skip to main content
10.1145/1178677.1178712acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

To search or to label?: predicting the performance of search-based automatic image classifiers

Published:26 October 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this work we explore the trade-offs in acquiring training data for image classification models through automated web search as opposed to human annotation. Automated web search comes at no cost in human labor, but sometimes leads to decreased classification performance, while human annotations come at great expense in human labor but result in better performance. The primary contribution of this work is a system for predicting which visual concepts will show the greatest increase in performance from investing human effort in obtaining annotations. We propose to build this system as an estimation of the absolute gain in average precision (AP) experienced from using human annotations instead of web search. To estimate the AP gain, we rely on statistical classifiers built on top of a number of quality prediction features. We employ a feature selection algorithm to compare the quality of each of the predictors and find that cross-domain image similarity and cross-domain model generalization metrics are strong predictors, while concept frequency and within-domain model quality are weak predictors. In a test application, we find that the prediction scheme can result in a savings in annotation effort of up to 75\%, while only incurring marginal damage (10% relative decrease in mean average precision) to the overall performance of the concept models.

References

  1. NIST TREC Video Retrieval Evaluation http://www-nlpir.nist.gov/projects/trecvid/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. LSCOM lexicon definitions and annotations version 1.0, DTO challenge workshop on large scale concept ontology for multimedia. Technical report, Columbia University, March 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. Amir, J. Argillander, M. Campbell, A. Haubold, G. Iyengar, S. Ebadollahi, F. Kang, M. R. Naphade, A. Natsev, J. R. Smith, J. Tesic, and T. Volkmer. IBM Research TRECVID-2005 Video Retrieval System. In NIST TRECVID workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, November 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines, 2001. Software available at http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/¿cjlin/libsvm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S.-F. Chang, W. Hsu, L. Kennedy, L. Xie, A. Yanagawa, E. Zavesky, and D. Zhang. Columbia University TRECVID-2005 Video Search and High-Level Feature Extraction. In NIST TRECVID workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, November 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Fergus, L. Fei-Fei, P. Perona, and A. Zisserman. Learning object categories from googles image search. ICCV, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. A. Miller, R. Beckwith, C. Fellbaum, D. Gross, and K. J. Miller. Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4): 235--244, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. C. G. Snoek, M. Worring, D. C.Koelma, and A. W. Smeulders. Learned lexicon-driven interactive video retrieval. In CIVR, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Typke, R. C. Veltkamp, and F. Wiering. A measure for evaluating retrieval techniques based on partially ordered ground truth lists. In ICME, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. T. Volkmer, J. R. Smith, and A. P. Natsev. A web-based system for collaborative annotation of large image and video collections: an evaluation and user study. In ACM Multimedia, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. X.-J. Wang, L. Zhang, F. Jing, and W.-Y. Ma. Annosearch: Image auto-annotation by search. CVPR, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. E. Yom-Tov, S. Fine, D. Carmel, and A. Darlow. Learning to estimate query difficulty: including applications to missing content detection and distributed information retrieval. In SIGIR, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. To search or to label?: predicting the performance of search-based automatic image classifiers

    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 Conferences
      MIR '06: Proceedings of the 8th ACM international workshop on Multimedia information retrieval
      October 2006
      344 pages
      ISBN:1595934952
      DOI:10.1145/1178677

      Copyright © 2006 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: 26 October 2006

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Upcoming Conference

      MM '24
      MM '24: The 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
      October 28 - November 1, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader