Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Image classification using SURF and bag of LBP features constructed by clustering with fixed centers

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Image classification is the process of assigning a category/class to an image. It has gained much importance in the recent years because of its real-time applications in object tracking, medical imaging, image organizations for large datasets, image and video retrieval. For instance, in image retrieval, query image once classified to the correct category avoids the searching of similar images from the complete dataset. In the state of art approaches, the classification techniques are generally discussed for a single dataset having similar images such as Textures(Rock,trees, texture based images), Describable Texture dataset (clothing pattern), Oxford Dataset(building pattern), etc. Thus a common approach for classification of various types of images is lacking. This paper presents a common approach for the variety of datasets having different types of images. Four different types of dataset, Caltech-101(101 different categories of images eg. airplane, sunflower, bike, etc), ORL Face, Bangla Signature and Hindi Signature are used for testing the proposed classification approach. The proposed approach has three phases. Region of Interest(ROI) using SURF(Speed Up Robust Transform) Points is obtained in the first phase. Extraction of LBP(Local Binary Pattern) Features on ROI is done in the second phase. In the third phase clustering of LBP features are done with a new proposed approach as CFC(Clustering with Fixed Centers) to construct Bag of LBP Features. Through proposed CFC approach each image is annotated/tagged with a fixed Bag of Features to avoid the training of machine, again and again. SVM is used here for classification as it has been experimentally found to give the best performance when compared with Decision Tree, Random Forest, K Nearest Neighbor and Linear Method. The accuracy obtained for Caltech-101, ORL Face, and Signature(Bangla and Hindi) are 79.0%, 75.0%, 81.6% and 87.0% respectively. Thus the average accuracy obtained by the proposed approach is 81.7% in contrast to other state of art approaches having average accuracy as 64.15%, 76.47%, and 77.65%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The dataset is available at http://www.vision.caltech.edu/Image_Datasets/Caltech101/

  2. The dataset is available at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/facedatabase.html

  3. The dataset is available at https://goo.gl/9QfByd

References

  1. Bay H et al (2008) Speeded-up robust features (SURF). Comput Vis Image Underst 110(3):346–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen H et al (2017) Scene image classification using locality-constrained linear coding based on histogram intersection. Multimed Tools Appl 3:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  3. Csurka G et al (2004) Visual categorization with bags of keypoints. In: Workshop on statistical learning in computer vision, ECCV, vol 1, pp 1–22

  4. Cula OG, Dana KJ (2001) Compact representation of bidirectional texture functions. In: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2001. CVPR 2001, vol 1. IEEE

  5. Dang QB et al (2015) Camera-based document image retrieval system using local features-comparing SRIF with LLAH, SIFT, SURF and ORB. In: 2015 13th international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR). IEEE

  6. Deng J et al (2014) Large-scale object classification using label relation graphs. In: European conference on computer vision. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Divya S, Goel S, Agarwal S (2017) Pipelined technique for image retrieval using texture and color. In: 2017 4th international conference on power control & embedded systems (ICPCES). IEEE

  8. Divya S et al (2018) Pattern-based image retrieval using GLCM. Neural Comput & Applic. Special issue: India Intl. Congress on Computational Intelligence, pp 1–14

  9. Ebrahim K, Prasad S, Shehata M (2017) Image matching using SIFT, SURF, BRIEF and ORB: performance comparison for distorted images. arXiv:1710.02726

  10. Felzenszwalb PF, Girshick RB, McAllester D, Ramanan D (2010) Object detection with discriminatively trained partbased models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(9):1627–1645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferraz CT, Gonzaga A (2017) Object classification using a local texture descriptor and a support vector machine. Multimed Tools Appl 76(20):20609–20641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6:610–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirata K et al (2000) Integration of image matching and classification for multimedia navigation. Multimed Tools Appl 11(3):295–309

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lan X, Ma AJ, Yuen PC, Chellappa R (2015) Joint sparse representation and robust feature-level fusion for multi-cue visual tracking. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(12):5826–5841

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Li F-F, Perona P (2005) A bayesian hierarchical model for learning natural scene categories. In: IEEE computer society conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition CVPR 2005. vol 2, IEEE, 2005

  16. Li L et al (2016) Recognizing complex activities by a probabilistic interval-based model. AAAI 30:1266–1272

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lindeberg T (1998) Feature detection with automatic scale selection. IJCV30 2 (2):79–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lowe DG (1999) Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. ICCV 2:1150–1157

