Cited by 2,438Image Retrieval and Classification TechniquesAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Describing Textures in the Wild

Open access
Cimpoi, Mircea, Maji, Subhransu, Kokkinos, Iasonas, Mohamed, Sammy, Vedaldi, Andrea·2014·2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

Patterns and textures are key characteristics of many natural objects: a shirt can be striped, the wings of a butterfly can be veined, and the skin of an animal can be scaly. Aiming at supporting this dimension in image understanding, we address the problem of describing textures with semantic attributes. We identify a vocabulary of forty-seven texture terms and use them to describe a large dataset of patterns collected "in the wild". The resulting Describable Textures Dataset (DTD) is a basis to seek the best representation for recognizing describable texture attributes in images. We port from object recognition to texture recognition the Improved Fisher Vector (IFV) and Deep Convolutional-network Activation Features (DeCAF), and show that surprisingly, they both outperform specialized texture descriptors not only on our problem, but also in established material recognition datasets. We also show that our describable attributes are excellent texture descriptors, transferring between datasets and tasks, in particular, combined with IFV and DeCAF, they significantly outperform the state-of-the-art by more than 10% on both FMD and KTH-TIPS-2b benchmarks. We also demonstrate that they produce intuitive descriptions of materials and Internet images.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2014.461

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Texture labels are given at the image level and are based on non-natural images.

    “Texture label , given at the image-level, is based on non-natural images.”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction says the 5,640 texture images were annotated with attributes, supporting image-level labels. But it says the images were downloaded from the Internet and captured “in the wild,” rather than collected in a laboratory; the Summary describes the task as recognizing attributes in natural images. This contradicts the claim that the labels are based on non-natural images. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Annotations from different perceptual levels are heterogeneous; ADE20K has pixel-wise annotations while DTD texture annotations are image-level.

    “Next, annotations from different perceptual levels are heterogeneous. For example, ADE20K has pixel-wise annotations while the annotations for textures in the DTD are image-level.”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

    Section 2, “The describable texture dataset” (page not specified), describes DTD as a collection of texture images annotated with attributes, supporting the image-level DTD example. The cited paper does not address ADE20K or its pixel-wise annotations, so it does not support the full comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Various image datasets are constructed only for specific tasks, such as ADE20K for scene parsing, DTD for texture recognition, and OpenSurfaces for material and surface recognition.

    “Various image datasets are constructed only for specific task, such as ADE20K for scene parsing [2], the Describe Texture Dataset (DTD) for texture recognition [4], and OpenSurfaces for material and surface recognition [6].”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

  • There is no single image dataset annotated with all levels of visual information.

    “First, there is no single image dataset annotated with all levels of visual information.”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction describes a dataset of texture images annotated with 47 texture attributes, and the Related work section discusses other texture and material datasets. Neither passage says that no image dataset is annotated at all levels of visual information. Searches for that assertion and for datasets annotated at multiple visual levels found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Broden+ contains 152 part classes, 26 material classes, and 47 texture classes.

    “| part | 152 | ADE [2], Pascal-Part [28] | mIoU (bg) & pixel acc. |”

    From Unified Perceptual Parsing for Scene Understanding (2018) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction describes 47 texture attributes in the paper’s own dataset, not texture classes in Broden+. Searches for Broden+ and the counts 152 and 26 found no passage addressing Broden+’s class counts. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cimpoi, M., Maji, S., Kokkinos, I., Mohamed, S., & Vedaldi, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Toyota Technological Institute (JP)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Venue
2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-06
Pages
3606-3613
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2047643928
Cited by
2,438
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 318 · 2025: 476 · 2024: 435 · 2023: 328 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 3
FWCI
31.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1005411)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-JCJC-0205, ANR-10, ANR-10-JCJC)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (228180)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
texture description, texture features, texture classification, material identification, DECAF, transfer learning, image understanding

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