Social Tag Enrichment via Automatic Abstract Tag Refinement

  • Zhaoqiang Xia
  • Jinye Peng
  • Xiaoyi Feng
  • Jianping Fan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7674)

Abstract

Collaborative image tagging systems, such as Flickr, are very attractive for supporting keyword-based image retrieval, but some social tags of these collaboratively-tagged social images might be imprecise. Some people may use general or high-level words (i.e., abstract tags) to tag their images for saving time and effort, thus such general or high-level tags are too abstract to describe the visual content of social images precisely. As a result, users may not be able to find what they need when they use the specific keywords for query specification. To tackle this problem of abstract tags, a concept ontology is constructed for detecting the abstract tags from large-scale social images. The co-occurrence contexts of social tags and k-NN algorithm with Gaussian Weight are used to find the most specific tags which can signify out the abstract tags. In addition, all the relevant keywords, which are corresponded with intermediate nodes between the high-level concepts (abstract tags) and object classes (most specific tags) on our concept ontology, are added to enrich the lists of social tags, so that users can have more choices to select various keywords for query specification. We have tested our proposed algorithms on two data sets with different images.

Keywords

tag refinement tag enrichment concept ontology co-occurrence contexts abstract tags 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bucak, S., Jin, R., Jain, A.: Multi-label learning with incomplete class assignments. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, pp. 2801–2808 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chua, T., Tang, J., Hong, R., Li, H., Luo, Z., Zheng, Y.: Nus-wide: A real-world web image database from national university of singapore. In: Proceeding of the ACM International Conference on Image and Video Retrieval, p. 48 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deng, Y., Manjunath, B., Kenney, C., Moore, M., Shin, H.: An efficient color representation for image retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 10(1), 140–147 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fan, J., Shen, Y., Zhou, N., Gao, Y.: Harvesting large-scale weakly-tagged image databases from the web. In: IEEE CVPR, pp. 802–809 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frey, B., Dueck, D.: Clustering by passing messages between data points. Science 315(5814), 972 (2007)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, D., Hua, X., Wang, M., Zhang, H.: Image retagging. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 491–500 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, D., Hua, X., Zhang, H.: Content-based tag processing for internet social images. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51(2), 723–738 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowe, D.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision 60(2), 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu, Y., Zhang, L., Tian, Q., Ma, W.: What are the high-level concepts with small semantic gaps? In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–8 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, W., Manjunath, B.: Texture features and learning similarity. In: IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 425–430 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, G.: Wordnet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naphade, M., Smith, J., Tesic, J., Chang, S., Hsu, W., Kennedy, L., Hauptmann, A., Curtis, J.: Large-scale concept ontology for multimedia. IEEE Multimedia 13(3), 86–91 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rorissa, A.: User-generated descriptions of individual images versus labels of groups of images: A comparison using basic level theory. Information Processing & Management 44(5), 1741–1753 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosch, E.: Principles of categorization. In: Concepts: Core Readings, pp. 189–206 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., Guibas, L.: A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. In: IEEE Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 59–66 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang, J., Yan, S., Hong, R., Qi, G., Chua, T.: Inferring semantic concepts from community-contributed images and noisy tags. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 223–232. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang, K., Hua, X., Wang, M., Zhang, H.: Tag tagging: Towards more descriptive keywords of image content. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (99), 1 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhaoqiang Xia
    • 1
  • Jinye Peng
    • 1
  • Xiaoyi Feng
    • 1
  • Jianping Fan
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Electronics and InformationNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.School of Electronics and InformationNorthwest UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations