COMPARISON OF IMAGE CLASSIFICATION TECHNIQUES USING CALTECH 101 DATASET

This paper presents the technique for the classification of single object images. First, this paper aims to introduce the efficient technique in order to classify single object image. Second, each single methods uses in order to propose the techniques were elaborated in this paper. It start from image segmentation, object identification, feature extraction, feature selection and classification. Finally, the best classifier that can provide the best results were identified. The efficiency of the proposed method is define by comparing the result of classification using two different datasets from author’s previous paper. The obligation for development of image classification has been improved due to remarkable growth in volume of images, as well as the widespread application in multiple fields. This paper explores the process of classifying images by the categories of object in the case of a large number of object categories. The use of a set of features to describe 2D shapes in low-level images has been proposed. The proposed technique aims a short and simple way to extract shape description before classifying the image. Using the Caltech 101 object recognition benchmark, classification was tested using four different classifiers; BayesNet, NaiveBayesUpdateable, Random Tree and IBk. Estimated accuracy was in the range from 58% to 99% (using 10-cross validation). By comparing with Amazon data, it is proved that the proposed model is more suitable for single object image. Amazon images give higher accuracy with the range from 80% to 99.48%.

[1]  P.K Sahoo,et al.  A survey of thresholding techniques , 1988, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[2]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Ron S. Kenett,et al.  Encyclopedia of statistics in quality and reliability , 2007 .

[4]  Md. Monirul Islam,et al.  A review on automatic image annotation techniques , 2012, Pattern Recognit..

[5]  V. Murali Bhaskaran,et al.  Improving the Performance of Data Mining Algorithms in Health Care Data , 2011 .

[6]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Shape matching and object recognition using low distortion correspondences , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[7]  Pedro Miguel Moreira,et al.  Shape based image retrieval and classification , 2010, 5th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies.

[8]  Chengjun Liu,et al.  New image descriptors based on color, texture, shape, and wavelets for object and scene image classification , 2013, Neurocomputing.

[9]  Astha Baxi,et al.  A Review on Otsu Image Segmentation Algorithm , 2013 .

[10]  N. Otsu A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[11]  Fatma Susilawati Mohamad,et al.  The Contribution of Feature Selection and Morphological Operation for On-Line Business System's Image Classification , 2015, MUE 2015.

[12]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Bayesian Networks , 1998, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[13]  Ali Abdo,et al.  Evaluation of Canny and Otsu Image Segmentation , 2012 .

[14]  Mengxing Huang,et al.  An Improved Image Segmentation Algorithm Based on the Otsu Method , 2012, 2012 13th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing.

[15]  Qihao Weng,et al.  A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance , 2007 .

[16]  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.