On Performance Characterization and Optimization for Image Retrieval

In content-based image retrieval (CBIR) performance characterization is easily being neglected. A major difficulty lies in the fact that ground truth and the definition of benchmarks are extremely user and application dependent. This paper proposes a two-stage CBIR framework which allows to predict the behavior of the retrieval system as well as to optimize its performance. In particular, it is possible to maximize precision, recall, or jointly precision and recall. The framework is based on the detection of high-level concepts in images. These concepts correspond to vocabulary users can query the database with. Performance optimization is carried out on the basis of the user query, the performance of the concept detectors, and an estimated distribution of the concepts in the database. The optimization is transparent to the user and leads to a set of internal parameters that optimize the succeeding retrieval. Depending only on the query and the desired concept, precision and recall of the retrieval can be increased by up to 40%. The paper discusses the theoretical and empirical results of the optimization as well as its dependency on the estimate of the concept distribution.

[1]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Vocabulary-Supported Image Retrieval , 2000, DELOS Workshops / Conferences.

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

[3]  Tomaso A. Poggio,et al.  A general framework for object detection , 1998, Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).

[4]  Patrick Courtney.  Evaluation and Validation of Computer Vision Algorithms , 1998, Theoretical Foundations of Computer Vision.

[5]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[6]  Hyeonjoon Moon,et al.  The FERET evaluation methodology for face-recognition algorithms , 1997, Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[7]  Bernt Schiele,et al.  Performance prediction for vocabulary-supported image retrieval , 2001, Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.01CH37205).

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

[9]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Probabilistic Visual Learning for Object Representation , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

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

[11]  Shigeo Abe DrEng.  Pattern Classification , 2001, Springer London.

[12]  James Ze Wang,et al.  SIMPLIcity: Semantics-Sensitive Integrated Matching for Picture LIbraries , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

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

[14]  Shih-Fu Chang,et al.  Image Retrieval: Current Techniques, Promising Directions, and Open Issues , 1999, J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent..

[15]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  The Eighth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-8) , 2000 .

[16]  W. F. orstner.  Pros and Cons Against Performance Characterization of Vision Algorithms , 1996 .

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

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