Cited by 1,478Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Lost in quantization: Improving particular object retrieval in large scale image databases

Philbin, James, Chum, Ondrej, Isard, Michael, Sivic, Josef, Zisserman, Andrew·2008·2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

The state of the art in visual object retrieval from large databases is achieved by systems that are inspired by text retrieval. A key component of these approaches is that local regions of images are characterized using high-dimensional descriptors which are then mapped to ldquovisual wordsrdquo selected from a discrete vocabulary.This paper explores techniques to map each visual region to a weighted set of words, allowing the inclusion of features which were lost in the quantization stage of previous systems. The set of visual words is obtained by selecting words based on proximity in descriptor space. We describe how this representation may be incorporated into a standard tf-idf architecture, and how spatial verification is modified in the case of this soft-assignment. We evaluate our method on the standard Oxford Buildings dataset, and introduce a new dataset for evaluation. Our results exceed the current state of the art retrieval performance on these datasets, particularly on queries with poor initial recall where techniques like query expansion suffer. Overall we show that soft-assignment is always beneficial for retrieval with large vocabularies, at a cost of increased storage requirements for the index.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2008.4587635

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hamming embedding is better than directly using more Voronoi cells because using more cells incurs significant quantization error.

    “This is better than directly using more Voronoi cells (i.e., more clusters) because using more cells will incur significant quantization error [23].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Philbin, J., Chum, O., Isard, M., Sivic, J., & Zisserman, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Center for Machine Perception, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • INRIA, WILLOW Project-Team, Laboratoire d'Informatique de l'Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France
Venue
2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2008-06
Pages
1-8
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148809531
Cited by
1,478
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 99 · 2018: 108 · 2017: 118 · 2016: 125 · 2015: 140 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 128 · 2012: 99
FWCI
55.18
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
large-scale image databases, visual words, soft assignment, TF-IDF, spatial verification, query expansion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review