1 unsupervised modeling of object categories using link analysis techniques gunhee kim christos...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Unsupervised Modeling of Object Categories
Using Link Analysis Techniques
Unsupervised Modeling of Object Categories
Using Link Analysis Techniques
Gunhee KimChristos Faloutsos
Martial Hebert
Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon University
June 23, 2008, Anchorage, AK
2
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
3
Unsupervised Modeling[1-5]Unsupervised Modeling[1-5]
[1] Sivic et al, ICCV 2005[2] Fritz&Schiele, DAGM 2006[3] Grauman&Darrell, CVPR 2006[4] Todorovic&Ahuja, CVPR 2006[5] Cao&Fei-Fei, ICCV 2007
• Category discovery + Localization• Category discovery + Localization• Category discovery + Localization
4
Previous Work Previous Work
• Topic models based on bag of words[1][2][5]
[1] Sivic et al, ICCV 2005[2] Fritz&Schiele, DAGM 2006[3] Grauman&Darrell, CVPR 2006[4] Todorovic&Ahuja, CVPR 2006[5] Cao&Fei-Fei, ICCV 2007
• Tree matching[4]
• Clustering with partial matching[3]
wN
d z
D
5
IntuitionIntuition
Link Analysis Techniques
Visual Information
Solve Visual tasks
A large-scale Network
+
6
Statistics of Link StructureStatistics of Link Structure
7
Large-Scale NetworksLarge-Scale Networks
WWW[1] Oscars social network[2] Metabolic network[3]
Neural network[4]A food web[5]
(1):
htt
p:/
/ww
w.o
pte
.org
, (2
): T
he
Aca
de
my
of
Mo
tion
Pic
ture
Art
s a
nd
S
cie
nce
s, (
4):
htt
p:/
/ww
w.w
illa
me
tte
.ed
u/~
go
rr/c
lass
es/
cs4
49
/bra
in.h
tml (
5):
M
ark
ew
ma
n
8
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
9
Visual Similarity Network: VerticesVisual Similarity Network: Vertices
• Vertices: Any Local Features
– Harris Affine + SIFT
I1
Im
: Adjacency Matrix of G
M
nnI1
Im
10
Visual Similarity Network: Edges & WeightsVisual Similarity Network: Edges & Weights
• Edges: Correspondences by image matching
– Spectral Matching[1-2]: Appearance affinity + Geometric Consistency
• Weights: Stronger geometric consistency, higher values
M
nn
Ia
[1][2] Leordeanu & Hebert, ICCV05, ICML06.
Ia
Ib
Ib
11
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
12
1. Ranking of the Features1. Ranking of the Features
→“models capture the hubs in the visual network”
[1] Fergus, Perona, Zisserman, IJCV 2007.
Fergus et al[1]: “models capture the essence of categories”
>>
13
Ranking Removes Noisy MatchingRanking Removes Noisy Matching
14
How to Rank the FeaturesHow to Rank the Features
• PageRank[1]
– Recursive Definition
VoteVote
[1] Brin and Page. WWW 1998
15
Rationale: Why Ranking Works?Rationale: Why Ranking Works?
Consistent Matching
Highly varient Matching
Hub Outlier
16
2. Structural Similarity2. Structural Similarity
• Similar vertices → Similar Link structures
Node i Node j
+ (3) similarity of matching behaviors
(1) Appearance Similarity + (2) Geometric consistency
17
How to Mine Structural SimilarityHow to Mine Structural Similarity
• Automatic Extraction of Synonyms[1]
[1] Blondel et al. SIAM review 2004.
Node i Node j
A vertex structural similarity matrix Z
nnu v : If v appears in the definition of u
18
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
19
Compute Ranking wrt Each ImageCompute Ranking wrt Each Image
Ia
PageRank:
vPDMP ))(1(
P-vector for Ia
n1
I1 I2 Im
20
Ia
Less correlated
Meaning of RankingMeaning of Ranking
P-vectorfor Ia
Ranked importance of the other features wrt image a
Ranked importance of features in image a
Valuable for Category discovery
Ia
Ib
Ic
Highly correlated
n1
21
Image Affinity MatrixImage Affinity Matrix
Vertex structural similarity matrix Z
I1 I2 Im
n1
nn
m PageRank vectors
mm
Image affinity matrix A
bjaibj IbIa
jiia
Ib
ja baZaPbPbaA,
),()()(),(
n >> m(Ex. 1mil >> 600)
22
Category Discovery by ClusteringCategory Discovery by Clustering
600 images of 6 Object Classes of Catech-101
k-NN graph [1]
Normalized spectral Clustering [2]
[1] Luxburg. Statistics and Computing, 2007
[2] Shi & Malik, PAMI 2000
k = 10log(m)
23
Results of Category DiscoveryResults of Category Discovery
• TUD/ETHZ dataset
– Experimental Setup follows [1]
– 75 images per object, 10 repetition
95.47%
Motorbikes Cars Giraffes
Motorbikes 93.3 2.7 0.0 6.7 2.7
Cars 4.8 2.6 95.2 2.6 0.0
Giraffes 2.0 1.1 0.1 0.4 97.9 1.4
[1] Grauman & Darrell, CVPR 2006
24
Results of Category DiscoveryResults of Category Discovery
• Caltech-101 Object classes (100 per object)
A C F M WA 98.2 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.2C 0.6 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.1F 2.2 0.1 96.2 0.0 1.5M 1.3 0.9 0.0 97.5 0.3W 2.7 0.8 0.0 1.2 95.3
4 obj:98.55%
[1] Grauman & Darrell, CVPR 2006[2] Sivic et al, ICCV 2005
5 obj:97.30%
6 obj:95.42%
> [2]: 98%, [1]: 86%
A
C
F
M
W
KA C F M W K
A 94.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 4.2C 1.1 97.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8F 1.5 0.0 95.6 0.0 1.8 1.1M 1.4 0.4 0.0 93.5 0.1 4.6W 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 93.4 3.8K 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 98.4
