Tagging tags

Social image sharing websites like Flickr have successfully motivated users around the world to annotate images with tags, which greatly facilitate search and organization of social image content. However, these manually-input tags are far from a comprehensive description of the image content, which limits effectiveness of the tags in content-based image search. In this paper, we propose an automatic scheme called tagging tags to supplement semantic image descriptions by associating a group of property tags with each existing tag. For example, an initial tag "tiger" will be further tagged with "white", "stripes" and "bottom-right" along three tag properties: color, texture and location, respectively. In the proposed scheme, a lazy learning approach is first applied to estimate the corresponding image regions of each initial tag, and then a set of property tags, which involve six exemplary property aspects including location, color, texture, shape, size and dominance, are derived for each tag according to the content of the regions and the entire image. These tag properties enable much more precise image search especially when certain tag properties are included in the query. The results of the empirical evaluation show that tag properties remarkably boost the performance of social image retrieval.

[1]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Okapi at TREC-3 , 1994, TREC.

[2]  Meng Wang,et al.  Active tagging for image indexing , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[3]  Matti Pietikäinen,et al.  Multiresolution Gray-Scale and Rotation Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[4]  Meng Wang,et al.  Social Image Search with Diverse Relevance Ranking , 2010, MMM.

[5]  Matti Pietikäinen,et al.  Gray Scale and Rotation Invariant Texture Classification with Local Binary Patterns , 2000, ECCV.

[6]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Okapi at TREC-4 , 1995, TREC.

[7]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  A Framework for Multiple-Instance Learning , 1997, NIPS.

[8]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Image searching on the Excite Web search engine , 2001, Inf. Process. Manag..

[9]  Amanda Spink,et al.  How are we searching the World Wide Web? A comparison of nine search engine transaction logs , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[10]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[12]  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..

[13]  Daniel P. Huttenlocher,et al.  Efficient Graph-Based Image Segmentation , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[14]  Roelof van Zwol,et al.  Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge , 2008, WWW.

[15]  Isabella Peters,et al.  Folksonomies - Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0 , 2009, Knowledge and Information.