Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

Did you mean:
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. hugh%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. stratmann u. K. huth%22 1
editor's%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffelt%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1
editores%3a%22Neuroth%2c H.%2c A. O%c3%9Fwald%2c R. scheffel%2c S. strathmann u. K. huth%22 1

Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.01
```
0.007422194 = product of:
  0.02721471 = sum of:
    0.0067637865 = weight(_text_:a in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0067637865 = score(doc=4938,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
```
Abstract

Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2364-2381

Type

a