Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PageRank for Product Image Search Yushi Jing, Shumeet Baluja College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Google, Inc. WWW 2008 Referred Track:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PageRank for Product Image Search Yushi Jing, Shumeet Baluja College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Google, Inc. WWW 2008 Referred Track:"— Presentation transcript:

1 PageRank for Product Image Search Yushi Jing, Shumeet Baluja College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Google, Inc. WWW 2008 Referred Track: Rich Media 2009. 3. 27 Summarized and Presented by Seungseok Kang, IDS Lab.

2 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Outline  Introduction  Background and Related Work  Approach and Algorithm Features Generation and Representation Query Dependent Ranking  Full Retrieval System Queries with Homogeneous Visual Concepts Queries with Heterogeneous Visual Concepts  Experimental Results  Conclusion

3 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Introduction  Image search has become a popular feature in search engines Yahoo, MSN, Google  The majority of common image search Based on the text on the pages in which the image is embedded – Text in the body of the page, Anchor-text, Image name, etc. Text-based search of web pages is a well studied problem Fundamental task of image analysis is yet unsolved Image processing required can be quite expensive  PageRank for the image search Analyzing the distribution of visual similarities among the images Finding the multiple visual themes and their relative strengths in a large set of images

4 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Eiffel Tower vs. McDonalds

5 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Challenge Issues  The concept of inferring common visual themes to creating a scalable and effective algorithm Image processing – The goal of query is to find what is common among the images – The common features may occur anywhere in the images – Local features Utilization of information – Simple counting will yield poor results – Inferring a graph between the images where images are linked to each other based on their similarity

6 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Background and Related Work  Object Category Model Trained from the top search results Re-rank images based on their fit to the model Lack of heterogeneous image search – E.g. “Apple” “Nemo” “Jaguar”  Intuitive graph-model Based on the content-based image ranking Using expected user behavior – Visual similarities Treating images as web documents Estimating the likelihood of images visited by a user traversing through the visual- hyperlinks  Similarity based graph For semi-supervised learning

7 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Contribution  Introducing a novel, simple algorithm to rank images based on their visual similarities  Introducing a system to re-rank current Google image search results Similarity score among images can be derived from a comparison of their local descriptors  Improving the image search result for queries that are of the most interest to a large set of people significantly

8 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Approach and Algorithm  Preliminaries Eigenvector Centrality – A sort of a square stochastic adjacency matrix – Providing a principled method to combine the “importance” of a vertex with those of its neighbors in ranking – PageRank pre-computes a rank vector to estimate the importance for all of the Web pages Random Walk explanation – The ranking scores correspond to the likelihood of arriving in each of the vertices by traversing through the graph with a random starting – If a user is viewing an image, other related (similar) images may also be of interest (jumping to other random image)

9 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Approach and Algorithm (cont’d)  Image rank (IR) S* is the column normalized, symmetrical adjacency matrix S where S u,v measures the visual similarities Iterative IR yields the dominant eigenvector of the matrix S*  Image rank with random walk d is damping factor (commonly d > 0.8 in practice) Considering a small probability for a random walk to go to some other images which is not connected in the graph  Then, how can we calculate visual similarities?

10 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Features generation and representation  A reliable measure of image similarity Global features are often too restrictive (“Prius”) – Color histograms – Shape analysis Local descriptors are useful – Contains a richer set of image information – Relatively stable under different transformation – A type of local descriptors Harris corners Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) Shape Context Spin Images

11 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Local Descriptors  SIFT with a Different of Gaussian (DoG) Extracting a features of images without regarding to scale and rotation Simple process – 1. Converting original image into grayscale – 2. Applying Gaussian Filter – 3. Finding DoG interest point (candidate keypoint) – 4. pruning the candidate keypoint – 5. deriving description vectors – 6. comparing the description vectors  The similarity is defined as the number interest point (keypoint) shared between two images divided by their average number of interest points

12 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Query Dependent Ranking  Generating the similarity graph S is computationally infeasible for the billions of images Need to reduce the computational cost  Query dependent ranking A practical method to obtain the initial set of candidates Rely on the existing commercial search engine for the initial grouping of semantically similar images – Ex) given the query “Eiffel Towers” – Extracting the top-N results from existing search engines – Creating the graph of visual similarity on the N images – Computing the image rank only on this subset  Then, how can this approach improve the relevancy and diversity of image search results? Query Dependent

13 Copyright  2008 by CEBT A Full Retrieval System  The goal of image-search engines Retrieving image results that are relevant to the query and diverse enough to cover variations of visual of semantic concepts – “Without the analyzing the content of images, there is no reliable way to actively promote the diversity of the results”  Queries with homogeneous visual concepts “Mona-Lisa”, “Eiffel Tower”, “Albert Einstein” Achieved by identifying the vertices that are located at the “center” of weighted similarity graph  Queries with heterogeneous visual concepts “Jaguar”, “Apple”, “Monet Painting” The approach is able to identify a relevant and diverse set of images as top ranking results Simple heuristics can help for analyzing the graph

14 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Homogeneous Concept: Example

15 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Heterogeneous Concept: Example

16 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Heterogeneous Concept: Example

17 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Experimental Results  Test set 2000 most popular product queries on Google – Google product search: “ipod”, “xbox”, “Picasso”, “Fabreze”, …… – Extracted the top 1000 search results from Google Image Search – Fewer than 5% of the images had at least 1 connection – Concentrated on the approximately 1000 remaining queries  Challenge issues Quantifying the quality of sets of image is very hard – User preference to an image is heavily influenced by a user’s personal tastes and biases – Asking the user to compare the quality of a set of images is difficult and time consuming task – Assessing the differences in ranking is error-prone and imprecise  Two evaluation strategies Minimizing irrelevant images Click studies

18 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Experimental Results (cont’d)  Minimizing irrelevant images For studying a conservative version of “relevancy” of the ranking results – Asking the user: “Which of the images are the least relevant?” IR>Google: 762 Google>IR: 70 Google=IR: 202  Click Study User satisfaction is not purely a function of relevance – Users usually click in the images they are interested in An effective way to measure search quality is to analyze the total number of “clicks” each image receives – Collect clocks for the top 40 images on 130 common queries – The image selected by IR to be in the top-20 would have received approximately 17.5% more clicks than those in the default ranking In case of Inflated logos Screenshots of Web pages In case of Inflated logos Screenshots of Web pages

19 Copyright  2008 by CEBT Conclusion  Proposed a simple mechanism to incorporate the advancement made in using link and network analysis for Web-document search into image search Image Ranking  Demonstrated an effective method to infer a graph in which the images could be embedded Visual similarities with visual-hyperlinks Rely on human knowledge and the intelligence of crowds  Proposed the ability to customize the similarity function based on the expected distribution of queries  Future work Determining the performance of the system under adversarial condition Studying about the role of duplicate and near-duplicate images in terms of the potential for biasing the approach and transitional probabilities


Download ppt "PageRank for Product Image Search Yushi Jing, Shumeet Baluja College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology Google, Inc. WWW 2008 Referred Track:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google