unsupervised auxiliary visual words discovery for large-scale image object retrieval yin-hsi kuo1,2,...

Unsupervised Auxiliary Visual Words

Discovery for Large-Scale

Image Object Retrieval

Yin-Hsi Kuo1,2, Hsuan-Tien Lin 1, Wen-Huang Cheng 2, Yi-Hsuan Yang 1, and Winston H. Hsu 1

1 National Taiwan University and 2 Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan

CVPR 2011

Outline• Introduction• Key Observations -- the problem of BoW

model

• Graph construction and Image Clustering• Semantic Visual Features Propagation• Common Visual Words Selection• Solution & Optimization– Gradient Descent Solver– Analytic Solver

• Experiment and Result• Conclusion & Future Work

Query image:

Introduction

It is a challenging problem because target may cover only small region

Image object retrieval – retrieving images containing the target image object – is one of the key techniques of managing the exponentially growing image/video collections

Result:

• Although BoW is popular and shown effective for image object retrieval [14]

BoW-like methods fail to address issues related to:☻Noisily quantized visual features ☻Vast variations in viewpoints☻Lighting conditions☻Occlusions.

• Thus it suffers from low recall rate

Introduction

Traditional BoW v.s. Proposed

• The contribution of this paper:☺ Observing problems (Two) in large-scale image object retrieval

by conventional BoW model

☺ Proposing auxiliary visual words(AVW) discovery through visual and textual clusters in unsupervised and scalable fashion

☺ Investigate variant optimization methods for efficiency and accuracy in AVW discovery

☺ Conducting experiments on consumer photos and show improvement recall rate for image object retrieval

Introduction

Prob1. Sparseness of the Visual words

• Total 540,321 images in Flickr550 dataset– Half of VWs only occur in less than 0.11% (57 images)– Most (96%) VWs occur for about 0.5% (2702 images)

• Those similar images will have very “few common VWs”

This is known as the uniqueness of VWs [2]

Partly due to some quantization errors or noisy features

Prob.2Lacking Semantics Related Feature

Graph construction and Image Clustering

• Image clustering is based on graph construction• Images are represented by 1M VWs and 90K

Text tokens by Google snippets from associated tags

• Construct large-scale image graph by MapReduce [4] Algorithm (large scale calculation)

Graph construction and Image Clustering

• To cluster images on the image graph , we apply Affinity Propagation (AP) [5]

• AP’s advantage:– Automatic determining the number of clusters– Automatic canonical image detection within each

cluster

Graph construction and Image Clustering

• Apply Affinity Propagation algorithm for both textual and visual relation

Semantic Visual Features Propagation

• Conduct the propagation on each extend visual cluster (Fig. b)

• If there is a single image in visual cluster (Fig. b, point H), it can also obtain AVWs in extend visual cluster

• We have VW histograms X and propagation matrix P is unknown

(Xi is VW combination of image i)

Semantic Visual Features Propagation

• Propose to formulate propagation as

• First term: avoid propagating too many VWs• Second term: keep similarity to original

propagation matrix

Frobenius norm (Euclidean) norm

Common Visual Words Selection

Common Visual Words Selection

• Let X be VW combinations, S be selection matrix (unknown)

• Propose to formulate selection as

• First term: avoid too many distortions from original features• Second term: reduce number of selected features

Finding Solutions• Stack columns of P to a vector

• p=vec(P)• P0=vec(P0)

• Replace vec(PX) with (XT IM)p• is Kronecker product• Propagation function becomes

X

X

Kronecker product

Optimization

• The first term of (5) is positive semi-definite• The second term of (5) is positive finite

because α2 > 0• So propagation function has unique optimal

solution• Same for selection function

Optimization• The two equations are strictly convex

quadratic programming problems• Able to use quadratic programming solver to

find optimal solutions• Two solvers are used for evaluation:– Gradient Descent Solver– Analytic Solver

Gradient Descent Solver• Updates p by• η is called learning rate• It’s time consuming calculating• Rearrange function by

and get

Gradient Descent Solver• Finally, get

• The initial P is P0

• Do similar job for selection formula, get

• But with initial S to zero matrix

Analytic Solver• The optimal solution should satisfy• From eq(4)

can be represented by

where H is positive definite Hessian matrix, so and back to matrix form,

Analytic Solver• Similarly, S can be solved by

by using inverse function

the S can represented by

XTX is 1Mx1M, but XXT is smaller (time saving)

Experiments• Uses Flickr550 as main dataset• Select 56 query images (1282 ground truths)• Pick 10000 images from Flickr550 to form a

smaller subset called Flickr11k

Experiments• Uses Mean Average Precision (MAP) over all

queries to evaluate performance• Apply query expansion technique of pseudo-

relevance-feedback (PRF) • Take L1 distance as baseline for BoW model• The MAP baseline is 0.245 with 22M feature

points• MAP after PRF is 0.297

Result and Discussions

The MAP of AVW results with the best iteration number and PRF in Flickr11K with totally 22M (SIFT) feature points. Note that the MAP of the baseline BoW model [14] is 0.245 and after PRF is 0.297 (+21.2%).

#F represents the total number of features retained; M is short for million. % indicates the relative MAP gain over the Bow baseline

Result and Discussions1. Propagation then selection2. Selection then propagation

Propagation then selection has more accuracyBecause: 2 might lose some common VWs before

propagation

Result and Discussions• We only need one or two iterations to achieve

better result– Informative and representative VWs have been

propagated or selected in early iteration steps• Number of features significantly reduced from

22.2M to 0.3M (1.4%)• Using α=β=0.5

Learning Time(s) GDS AS

Propagation 2720 123

Selection 1468 895

Search Result by Auxiliary VWs

Result and DiscussionsFrom the figure, α=0.6 should work well

Conclusions & Future Work• Conclusions:– Showed problems of current BoW model and

needs for semantic visual words to improve recall rate

– Formulated process as unsupervised optimization problems

– Improve accuracy by 111% relative to BoW model• Future Works:– Look for other solvers to maximize accuracy and

efficiency

Thank you