Automatic attribute discovery methods have gained in popularity to extract sets of visual attributes from images or videos for various tasks. Despite their good performance in some classification tasks, it is difficult to evaluate whether the attributes discovered by these methods are meaningful and which methods are the most appropriate to discover attributes for visual descriptions. In its simplest form, such an evaluation can be performed by manually verifying whether there is any consistent identifiable visual concept distinguishing between positive and negative exemplars labelled by an attribute. This manual checking is tedious, expensive and labour intensive. In addition, comparisons between different methods could also be problematic as it is not clear how one could quantitatively decide which attribute is more meaningful than the others. In this paper, we propose a novel attribute meaningfulness metric to address this challenging problem. With this metric, automatic quantitative evaluation can be performed on the attribute sets; thus, reducing the enormous effort to perform manual evaluation. The proposed metric is applied to some recent automatic attribute discovery and hashing methods on four attribute-labelled datasets. To further validate the efficacy of the proposed method, we conducted a user study. In addition, we also compared our metric with a semi-supervised attribute discover method using the mixture of probabilistic PCA. In our evaluation, we gleaned several insights that could be beneficial in developing new automatic attribute discovery methods.
Evaluation of visual attribute meaningfulness is traditionally conducted by manually checking the presence absence of consistent identifiable visual concepts in a set of given images. This task usually requires a large-scale human labelling effort. A system such as the Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) www.mturk.com is able to handle this task for small datasets. However, since this process needs to be repeated whenever new attributes are discovered or novel methods are proposed, this manual process is ineffective and expensive. In our case, the AMT Human Intelligence Task (HIT) is to evaluate the meaningfulness of attributes by examining corresponding positive and negative images according to each attribute. The average time of each worker spent on this typical HIT is 2 minutes @cite_49 . Then an AMT worker may require 320 minutes to evaluate 32 attributes discovered by 5 different methods ( @math minutes). The time spent could increase significantly if statistically reliable results are desired by increasing the number of AMT workers.
@cite_49
2949643062 2134557905 2148848374 2615207113
Large-scale annotated datasets allow AI systems to learn from and build upon the knowledge of the crowd. Many crowdsourcing techniques have been developed for collecting image annotations. These techniques often implicitly rely on the fact that a new input image takes a negligible amount of time to perceive. In contrast, we investigate and determine the most cost-effective way of obtaining high-quality multi-label annotations for temporal data such as videos. Watching even a short 30-second video clip requires a significant time investment from a crowd worker; thus, requesting multiple annotations following a single viewing is an important cost-saving strategy. But how many questions should we ask per video? We conclude that the optimal strategy is to ask as many questions as possible in a HIT (up to 52 binary questions after watching a 30-second video clip in our experiments). We demonstrate that while workers may not correctly answer all questions, the cost-benefit analysis nevertheless favors consensus from multiple such cheap-yet-imperfect iterations over more complex alternatives. When compared with a one-question-per-video baseline, our method is able to achieve a 10 improvement in recall (76.7 ours versus 66.7 baseline) at comparable precision (83.8 ours versus 83.0 baseline) in about half the annotation time (3.8 minutes ours compared to 7.1 minutes baseline). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by collecting multi-label annotations of 157 human activities on 1,815 videos. We assess the applicability of several popular learning methods for the problem of recognizing generic visual categories with invariance to pose, lighting, and surrounding clutter. A large dataset comprising stereo image pairs of 50 uniform-colored toys under 36 azimuths, 9 elevations, and 6 lighting conditions was collected (for a total of 194,400 individual images). The objects were 10 instances of 5 generic categories: four-legged animals, human figures, airplanes, trucks, and cars. Five instances of each category were used for training, and the other five for testing. Low-resolution grayscale images of the objects with various amounts of variability and surrounding clutter were used for training and testing. Nearest neighbor methods, support vector machines, and convolutional networks, operating on raw pixels or on PCA-derived features were tested. Test error rates for unseen object instances placed on uniform backgrounds were around 13 for SVM and 7 for convolutional nets. On a segmentation recognition task with highly cluttered images, SVM proved impractical, while convolutional nets yielded 16 7 error. A real-time version of the system was implemented that can detect and classify objects in natural scenes at around 10 frames per second. Most publicly available image quality databases have been created under highly controlled conditions by introducing graded simulated distortions onto high-quality photographs. However, images captured using typical real-world mobile camera devices are usually afflicted by complex mixtures of multiple distortions, which are not necessarily well-modeled by the synthetic distortions found in existing databases. The originators of existing legacy databases usually conducted human psychometric studies to obtain statistically meaningful sets of human opinion scores on images in a stringently controlled visual environment, resulting in small data collections relative to other kinds of image analysis databases. Toward overcoming these limitations, we designed and created a new database that we call the LIVE In the Wild Image Quality Challenge Database, which contains widely diverse authentic image distortions on a large number of images captured using a representative variety of modern mobile devices. We also designed and implemented a new online crowdsourcing system, which we have used to conduct a very large-scale, multi-month image quality assessment (IQA) subjective study. Our database consists of over 350 000 opinion scores on 1162 images evaluated by over 8100 unique human observers. Despite the lack of control over the experimental environments of the numerous study participants, we demonstrate excellent internal consistency of the subjective data set. We also evaluate several top-performing blind IQA algorithms on it and present insights on how the mixtures of distortions challenge both end users as well as automatic perceptual quality prediction models. The new database is available for public use at http: live.ece.utexas.edu research ChallengeDB index.html . In the field of objective image quality assessment (IQA), the Spearman's @math and Kendall's @math are two most popular rank correlation indicators, which straightforwardly assign uniform weight to all quality levels and assume each pair of images are sortable. They are successful for measuring the average accuracy of an IQA metric in ranking multiple processed images. However, two important perceptual properties are ignored by them as well. Firstly, the sorting accuracy (SA) of high quality images are usually more important than the poor quality ones in many real world applications, where only the top-ranked images would be pushed to the users. Secondly, due to the subjective uncertainty in making judgement, two perceptually similar images are usually hardly sortable, whose ranks do not contribute to the evaluation of an IQA metric. To more accurately compare different IQA algorithms, we explore a perceptually weighted rank correlation indicator in this paper, which rewards the capability of correctly ranking high quality images, and suppresses the attention towards insensitive rank mistakes. More specifically, we focus on activating valid' pairwise comparison towards image quality, whose difference exceeds a given sensory threshold (ST). Meanwhile, each image pair is assigned an unique weight, which is determined by both the quality level and rank deviation. By modifying the perception threshold, we can illustrate the sorting accuracy with a more sophisticated SA-ST curve, rather than a single rank correlation coefficient. The proposed indicator offers a new insight for interpreting visual perception behaviors. Furthermore, the applicability of our indicator is validated in recommending robust IQA metrics for both the degraded and enhanced image data.