Object Localization with Boosting and Weak Supervision for Generic Object Recognition

  • Andreas Opelt
  • Axel Pinz
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3540)


This paper deals, for the first time, with an analysis of localization capabilities of weakly supervised categorization systems. Most existing categorization approaches have been tested on databases, which (a) either show the object(s) of interest in a very prominent way so that their localization can hardly be judged from these experiments, or (b) at least the learning procedure was done with supervision, which forces the system to learn only object relevant data. These approaches cannot be directly compared to a nearly unsupervised method. The main contribution of our paper thus is twofold: First, we have set up a new database which is sufficiently complex, balanced with respect to background, and includes localization ground truth. Second, we show, how our successful approach for generic object recognition [14] can be extended to perform localization, too.To analyze its localization potential, we develop localization measures which focus on approaches based on Boosting [5]. Our experiments show that localization depends on the object category, as well as on the type of the local descriptor.


Ground Truth Object Recognition Localization Performance Object Localization Local Descriptor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Agarwal, S., Awan, A., Roth, D.: Learning to detect objects in images via a sparse, part-based representation. IEEE PAMI 26(11) (November 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carbonetto, P., Dorko, G., Schmid, C.: Bayesian learning for weakly supervised object classification. Technical report, INRIA Rhone-Alpes, Grenoble, France (August. 2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Comaniciu, D., Meer, P.: Mean shift: A robust approach towards feature space analysis. IEEE PAMI 24(5), 603–619 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fergus, R., Perona, P., Zisserman, A.: A visual category filter for google images. In: Proc. European Conference of Computer Vision, pp. 242–256 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freund, Y., Schapire, R.: A decision theoretic generalisation of online learning. Computer and System Sciences 55(1), 119–139 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fussenegger, M., Opelt, A., Pinz, A., Auer, P.: Object recognition using segmentation for feature detection. In: Proc. ICPR (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Gool, L., Moons, T., Ungureanu, D.: Affine / photometric invariants for planar intensity patterns. In: Buxton, B.F., Cipolla, R. (eds.) ECCV 1996. LNCS, vol. 1064, pp. 642–651. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lazebnik, S., Schmid, C., Ponce, J.: Semi-local affine parts for object recognition. In: Proc. of British Machine Vision Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leibe, B., Leonardis, A., Schiele, B.: Combined object categorization and segmentation with an implicit shape model. In: ECCV 2004 Workshop on Statistical Learning in Computer Vision, Prague (May 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leibe, B., Schiele, B.: Scale-invariant object categorization using a scale-adaptive means-shift search. In: Rasmussen, C.E., Bülthoff, H.H., Schölkopf, B., Giese, M.A. (eds.) DAGM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3175, pp. 145–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe, D.G.: Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: Proc. ICCV, pp. 1150–1157 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: Indexing based on scale invariant interest points. In: Proc. ICCV, pp. 525–531 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: An affine invariant interest point detector. In: Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., Johansen, P. (eds.) ECCV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2350, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Opelt, A., Fussenegger, M., Pinz, A., Auer, P.: Weak hypotheses and boosting for generic object detection and recognition. In: Pajdla, T., Matas, J(G.) (eds.) ECCV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3022, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruthishauser, U., Walther, D., Koch, C., Perona, P.: Is bottom.up attention useful for object recognition? In: Proc. CVPR (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torralba, A., Murphy, K.P., Freeman, W.T.: Sharing features: efficient boosting procedures for multiclass object detection. In: Proc. CVPR (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Opelt
    • 1
  • Axel Pinz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Electrical Measurement and Measurement Signal ProcessingGraz University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations