skip to main content
10.1145/2637748.2638431acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesi-knowConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards modelling visual ambiguity for visual object detection

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The widespread adoption of Web 2.0 applications has resulted in the creation of huge amounts of user-generated multimedia content, a fact that motivated the investigation of employing this content for training. However, the nature of these annotations (i.e. global level) and the noise existing in the associated information, as well as the ambiguity that characterizes these examples disqualifies them from being directly appropriate learning samples. Nevertheless, the tremendous volume of data that is currently hosted in social networks gives us the luxury to disregard a substantial number of candidate learning examples, provided we can devise a gauging mechanism that could filter out any ambiguous or noisy samples. Our objective in this work is to define a measure for visual ambiguity, which is caused by the visual similarity of semantically dissimilar concepts, in order to help in the process of selecting positive training regions from user tagged images. This is done by limiting the search space of the potential images to the ones yielding a higher probability to contain the desired regions, while at the same time not including visually ambiguous objects that could confuse the selection algorithm. Experimental results show that the employment of visual ambiguity allows for better separation between the targeted true positive and the undesired negative regions.

References

  1. E. Chatzilari, S. Nikolopoulos, Y. Kompatsiaris, and J. Kittler. Multi-modal region selection approach for training object detectors. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval, pages 5:1--5:8. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. E. Chatzilari, S. Nikolopoulos, Y. Kompatsiaris, and J. Kittler. Active learning in social context for image classification. In 9th Int. Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications (VISAPP), Lisbon, Portugal, January 5-8 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. E. Chatzilari, S. Nikolopoulos, I. Patras, and I. Kompatsiaris. Leveraging social media for scalable object detection. Pattern Recognition, 45(8):2962--2979, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. H. J. Escalante, C. A. Hernandez, J. A. Gonzalez, A. Lspez-Lspez, M. Montes, E. F. Morales, L. E. Sucar, L. Villase?or, and M. Grubinger. The segmented and annotated iapr tc-12 benchmark. CVIU, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Fellbaum, editor. WordNet An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London, May 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. X. Li, C. G. M. Snoek, M. Worring, D. C. Koelma, and A. W. M. Smeulders. Bootstrapping visual categorization with relevant negatives. IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, In press, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. B. T. Mark J. Huiskes and M. S. Lew. New trends and ideas in visual concept detection: The mir flickr retrieval evaluation initiative. In MIR '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval, pages 527--536, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. V. Ng and C. Cardie. Bootstrapping coreference classifiers with multiple machine learning algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing, EMNLP '03, pages 113--120, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. S. Patwardhan. Incorporating Dictionary and Corpus Information into a Context Vector Measure of Semantic Relatedness. Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Duluth, August 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Y. Shen and J. Fan. Leveraging loosely-tagged images and inter-object correlations for tag recommendation. In ACM, MM '10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. C. van Gemert, C. J. Veenman, A. W. M. Smeulders, and J. M. Geusebroek. Visual word ambiguity. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32(7):1271--1283, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Vijayanarasimhan and K. Grauman. Large-scale live active learning: Training object detectors with crawled data and crowds. In CVPR, pages 1449--1456, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards modelling visual ambiguity for visual object detection

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        i-KNOW '14: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business
        September 2014
        262 pages
        ISBN:9781450327695
        DOI:10.1145/2637748

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 September 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        i-KNOW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate25of73submissions,34%Overall Acceptance Rate77of238submissions,32%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader