2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33765-9_49
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Labeling Images by Integrating Sparse Multiple Distance Learning and Semantic Context Modeling

Abstract: Abstract. Recent progress on Automatic Image Annotation (AIA) is achieved by either exploiting low level visual features or high level semantic context. Integrating these two paradigms to further leverage the performance of AIA is promising. However, very few previous works have studied this issue in a unified framework. In this paper, we propose a unified model based on Conditional Random Fields (CRF), which establishes tight interaction between visual features and semantic context. In particular, Kernelized … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…we compare our M KML algorithm to linear DML algorithms and kernel extension, i.e., Discriminative component analysis(DCA) and Kernel DCA(KDCA) [20], local fisher discriminant analysis(LFDA) and Kernel LFDA(KLFDA) [11], and several state-of-the-art image annotation models including: (1) Two versions of the TagProp method [8], using either rank based weights (TP-R) or distance-based weights (TP-D), (2) Tag Relevance (tRel) [9] based on the idea of neighbor voting, (3) 1-vs-1 SVM classification, using either linear (SVML) or RBF kernel (SVMK) classifiers. (4) RKML methods and their two versions extensions of RKML [22], which are RKMLH and RLML methods.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…we compare our M KML algorithm to linear DML algorithms and kernel extension, i.e., Discriminative component analysis(DCA) and Kernel DCA(KDCA) [20], local fisher discriminant analysis(LFDA) and Kernel LFDA(KLFDA) [11], and several state-of-the-art image annotation models including: (1) Two versions of the TagProp method [8], using either rank based weights (TP-R) or distance-based weights (TP-D), (2) Tag Relevance (tRel) [9] based on the idea of neighbor voting, (3) 1-vs-1 SVM classification, using either linear (SVML) or RBF kernel (SVMK) classifiers. (4) RKML methods and their two versions extensions of RKML [22], which are RKMLH and RLML methods.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the big gap between image features and image semantics is always present [12], an appropriate distance metrics is very importance, and even determine the final performance. The early studies mainly focus on linear distance metrics, and they have been developed to learn a linear DML from pairwise constraints [13], and some of them are designed exclusively for image annotation [11], [14], [15]. However, images always have a nonlinear relationship and multi-modal patterns [16]- [19].…”
Section: Introductionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To address the problem of large-scale annotation of Web images, Visual synset applies multi-class one-vs-all linear Support Vector Machine models, which are learned from the automatically generated visual synsets of a large collection of Web images [27]. In [13], Ji et al exploit both low-level visual features and high-level semantic context into a unified conditional random fields (CRF) model for solving the image tagging problem, which achieves significant improvement and more robustness results on two benchmarks. Although the model-based approach can achieve good performance, it may suffer from a limited vocabulary and less scalability on largescale datasets.…”
Section: Image Taggingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A sparse coding scheme is proposed in [11] to facilitate label propagation. Conditional Random Field model is adopted in [17] to capture the spatial correlation between annotations of neighboring images.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among various approaches developed for automatic image annotation, search based approaches have been proved to be quite effective, particularly for large image datasets with many keywords [12,17,21,29]. Their key idea is to annotate a test image I with the common tags shared by the subset of training images that are visually similar to I.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%