The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial pyramid co-occurrence for image classification
Abstract
We describe a novel image representation termed spatial pyramid co-occurrence which characterizes both the photometric and geometric aspects of an image. Specifically, the co-occurrences of visual words are computed with respect to spatial predicates over a hierarchical spatial partitioning of an image. The representation captures both the absolute and relative spatial arrangement of the words and, through the choice and combination of the predicates, can characterize a variety of spatial relationships. Our representation is motivated by the analysis of overhead imagery such as from satellites or aircraft. This imagery generally does not have an absolute reference frame and thus the relative spatial arrangement of the image elements often becomes the key discriminating feature. We validate this hypothesis using a challenging ground truth image dataset of 21 land-use classes manually extracted from high-resolution aerial imagery. Our approach is shown to result in higher classification rates than a non-spatial bagof- visual-words approach as well as a popular approach for characterizing the absolute spatial arrangement of visual words, the spatial pyramid representation of Lazebnik et al. [7]. While our primary objective is analyzing overhead imagery, we demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Graz-01 object class dataset and performs competitively on the 15 Scene dataset.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589
Beyond Bags of Features: Spatial Pyramid Matching for Recognizing Natural Scene Categories
Lazebnik, S., Schmid, C., & Ponce, J. (2006) · 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 2 (CVPR'06) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2006.68 · Cited by 7,916
Video Google: a text retrieval approach to object matching in videos
Sivic, & Zisserman (2003) · Proceedings Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2003.1238663 · Cited by 6,367
Cited by
Remote Sensing Image Scene Classification: Benchmark and State of the Art
Cheng, G., Han, J., & Lu, X. (2017) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2017.2675998 · Cited by 2,926
AID: A benchmark data set for performance evaluation of aerial scene classification
Xia, G.-S., Hu, J., Hu, F., Shi, B., Bai, X., Zhong, Y., Zhang, L., & Lu, X. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2685945 · Cited by 2,372
Cheng, G., Han, J., Zhou, P., & Guo, L. (2014) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.10.002 · Cited by 1,007
Huang, B., Zhao, B., & Song, Y. (2018) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.050 · Cited by 591
PatternNet: A benchmark dataset for performance evaluation of remote sensing image retrieval
Zhou, W., Newsam, S., Li, C., & Shao, Z. (2018) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.01.004 · Cited by 571
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, Y., & Newsam, S.
- Venue
- 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2011-11
- Pages
- 1465-1472
- OpenAlex
- W2077689834
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.30
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.