Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.017903598 = product of:
  0.07161439 = sum of:
    0.07161439 = weight(_text_:space in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07161439 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24842183 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047605187 = queryNorm
        0.28827736 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.2183776 = idf(docFreq=650, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

XMage is introduced in this paper as a method for partial similarity searching in image databases. Region-based image retrieval is a method of retrieving partially similar images. It has been proposed as a way to accurately process queries in an image database. In region-based image retrieval, region matching is indispensable for computing the partial similarity between two images because the query processing is based upon regions instead of the entire image. A naive method of region matching is a sequential comparison between regions, which causes severe overhead and deteriorates the performance of query processing. In this paper, a new image contents representation, called Condensed eXtended Histogram (CXHistogram), is presented in conjunction with a well-defined distance function CXSim() on the CX-Histogram. The CXSim() is a new image-to-image similarity measure to compute the partial similarity between two images. It achieves the effect of comparing regions of two images by simply comparing the two images. The CXSim() reduces query space by pruning irrelevant images, and it is used as a filtering function before sequential scanning. Extensive experiments were performed on real image data to evaluate XMage. It provides a significant pruning of irrelevant images with no false dismissals. As a consequence, it achieves up to 5.9-fold speed-up in search over the R*-tree search followed by sequential scanning.

0.008418675 = product of:
  0.0336747 = sum of:
    0.0336747 = product of:
      0.0673494 = sum of:
        0.0673494 = weight(_text_:model in 520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0673494 = score(doc=520,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.36792353 = fieldWeight in 520, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=520)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The rapid growth of the numbers of images and their users as a result of the reduction in cost and increase in efficiency of the creation, storage, manipulation, and transmission of images poses challenges to those who organize and provide access to images. One of these challenges is similarity matching, a key component of current content-based image retrieval systems. Similarity matching often is implemented through similarity measures based on geometric models of similarity whose metric axioms are not satisfied by human similarity judgment data. This study is significant in that it is among the first known to test Tversky's contrast model, which equates the degree of similarity of two stimuli to a linear combination of their common and distinctive features, in the context of image representation and retrieval. Data were collected from 150 participants who performed an image description and a similarity judgment task. Structural equation modeling, correlation, and regression analyses confirmed the relationships between perceived features and similarity of objects hypothesized by Tversky. The results hold implications for future research that will attempt to further test the contrast model and assist designers of image organization and retrieval systems by pointing toward alternative document representations and similarity measures that more closely match human similarity judgments.

0.0058326283 = product of:
  0.023330513 = sum of:
    0.023330513 = product of:
      0.046661027 = sum of:
        0.046661027 = weight(_text_:model in 981) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046661027 = score(doc=981,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1830527 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.25490487 = fieldWeight in 981, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.845226 = idf(docFreq=2569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=981)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Semantic annotation of images is an important step to support semantic information extraction and retrieval. However, in a multi-annotator environment, various types of conflicts such as converting, merging, and inference conflicts could arise during the annotation. We devised conflict detection patterns based on different data, ontology at different inference levels and proposed the corresponding automatic conflict resolution strategies. We also constructed a simple annotator model to decide whether to trust a given piece of annotation from a given annotator. Finally, we conducted experiments to compare the performance of the automatic conflict resolution approaches during the annotation of images in the celebrity domain by 62 annotators. The experiments showed that the proposed method improved 3/4 annotation accuracy with respect to a naïve annotation system.

0.002418692 = product of:
  0.009674768 = sum of:
    0.009674768 = product of:
      0.019349536 = sum of:
        0.019349536 = weight(_text_:22 in 4054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019349536 = score(doc=4054,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16670525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047605187 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4054, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

6. 1.2011 11:22:12