Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Active learning of user’s preferences estimation towards a personalized 3D navigation of geo-referenced scenes

  • Published:
GeoInformatica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current technological evolutions enter 3D geo-informatics into their digital age, enabling new potential applications in the field of virtual tourism, pleasure, entertainment and cultural heritage. It is argued that 3D information provides the natural way of navigation. However, personalization is a key aspect in a navigation system, since a route that incorporates user preferences is ultimately more suitable than the route with the shortest distance or travel time. Usually, user’s preferences are expressed as a set of weights that regulate the degree of importance of the scene metadata on the route selection process. These weights, however, are defined by the users, setting the complexity to the user’s side, which makes personalization an arduous task. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach in which metadata weights are estimated implicitly and transparently to the users, transferring the complexity to the system side. This is achieved by introducing a relevance feedback on-line learning strategy which automatically adjusts metadata weights by exploiting information fed back to the system about the relevance of user’s preferences judgments given in a form of pair-wise comparisons. Practically implementing a relevance feedback algorithm presents the limitation that several pair-wise comparisons (samples) are required to converge to a set of reliable metadata weights. For this reason, we propose in this paper a weight rectification strategy that improves weight estimation by exploiting metadata interrelations defined through an ontology. In the sequel, a genetic optimization algorithm is incorporated to select the most user preferred routes based on a multi-criteria minimization approach. To increase the degree of personalization in 3D navigation, we have also introduced an efficient algorithm for estimating 3D trajectories around objects of interest by merging best selected 2D projected views that contain faces which are mostly preferred by the users. We have conducted simulations and comparisons with other approaches either in the field of on-line learning or route selection using objective metrics in terms of precision and recall values. The results indicate that our system yields on average a 13.76 % improvement of precision as regards the learning strategy and an improvement of 8.75 % regarding route selection. In addition, we conclude that the ontology driven weight rectification strategy can reduce the number of samples (pair-wise comparisons) required of 76 % to achieve the same precision. Qualitative comparisons have been also performed using a use case route scenario in the city of Athens.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Neoclassical architecture is an architectural movement began in the mid-18th century as a style principally derived from the architecture of Classical Greece and Rome combined with recent architectural movements of 18th century

References

  1. Applegate DL, Bixby RM, Chvátal V, Cook WJ (2006) The traveling salesman problem: a computational study, princpton series in applied mathematics

  2. Allaire F, Tabouchi M, Labonte G, Fusina G (2008) FPGA implementation of genetic algorithm for UAV real-time path planning. J Intell Robot Sys 54(1–3):495–510

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bardis G (2009) “Intelligent personalization in a scene modeling environment,” In: Miaoulis G., Plemenos D. (Eds), Studies in computational intelligence, Vol.181, pp. 89–119, ISBN 978-3-540-92901-7, Springer

  4. Bardis G, Miaoulis G, Plemenos D () “User profiling from imbalanced data in a declarative scene modeling environment. In: Plemenos D, Miaoulis G (Eds.), Artificial intelligence techniques for computer graphics,” Series: Studies in computational intelligence, Vol. 159, pp. 123–140, ISBN 978-3-540-85127-1, Springer, 2008

  5. Bonnefoi PF, Plemenos D (2002) “Constraint satisfaction techniques for declarative scene modeling by hierarchical decomposition”, 31Α′2000 international conference

  6. Botea A, Müller M, Schaeffer J (2004) Near optimal hierarchical path-finding. J Game Dev 1:7–28

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chalvantzis C, Virvou M (2008) Fuzzy logic decisions and web services for a personalized geographical information system. Stud Comput Intell 142:439–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chatzis S, Doulamis A, Varvarigou T (2007) “A content-based image retrieval scheme allowing for robust automatic personalization,” ACM international conference on image and video retrieval, pp. 1–6

  9. Cohen W, Schapire R, Singer Y (1999) Learning to order things. J Artif Intell Res 10:243–270

    Google Scholar 

  10. Colorni A, Dorigo et M, Maniezzo V (1991) Distributed optimization by Ant Colonies, actes de la première conférence européenne sur la vie artificielle. Elsevier Publishing, Paris France, pp 134–142

    Google Scholar 

  11. Demyen D, Buro M (2006) “Efficient triangulation-based pathfinding”, 18th international conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (AAAI’06), pp. 942–947, ISBN 978-1-57735-281-5

  12. Dijkstra EW (1959) “A note on two problems in connexion with graph”. Numer Math 1(1):269–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Doulamis N, Chronis E, Miaoulis G, Plemenos D (2010) Personalized view selection of 3D molecular proteins. Stud Comput Intell 321:211–227, Springer Press

