MatchMiner: Efficient Spanning Structure Mining in Large Image Collections
Many new computer vision applications are utilizing large-scale data- sets of places derived from the many billions of photos on the Web. Such applications often require knowledge of the visual connectivity structure of these image collections—describing which images overlap or are otherwise related—and an important step in understanding this structure is to identify connected components of this underlying image graph. As the structure of this graph is often initially unknown, this problem can be posed as one of exploring the connectivity between images as quickly as possible, by intelligently selecting a subset of image pairs for feature matching and geometric verification, without having to test all O(n2) possible pairs. We propose a novel, scalable algorithm called MatchMiner that efficiently explores visual relations between images, incorporating ideas from relevance feedback to improve decision making over time, as well as a simple yet effective rank distance measure for detecting outlier images. Using these ideas, our algorithm automatically prioritizes image pairs that can potentially connect or contribute to large connected components, using an information-theoretic algorithm to decide which image pairs to test next. Our experimental results show that MatchMiner can efficiently find connected components in large image collections, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art image matching methods.
KeywordsMutual Information Visual Word Image Pair Query Image Relevance Feedback
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Snavely, N., Seitz, S.M., Szeliski, R.: Skeletal graphs for efficient structure from motion. In: CVPR (2008)Google Scholar
- 4.Frahm, J.-M., Fite-Georgel, P., Gallup, D., Johnson, T., Raguram, R., Wu, C., Jen, Y.-H., Dunn, E., Clipp, B., Lazebnik, S., Pollefeys, M.: Building Rome on a Cloudless Day. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) ECCV 2010, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6314, pp. 368–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Lowe, D.G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. IJCV 60 (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Hartley, R., Zisserman, A.: Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
- 8.Agarwal, S., Snavely, N., Simon, T., Seitz, S.M., Szeliski, R.: Building rome in a day. In: ICCV (2009)Google Scholar
- 9.Heath, K., Gelfand, N., Ovsjanikov, M., Aanjaneya, M., Guibas, L.J.: Image webs: Computing and exploiting connectivity in image collections. In: CVPR (2010)Google Scholar
- 10.Nistér, D., Stewénius, H.: Scalable recognition with a vocabulary tree. In: CVPR (2006)Google Scholar
- 11.Chum, O., Mikulík, A., Perdoch, M., Matas, J.: Total recall ii: Query expansion revisited. In: CVPR (2011)Google Scholar
- 12.Chum, O., Philbin, J., Sivic, J., Isard, M., Zisserman, A.: Total recall: Automatic query expansion with a generative feature model for object retrieval. In: ICCV (2007)Google Scholar
- 14.Rocchio, J.J.: Relevance feedback in information retrieval. In: The SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing, pp. 313–323. Prentice-Hall Inc. (1971)Google Scholar
- 15.Xu, W., Liu, X., Gong, Y.: Document clustering based on non-negative matrix factorization. In: SIGIR (2003)Google Scholar