Laaksonen,et al.  Evaluating Performance of Automatic Image Annotation: Example Case by Fusing Global Image Features , 2007, 2007 International Workshop on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing.

[10]  David A. Forsyth,et al.  Object Recognition as Machine Translation: Learning a Lexicon for a Fixed Image Vocabulary , 2002, ECCV.

[11]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  Wrappers for Feature Subset Selection , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Stefan M. Rüger,et al.  Information-theoretic semantic multimedia indexing , 2007, CIVR '07.

[13]  Hans Burkhardt,et al.  Feature Selection for Automatic Image Annotation , 2006, DAGM-Symposium.

[14]  R. Manmatha,et al.  Automatic image annotation and retrieval using cross-media relevance models , 2003, SIGIR.

[15]  Chris H. Q. Ding,et al.  Evolving Feature Selection , 2005, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[16]  Marcel Worring,et al.  Content-Based Image Retrieval at the End of the Early Years , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[17]  Ovidio Salvetti,et al.  Evaluation of Feature Subset Selection, Feature Weighting, and Prototype Selection for Biomedical Applications , 2008, ECCBR.

[18]  Gustavo Carneiro,et al.  Formulating semantic image annotation as a supervised learning problem , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[19]  Stefan M. Rüger,et al.  Automated Image Annotation Using Global Features and Robust Nonparametric Density Estimation , 2005, CIVR.

[20]  Vladimir Pavlovic,et al.  A New Baseline for Image Annotation , 2008, ECCV.