Performance evaluation and optimization for content-based image retrieval

Performance evaluation of content-based image retrieval (CBIR) systems is an important but still unsolved problem. The reason for its importance is that only performance evaluation allows for comparison and integration of different CBIR systems. We propose an image retrieval system that splits the retrieval process into two stages. Users are querying the system through image description using a set of local semantic concepts and the size of the image area to be covered by the particular concept. In Stage I of the system, only small patches of the image are analyzed whereas in the second stage the patch information is processed and the relevant images are retrieved. In this two-stage retrieval system, the retrieval performance, that is precision and recall, can be modeled statistically. Based on the model, we develop closed-form expressions that allow for the prediction as well as the optimization of the retrieval performance. As shown through experiments, the retrieval precision can be increased by up to 55% and the retrieval recall by up to 25% depending on the user query.

[1]  Joshua R. Smith,et al.  Image retrieval evaluation , 1998, Proceedings. IEEE Workshop on Content-Based Access of Image and Video Libraries (Cat. No.98EX173).

[2]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[3]  Hyeonjoon Moon,et al.  The FERET Evaluation Methodology for Face-Recognition Algorithms , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[4]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  On Performance Characterization and Optimization for Image Retrieval , 2002, ECCV.

[5]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Query-Dependent Performance Optimization for Vocabulary-Supported Image Retrieval , 2002, DAGM-Symposium.

[6]  Thomas S. Huang,et al.  Relevance feedback: a power tool for interactive content-based image retrieval , 1998, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol..

[7]  Ming Ye,et al.  Algorithm performance contest , 2000, Proceedings 15th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. ICPR-2000.

[8]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  A Semantic Typicality Measure for Natural Scene Categorization , 2004, DAGM-Symposium.

[9]  Tom Minka,et al.  Vision texture for annotation , 1995, Multimedia Systems.

[10]  Ingemar J. Cox,et al.  The Bayesian image retrieval system, PicHunter: theory, implementation, and psychophysical experiments , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[11]  James Kelly,et al.  AutoClass: A Bayesian Classification System , 1993, ML.

[12]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Texture classification and segmentation using multiresolution simultaneous autoregressive models , 1992, Pattern Recognit..

[13]  P ? ? ? ? ? ? ? % ? ? ? ? , 1991 .

[14]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Computer vision theory: The lack thereof , 1986, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[15]  Kevin W. Bowyer,et al.  Empirical evaluation techniques in computer vision , 1998 .

[16]  Thierry Pun,et al.  Performance evaluation in content-based image retrieval: overview and proposals , 2001, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

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

[18]  N. A. Thacker,et al.  Performance Characterisation in Computer Vision: The Role of Statistics in Testing and Design , 2003 .

[19]  Y. J. Zhang,et al.  A survey on evaluation methods for image segmentation , 1996, Pattern Recognit..