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doulamis Α () “Event-driven video adaptation: A powerful tool for industrial video supervision” Multimedia Tools and Applications doi:10.1007/s11042-012-0992-5 (to appear)

  15. Freund Y, Schapire R (1997) A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comput Syst Sci 55(1):119–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gauch S, Cha J, Pretschner A (2003) Ontology-based personalized search and browsing. J Web Intell Agent Sys 1:219–234

    Google Scholar 

  17. Guarino N (1998) “Formal ontology in information systems”, In proceedings of the 1st international conference on formal ontologies in information systems FOIS. Ios Press, Trento, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gutin G, Yeo A, Zverovich A (2002) Traveling salesman should not be greedy: domination analysis of greedy-type heuristics for the TSP. Discret Appl Math 117:81–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb 4:100–107

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw 5:1942–1948

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kobsa A, Koenemann J, Pohl W (2001) Personalized hypermedia presentation techniques for improving customer relationships. Knowl Eng Rev 16(2):111–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kraljic N (2008) “Interactive video virtual tours”, 12th central european seminar on computer graphics. Split, Croatia

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laakso K, Gjesdal O, Jan Rasmus Sulebak (2003) “Tourist information and navigation support by using 3D maps displayed on mobile devices”, Workshop “HCI in mobile Guides”, Udine (Italy)

  24. Littlestone N, Warmuth M (1994) “The weighted majority algorithm. Information and Computation,” pp. 212–26

  25. Lucas M, Desmontils E (2007) “Declarative modelers”. Revue Intern. de CGAo et d’ Infogr., pp. 559–585

  26. Mackinlay J, Card S, Robertson G (1990) Rapid controlled movement through a virtual 3D workspace. Comput Graphics 24(4):171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mekni M, Moulin B (2010) “Hierarchical path planning for multi-agent systems situated in informed virtual geographic environments,” Second international conference on information, process, and knowledge management, Saint Maarten, pp. 48–55, ISBN 978-1-4244-5688-8

  28. Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms (Complex Adaptive Systems). MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nadi S, Delavar MR (2011) “Multi-citeria, personalized route planning using quantifier-guided ordered weighted averaging operators”. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, pp. 322-3358

  30. Niaraki SA, Kim K (2009) Ontology based personalized route planning system using a multi-criteria decision making approach. Expert Sys App Sci Direct 36(2):2250–2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pahlavania P, Delavar MR, Frank AU (2012) Using a modified invasive weed optimization algorithm for a personalized urban multi-criteria path optimization problem. Int J Applied Earth Observ Geoinformation 18:313–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reitter D, Lebiere C (2010) A cognitive model of spatial path-planning. Comput Math Org Theory 16(3):220–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Reuter A, Zipf A (2005) “GIScience—where next”. In: Fotheringham S, Wilson J (Eds.), Handbook to GIS. Blackwell

  34. Riecken D (2000) Personalized views of personalization. Commun ACM 43(8):27–28

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rocchio J (1971) Relevance feedback in information retrieval: The SMART retrieval system: Experiments in automatic document processing. Prentice Hall

  36. Rogers S, Langley P (1998) “Personalized driving route recommendations. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Recommender Systems,” July 26, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 96–100

  37. Rui Y, Huang TS, Ortega M, Mehrotra S (2008) Relevance feedback: a power tool for interactive content-based image retrieval. IEEE Trans Circ Sys Video Technol 8(5):644–655

    Google Scholar 

  38. Saaty TL (1990) “Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world”. RWS Publications ed

  39. Salton G, McGill MJ (1982) “Introduction to modern information retrieval,” New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, ISBN 0070544840

  40. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423, 623–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sokolov D, Plemenos D (2005) “Viewpoint quality and scene understanding,” VAST, Eurographics Symposium Proceedings, Pisa (Italy), pp. 67–73

  42. Sokolov D, Plemenos D (2007) Virtual world explorations by using topological and semantic knowledge. Vis Comput J 23:173–185

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tab D, Robertson G, Gzewinski M (2001) Exploring 3D navigation: combining speed-coupled flying with orbiting. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factors Comput Syst 3:418–425

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vazquez PP (2003) On the selection of good views and its application to computer graphics. Ph.D thesis, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vazquez PP, Feixas M, Sbert M, Llobet A (2006) Realtime automatic selection of good molecular views. Comput Graph 30:98–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zipf A, Jost M (2006) Implementing adaptive mobile GI services based on ontologies: examples from pedestrian navigation support. Comput Environ Urban Syst 30(6):784–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Doulamis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yiakoumettis, C., Doulamis, N., Miaoulis, G. et al. Active learning of user’s preferences estimation towards a personalized 3D navigation of geo-referenced scenes. Geoinformatica 18, 27–62 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-013-0176-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10707-013-0176-0

Keywords

Navigation