Cited by 20Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesDigital Media Forensic Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social Media Image Retrieval Using Distilled Convolutional Neural Network for Suspicious e-Crime and Terrorist Account Detection

Chitrakar, Pradip, Zhang, Chengcui, Warner, Gary, Liao, Xinpeng·2016·2016 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)

Abstract

Retrieval of images with object-of-interest from a vast pool of social media images has been a research interest in cyber crime research community for detecting criminal behaviors in social media. Due to inherent diversity and the low duplicate property of images on social media, it brings forth many challenges in image retrieval, especially in identifying distinct features for a given object-of-interest. Previous literature approached this problem with extended General Hough Transform, where Hough space is analyzed for each specific object-of-interest. Different objects of interest produce different types of patterns in Hough space and no unified framework can be easily established to incorporate all those patterns. In this paper, we propose a unified framework based on convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying the social media images and retrieving the images based on the probability score from the softmax classifier. In our framework, a reduced size CNN model is trained by distilling the knowledge from a pretrained full size CNN model, which is suitable for applications with limited training data such as ours and results in a higher accuracy in image retrieval as well as better performance in execution speed in comparison with the full size CNN model. Experiments on three image datasets relating to suspicious e-crime and terrorist involvement - Guy Fawkes masks, credit card logos, and ISIS logos show that our framework outperforms extended General Hough Transform…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ism.2016.0110

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 10.1109/CVPR.2014.222 · DOI · Paper page
  2. mishkin, 2016, Systematic evaluation of CNN advances on the ImageNet, arXiv preprint arXiv 1606 02228
  3. hinton, 2015, Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, arXiv preprint arXiv 1503
  4. 10.1145/2647868.2654889 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/0031-3203(81)90009-1 · DOI
  6. 10.4018/ijmdem.2015070103 · DOI
  7. 10.1109/CVPR.2010.5540064 · DOI
  8. 10.1109/ICCV.2011.6126504 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/2422956.2422960 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chitrakar, P., Zhang, C., Warner, G., & Liao, X.
Affiliations
University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Venue
2016 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-12
Pages
493-498
OpenAlex
W2578533030
Cited by
20
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM) (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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
knowledge distillation, convolutional neural networks, limited training data

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