    Google Scholar 

  19. Luo J, Gwun O (2009) A comparison of sift, pca-sift and surf. International Journal of Image Processing (IJIP) 3(4):143–152

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ma J et al (2014) A method of protein model classification and retrieval using bag-of-visual-features. In: Computational and mathematical methods in medicine 2014

  21. Mikolajczyk K, Schmid C (2001) Indexing based on scale invariant interest points. ICCV 1:525–531

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nouman A et al (2016) A novel image retrieval based on visual words integration of SIFT and SURF. PloS One 11(6):e0157428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nowak E, Jurie F, Triggs B (2006) Sampling strategies for bag-of-features image classification. Comput Vis ECCV 2006:490–503

    Google Scholar 

  24. O’Hara S, Draper BA (2011) Introduction to the bag of features paradigm for image classification and retrieval. arXiv:1101.3354

  25. Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recog 29(1):51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Oyallon E, Rabin J (2015) An Analysis of the SURF method. Image Process Line 5:176–218

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Porebski A et al (2014) A new benchmark image test suite for evaluating colour texture classification schemes. Multimed Tools Appl 70(1):543–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Perner P, Perner H, Muller B (2002) Mining knowledge for HEp-2 cell image classification. Artif Intell Med 26:161–173

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Pooja K, Saluja S, Agrawal S (2013) A survey on image classification approaches and techniques. Int J Adv Res in Comput Commun Eng 2(1):1005–1009

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schmid C, Mikolajczyk K (2003) A performance evaluation of local descriptors. ICPR 2:257–263

    Google Scholar 

  31. Shivakumar BL, Baboo LDSS (2011) Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using SURF. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues 8:4

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shivajee P, Srivastava D, Agarwal S (2017) An efficient approach for dynamic PCA filter selection in PCANet for image classification. In: 2017 4th IEEE Uttar Pradesh section international conference on electrical, computer and electronics (UPCON). IEEE, pp 139–144

  33. Verma M, Raman B (2015) Center symmetric local binary co-occurrence pattern for texture, face and bio-medical image retrieval. J Vis Commun Image Represent 32:224–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wolpert DH (2002) The supervised learning no-free-lunch theorems. In: Soft computing and industry. Springer, London, pp 25–42

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wu J (2012) Efficient HIK SVM learning for image classification. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(10):4442–4453

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu J et al (2013) A comparative study of SIFT and its variants. Meas Sci Rev 13(3):122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xiangyuan L, Ma AJ, Yuen PC (2014) Multi-cue visual tracking using robust feature-level fusion based on joint sparse representation.. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1194–1201

  38. Xiangyuan L, Zhang S, Yuen PC (2016) Robust joint discriminative feature learning for visual tracking. In: Proceedings of twenty-fifth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IJCAI, pp 3403–3410

  39. Xiangyuan L, Yuen PC, Chellappa R (2017) Robust MIL-based feature template learning for object tracking. In: Proceedings of 31 AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. AAAI, pp 4118–4125

  40. Xiangyuan L et al (2018) Robust collaborative discriminative learning for rgb-infrared tracking. AAAI

  41. Xiangyuan L et al (2018) Learning common and feature-specific patterns: a novel multiple-sparse-representation-based tracker. IEEE Trans Image Process 27(4):2022–2037

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Yang J, Yu K, Gong Y (2009) Linear spatial pyramid matching using sparse coding for image classification. In: Proceedings IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., pp 1794–1801

  43. Ye L et al (2015) Action2activity: recognizing complex activities from sensor data. IJCAI 2015:1617–1623

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ye L et al (2016) From action to activity: sensor-based activity recognition. Neurocomputing 181:108–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ye L et al (2016) Fortune teller: predicting your career path. In Proceedings of 30th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2016. AAAI, pp 201–207

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSED MNNIT Allahabad, Allahabad, India

    Divya Srivastava, Rajitha Bakthula & Suneeta Agarwal

Authors
  1. Divya Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajitha Bakthula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suneeta Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Divya Srivastava.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srivastava, D., Bakthula, R. & Agarwal, S. Image classification using SURF and bag of LBP features constructed by clustering with fixed centers. Multimed Tools Appl 78, 14129–14153 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6793-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6793-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation