Cited by 108Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFace and Expression Recognition

Learning to Hash With Optimized Anchor Embedding for Scalable Retrieval

Guo, Yuchen, Ding, Guiguang, Liu, Li, Han, Jungong, Shao, Ling·2017·IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

Abstract

Sparse representation and image hashing are powerful tools for data representation and image retrieval respectively. The combinations of these two tools for scalable image retrieval, i.e., sparse hashing (SH) methods, have been proposed in recent years and the preliminary results are promising. The core of those methods is a scheme that can efficiently embed the (high-dimensional) image features into a low-dimensional Hamming space, while preserving the similarity between features. Existing SH methods mostly focus on finding better sparse representations of images in the hash space. We argue that the anchor set utilized in sparse representation is also crucial, which was unfortunately underestimated by the prior art. To this end, we propose a novel SH method that optimizes the integration of the anchors, such that the features can be better embedded and binarized, termed as Sparse Hashing with Optimized Anchor Embedding. The central idea is to push the anchors far from the axis while preserving their relative positions so as to generate similar hashcodes for neighboring features. We formulate this idea as an orthogonality constrained maximization problem and an efficient and novel optimization framework is systematically exploited. Extensive experiments on five benchmark image data sets demonstrate that our method outperforms several state-of-the-art related methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tip.2017.2652730

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • Although bit-independent constraint increases information content, quantization errors accumulate during iterative optimization and imbalanced variance within each dimension remains an open issue affecting hash code quality critically.

    “Although the information content is increased inevitably in this case, the quantization errors are accumulated during the iterative optimization and the aforementioned imbalanced variance within each dimension is still an open issue that affects the hash code quality critically.”
  • ActivityNet's unpleasant performance is reasonably explained by too many untrimmed videos with enormous intra-class variance, which lowers hash code quality and makes retrieval more intractable.

    “A reasonable explanation for the unpleasant performance is that ActivityNet contains too many untrimmed videos with enormous intra-class variance, which lowers the hash code quality heavily and makes the retrieval more intractable [26], [48] compared to the experiments on FCVID and YFCC.”
  • The mAP value at 64 bits of UDVH-TSN is 22.1%, which is 7.3% higher than the 14.8% reported for NSH.

    “For example, the mAP value at 64 bits of UDVH-TSN is 22.1%, which is 7.3% higher than 14.8% as reported in their paper of NSH.”
  • The binary code B generated by balanced rotation is used iteratively to guide deep hash function learning, and B is expected to preserve local structures and balanced properties from feature embedding and balanced rotation.

    “The core idea behind such self-taught frameworks is that the binary code B generated by balanced rotation is utilized iteratively to guide the deep hash function learning, where B is expected to preserve the local structures and balanced properties from the processes of feature embedding and balanced rotation, respectively [48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, Y., Ding, G., Liu, L., Han, J., & Shao, L.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Northumbria University (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
Published
2017-03
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
1344-1354
ISSN
  • 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0042
OpenAlex
W2572852038
Cited by
108
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 18
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61571269, 61271394)
  • National Basic Research Project of China (2015CB352300)
  • Royal Society Newton Mobility (IE150997)
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 › Face and Expression Recognition
Keywords
image hashing, image retrieval, sparse representation, Hamming space, orthogonality constraints, binarization, feature embedding

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