The retrieval performance of the proposed method has been analyzed by conducting four experiments on two different databases (Corel-10K (DB1), and Brodatz database (DB2)) and results are presented separately.
In experiment #1, #2, and #3, images from Corel database [25] have been used. This database consists of large number of images of various contents ranging from animals to outdoor sports to natural images. These images have been pre-classified into different categories each of size 100 by domain professionals. Some researchers think that Corel database meets all the requirements to evaluate an image retrieval system, due its large size and heterogeneous content.
In all experiments, each image in the database is used as the query image. For each query, the system collects \(n\) database images \(X=(x_{1}, x_{2}, \ldots , x_{n})\) with the shortest image matching distance computed using Eq. (11). If the retrieved image \(x_{i}=1, 2, \ldots , n\) belongs to same category as that of the query image then we say the system has appropriately identified the expected image; else, the system fails to find the expected image.
The performance of the proposed method is measured in terms of average precision, average recall, and average retrieval rate (ARR) as shown below:
For the query image \(I_q \), the precision is defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned} P(I_q ,n)=\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|} {\left| {\delta ( {\Phi ( {I_i }),\Phi ( {I_q })})\vert \,\text{ Rank}(I_i ,I_q )\le n} \right|}\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$
(12)
where ‘\(n\)’ indicates the number of retrieved images, \(\left|{\text{DB}} \right|\) is size of image database. \(\Phi ( x)\) stands for the category of ‘\(x\)’, \(\text{ Rank}(I_i ,I_q )\) returns the rank of image \(I_i \) (for the query image\(I_q )\) among all images of \(\left| {\text{DB}} \right|\) and \(\delta ( {\Phi ( {I_i }),\Phi ( {I_q })})=\left\{ {\begin{array}{l@{\quad }l} 1&\Phi ( {I_i })=\Phi ( {I_q }) \\ 0&\text{Otherwise} \\ \end{array}} \right.\).
Recall is defined as below:
$$\begin{aligned} \left. {R(I_q ,n)=P(I_q ,N_G )} \right|_{n=N_G } \end{aligned}$$
(13)
The average precision for the \(j\)th similarity category of the reference image database are given by Eq. (14).
$$\begin{aligned} P_\mathrm{ ave}^j (n)=\frac{1}{N_G }\sum \limits _{i\in G} {P(I_i ,n)} \end{aligned}$$
(14)
Finally, the total average precision, and ARR for the whole reference image database are computed using Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively
$$\begin{aligned}&P_\mathrm{ ave}^\mathrm{ Total} (n)=\frac{1}{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|} {P(I_i ,n)} \end{aligned}$$
(15)
$$\begin{aligned}&\text{ ARR}=\frac{1}{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|}\left. {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|} {R(I_i ,n)} } \right|_{n\le 100} \end{aligned}$$
(16)
The average recall \((R)\) is also defined in the same manner.
Experiment #1
For this experiment, we have collected 1000 images to form database Corel-1K. These images are collected from ten different domains, namely Africans, beaches, buildings, buses, dinosaurs, elephants, flowers, horses, mountains, and food. Each category has \(N_{G}\) (100) images with resolution of either \(256\times 384\) or \(384\times 256\). Figure 6 shows the sample images of Corel-1K database (one image from each category). The performance of the proposed method is measured in terms of average precision, average recall, and ARR as shown in Eqs. (12–16).
Tables 1 and 2 show the results of proposed method and other existing methods (LBP, CS_LBP, LEPSEG, LEPINV, BLK_LBP) in terms of precision and recall. The results are considered to be better if average values of precision and recall are high.
Table 4 Average retrieval rate for the 116 texture classes of Brodatz database
From Tables 1 and 2, the following points are observed:
-
1.
The average precision of proposed method (74.8%) is more as compared with LBP (71.2%), CS_LBP (59.1%), LEPSEG (65.2%), LEPINV (60.8%), and BLK_ LBP (70.1%).
-
2.
The average recall of proposed method (49.16%) is more as compared with LBP (45.71%), CS_LBP (40.9%), LEPSEG (38.1%), LEPINV (34.68%), and BLK_LBP (43.0%).
From the above observations, it is evident that the proposed method significantly improves results in terms of average precision and average recall. Figure 7a, b show the experimental results of proposed method and other existing methods. It is observed that the proposed method (DLEP) achieves a superior average precision and ARR on image database Corel-1K as compared with other existing methods.
Experiment #2
In this experiment, we have used 5000 images to form database of Corel-5K. This database consists of 50 different categories and each category contains 100 images. The performance of the proposed method is measured in terms of average precision, average recall, and ARR as shown in Eqs. (12–16).
Table 3 illustrates the retrieval results of proposed method and other existing methods on Corel-5K and Corel-10K databases in terms of average precision and recall. Figure 8a, b show the category-wise performance of methods in terms of precision and recall on Corel-5K database. The performance of all techniques in terms of average precision and ARR on Corel-5K database can be seen in Fig. 8c, d, respectively. From Table 3 and Fig. 8, it is clear that the proposed method shows a significant improvement as compared with other existing methods in terms of their evaluation measures on Corel-5K database. Figure 9 illustrates the query results of proposed method on Corel-5K database (top left image is the query image).
Experiment #3
In experiment #3, we have used 10,000 images to form database of Corel-10K. This database consists of 100 different categories and each category contains 100 images. The performance of the proposed method is measured in terms of average precision, average recall, and ARR as shown in Eqs. (12–16).
Figure 10a, b show the category-wise performance of methods in terms of precision and recall on Corel-10K database. The performance of all techniques in terms of average precision and ARR on Corel-10K database can be seen in Fig. 10c, d, respectively. From Table 3 and Fig. 10, it is clear that the proposed method shows a significant improvement as compared with other existing methods in terms of their evaluation measures on Corel-10K database. Figure 11 illustrates the query results of proposed method on Corel-10K database (top left image is the query image).
Experiment #4
In experiment #4 the database DB2 is used, that consists of 116 different textures. We have used 109 textures from Brodatz texture photographic album [26] and seven textures from University of Southern California (USC) database [27]. The size of each texture is 512\(\times \)512. Each 512\(\times \)512 image is divided into sixteen 128\(\times \)128 non-overlapping sub-images, thus creating a database of 1856 (116\(\times \)16) images. In this experiment, each image in the database is considered as the query image and the performance of the proposed method is measured in terms of ARR as given by Eq. (17).
$$\begin{aligned} \text{ ARR}=\frac{1}{\left| {\text{DB}} \right|}\left. {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{\left| {\text{ DB}} \right|} {R(I_i ,\,n)} } \right|_{\begin{array}{ll} N_G\; =\; 16 \\ n\; \ge\; 16 \\ \end{array}} \end{aligned}$$
(17)
The database DB2 is used to compare the performance of the proposed method (DLEP) with other existing methods (GT, DT-CWT, DT-RCWT, DT-CWT+DT-RCWT CS_LBP, LEPSEG, LEPINV, BLK_LBP, and LBP) in terms of ARR. From Table 4, it is evident that the proposed is outperforming other existing methods. Figure 12a, b show the graphs which illustrates the retrieval performance of proposed method and other existing methods as a function of number of top matches, and we find that the proposed method outperforms the other existing methods in terms ARR.