A C F MA 98.4 1.0 0.1 0.5C 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0F 1.9 0.1 98.0 0.0M 1.4 0.6 0.0 98.0
25
Compute Ranking wrt a CategoryCompute Ranking wrt a Category
P-vector for category C1
PageRank: vPDMP ))(1(
nc11
nc21
nc31
P-vector for category C2
P-vector for category C3
26
Meaning of RankingMeaning of Ranking
Valuable for Localization
Ranked importance of each feature wrt its category
Ia
P-vector for a giraffe class
nc1
27
Localization – Confidence ValuesLocalization – Confidence Values
nc11 nc1nc1
),()()()( ij
cb
jcicic abZbPaPaIj
),()()()( ij
cb
jcicic abZbPaPaIj
),()()()( ij
cb
jcicic abZbPaPaIj
nc21 nc2nc2nc31 nc3nc3
P-vectors and Vertex similarity matrix for each category
28
Examples of LocalizationExamples of Localization
29
Quantitative Results of LocalizationQuantitative Results of Localization
False Positives
[1] Quack et al. ICCV 2007
30
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
31
Complexity IssuesComplexity Issues
• The VSN representation is
• Sparsity of the network
– Power iterations for sparse matrices:
• Scale-free network
)( 2nO
Ex. 6 objects of Caltech-101 900K nodes
Degrees of Vertices
Per
cen
tag
e o
f ve
rtic
es
)()( nOEO
4105
32
OutlineOutline
• Problem Statement & Our Approach
• Network Construction
• Link Analysis Techniques– Ranking of features wrt an image/object
– Structural Similarity
• Unsupervised Modeling– Category Discovery
– Localization
• Complexity
• Conclusion
33
ConclusionConclusion
• A new formulation of unsupervised modeling
– Statistics of the link structure
– Finding communities (categories) and hubs (class representative visual information)
• Link analysis techniques
• Competitive performance
• Future directions
– Statistical framework
– Scalability
35
Supplementary MaterialSupplementary Material
If any questions and comments, please send me an email at
[email protected]://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gunhee
36
Spectral Matching[1-2]Spectral Matching[1-2]
[1] M. Leordeanu and M. Hebert. A spectral technique for correspondence problems using pairwise constraints, 2005. ICCV.[2] M. Leordeanu and M. Hebert. Efficient map approximation for dense energy functions, 2006. ICML.
OK
Pairs of wrong correspondences are unlikely to preserve geometry
Pairs of correct correspondences are very likely to preserve geometry
37
Weights of EdgesWeights of Edges
• 1. Stronger geometric consistency, higher weights
• 2. 10 matches / 50 features > 10 matches / 100 features
Cij > 0.8Cij > 0.7Cij > 0.6Cij > 0.5Cij > 0.4
wij = 0.0284wij = 0.0144wij = 0.0071wij = 0.0040wij = 0.0018
38
Example of Vertex Similarity[1]Example of Vertex Similarity[1]
• Similarity between Vertices of Directed Graphs
– Only based on link structures
[1] Blondel et al. SIAM review 2004.
39
Ranking for Category DiscoveryRanking for Category Discovery
• Relative Importance wrt each image
O
O
O
O
M Ma
- Only consider the relations between Ia and the others
Ia
Ia
- Why? To avoid Topic Drift
PageRank:
Ia
x x
P-vector for Ia
vPDMp ))(1(
40
Computation of Relative ImportanceComputation of Relative Importance
Ia
Ia
M
• Before “Category Discovery”
O
O
O
O
Why? Topic Drift
PageRank for Ia
41
Relative Importance for ModelingRelative Importance for Modeling
Ia
Ia
M
• Before “Category Discovery”
O
O
O
O
Wait ! In General, majority of images are from different object classes. What if the result is distracted by them?
PageRank: Recursive Definition!!
Ia
The vote by the same object will be much more appreciated !
Ib Ic
42
LocalizationLocalization
• Relative Importance wrt each category
M
P-vector for each category
Mc1 Mc2 Mc3
PageRank: vPDMp ))(1(
43
Computation of Relative ImportanceComputation of Relative Importance
O
OP-vector
• After “Category Discovery”
object category k
M
Valuable for Localization
Ranked importance of features wrt each object category
44
Toy Example: Relative ImportanceToy Example: Relative Importance
• Matching behavior
– Consistent between important features in the same class, Highly variant between backgrounds and different objects
Matching
45
Toy Example: Relative ImportanceToy Example: Relative Importance
Image 2 Image 1
– Consistent between important features in the same class, Highly variant between backgrounds and different objects
46
Toy Example: Relative ImportanceToy Example: Relative Importance
– Consistent between important features in the same class, Highly variant between backgrounds and different objects
Image 3 Image 1
47
Toy Example: Relative ImportanceToy Example: Relative Importance
– Consistent between important features in the same class, Highly variant between backgrounds and different objects
Image 4 Image 1
Consistent
Highly variant
48
Unsupervised ModelingUnsupervised Modeling
• Category Discovery + Localization
Ia
I1
Ia
Ranked importance of the features in I1 wrt Ia
P-vector Pa
Affinity of I1 to Ia
This value is not used !
A vertex similarity matrix Z
I1 + A(a,1)
Im
49
LocalizationLocalization
• Category Discovery + Localization
O
OP-vector
object category k
M
object category 1 O
OZ
P-vector Pc
ai +Zc
ai
=0.8
P-vector Pc