comparative performance evaluation of image descriptors over ieee 802.11b noisywireless networks

16
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b Noisy Wireless Networks Presented by Evaggelos Chatzistavros Evaggelos Chatzistavros, Savvas A. Chatzichristo s Georgios Stamatellos, Kostantinos Zagoris

Upload: konstantinos-zagoris

Post on 30-Apr-2015

702 views

Category:

Technology


2 download

DESCRIPTION

We evaluate the image retrievalprocedure over an IEEE 802.11b Ad Hoc network, operatingin 2.4GHz, using IEEE Distributed Coordination FunctionCSMA/CA as the multiple access scheme. IEEE 802.11 is awidely used network standard, implemented and supportedby a variety of devices, such as desktops, laptops, notebooks,mobile phones etc., capable of providing a variety of differentservices, such as file transfer, internet access et.al. Therefore,we consider IEEE 802.11b being a suitable technology toinvestigate the case of conducting image retrieval over awireless noisy channel. The model we use to simulate the noisyenvironment is based on the scenario in which the wirelessnetwork is located in an outdoor noisy environment, or inan indoor environment of partial LOS - Line-of-sight power.We used a large number of descriptors reported in literaturein order to evaluate which one has the best performance interms of Mean Average Precision - MAP values under thosecircumstances. Experimental results on known benchmarkingdatabase show that the majority of the descriptors appear tohave decreased performance when transferred and used in suchnoisy environments.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b Noisy Wireless Networks

Presented by Evaggelos Chatzistavros

Evaggelos Chatzistavros, Savvas A. ChatzichristofisGeorgios Stamatellos, Kostantinos Zagoris

Page 2: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval over noisy channel. Why?

Image retrieval

over noisy wireless link

Image retrieval

Extended use of IEEE 802.11b

networksWireless link

- signal degradation

Page 3: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Content Based Image Retrieval

Image retrieval applications

Image retrieval based on images

stored or taken by a user’s ubiquitous

device

Retrieval performed using an

Internet connection, via a 3G or a wireless network (IEEE

802.11b)

• Any technology that in principle help you to organize digital image archives based on their visual content.

• Anything ranging from a simple similarity matching metric to a robust image annotation engine can fall under the purview of CBIR.

Page 4: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

IEEE 802.11 Wireless Networks

Ad- Hoc Mode

Infrastructure Mode

Page 5: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Problems with wireless link

Signal Interference

Signal Fading BER

• Interference: Presence of many different wireless transmitters at the same frequency

• Fading: Multiple copies of the same signal reach the receiver

• BER: Bit Error Rate, affected by the above factors, has an effect on transmitted data

Page 6: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Configuration of experiments

Retrieval

WANG database

9 different descriptors

Experiments conducted using img(Rummager)

Network

IEEE 802.11b, 2.4GHz, 11Mbps

2 wireless static nodes

UDP - User Datagram Protocol as the transportation protocol

Different channel conditions caused by different BER values, based on Rician fading model

Page 7: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Rician fading

Page 8: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 1• Two wireless nodes• IEEE 802.11 b, 11Mbps• 200 – 250 m distance between nodes• Transport protocol: U D P – User Datagram Protocol

• BER values: 0, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.17

• Descriptor is transferred between nodes • Increased BER values lead to increased number of errors (bits) at the descriptor• Retrieval is conducted based on corrupted descriptor

Page 9: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 1 (2)D

escr

ipto

rs • CEDD• FCTH• EHD• CLD• SPCD• RGB• Tamura• Autocorrelograms

Met

rics • MAP – Mean

average precision

• Normalized MAP – N MAP

Page 10: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 1 – Simulation results

MAP over different BER

All descriptors achieve high scores for BER values up to

0.01

EHD appears to be the most resistant to noise since it

maintains its value for BER 0.17

Autocorrelograms’ performance degrades by

91.66% for BER 0.17, due its large size

Page 11: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 2• Two wireless nodes• IEEE 802.11 b, 11Mbps• 200 – 250 m distance between nodes• Transport protocol: U D P – User Datagram Protocol

• BER values: 0, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 0.17

• Image is transferred between nodes • Increased BER values lead to increased number of errors (bits) at the image• Retrieval is conducted based on corrupted image

Page 12: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 2 (2)D

escr

ipto

rs • CEDD• FCTH• EHD• CLD• SPCD• RGB• Tamura• Autocorrelograms• TOP - SURF

Met

rics • MAP – Mean

average precision

• Normalized MAP – N MAP

Page 13: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Retrieval scenario 2 – Simulation results

MAP over different BER

CLD appears to be the most insensitive to channel errors since its retrieval score is reduced only

by 0.77% for 0.17 BER value

Tamura’s performance degrades by 74.71% for BER 0.17

Top Surf: fairly resistant to noise, since its performance degrades by 13.19% and 5.37% for 10000 and 20000 visual words respectively

Page 14: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

N – MAP descriptor valuesN - MAP: MAP per Byte

(Normalized)

All descriptors from scenario 1 and CEDD from

scenario 2

CLD has the best N – MAP value. Each byte carries the

higher amount of valid information per byte

Tradeoff between a descriptor’s size and the degradation of its performance

Page 15: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

Conclusions – Future workConclusions

For the first configuration, BER=0.01 is a threshold, after which the majority of descriptors cannot maintain high retrieval scores

For the second configuration, most descriptors maintain their retrieval scores up to BER=0.17, with CLD, Autocorrelograms and TOP-SURF

having the best performance

CLD maintains a higher N-MAP value, even under very noisy channel

conditions

Future Work

Extended scenario, with mobile nodes and Access

Points (connected to a server), where retrieval can

take place

Descriptor evaluation over heterogeneous networks

Page 16: Comparative Performance Evaluation of Image Descriptors Over IEEE 802.11b NoisyWireless Networks

감사합니다

Thank you

ありがとう

Ευχαριστώ πολύ!