CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 784Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

CNN: Single-label to Multi-label

Open access
Wei, Yunchao, Xia, Wei, Huang, Junshi, Ni, Bingbing, Dong, Jian, Zhao, Yao, Yan, Shuicheng·2014·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1406.5726arXiv 1406.5726
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) has demonstrated promising performance in single-label image classification tasks. However, how CNN best copes with multi-label images still remains an open problem, mainly due to the complex underlying object layouts and insufficient multi-label training images. In this work, we propose a flexible deep CNN infrastructure, called Hypotheses-CNN-Pooling (HCP), where an arbitrary number of object segment hypotheses are taken as the inputs, then a shared CNN is connected with each hypothesis, and finally the CNN output results from different hypotheses are aggregated with max pooling to produce the ultimate multi-label predictions. Some unique characteristics of this flexible deep CNN infrastructure include: 1) no ground truth bounding box information is required for training; 2) the whole HCP infrastructure is robust to possibly noisy and/or redundant hypotheses; 3) no explicit hypothesis label is required; 4) the shared CNN may be well pre-trained with a large-scale single-label image dataset, e.g. ImageNet; and 5) it may naturally output multi-label prediction results. Experimental results on Pascal VOC2007 and VOC2012 multi-label image datasets well demonstrate the superiority of the proposed HCP infrastructure over other state-of-the-arts. In particular, the mAP reaches 84.2% by HCP only and 90.3% after the fusion with our complementary result in [47] based on hand-crafted features on the VOC2012 dataset, which significantly outperforms the state-of-the-arts with a large margin of more than 7%.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1406.5726

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.

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?

  • The method of Wei et al. (2014), which achieves 1% better mAP on VOC-2012, is pre-trained on an extended 2000-class ILSVRC dataset that includes additional 1000 categories semantically close to those in VOC datasets.

    “It should be noted that the method of Wei et al. (2014), which achieves 1% better mAP on VOC-2012, is pre-trained on an extended 2000-class ILSVRC dataset, which includes additional 1000 categories, semantically close to those in VOC datasets.”

    From Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition (2014) · cites this paper as Wei et al. (2014)

    Section 4.4 (p. 10) says Wei et al.’s HCP-2000C augments the 1,000-class ILSVRC-2012 training set with 1,000 ImageNet classes to improve semantic overlap with PASCAL VOC. For VOC 2012, however, Section 4.4 (p. 11) reports a 1.4-percentage-point mAP improvement over PRE-1512, rather than the stated 1%. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The method of Wei et al. (2014) also benefits from fusion with an object detection-assisted classification pipeline.

    “It also benefits from the fusion with an object detection-assisted classification pipeline.”

    From Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition (2014) · cites this paper as Wei et al. (2014)

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [1][1] B. Alexe, T. Deselaers, and V. Ferrari. Measuring the objectness of image windows. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 34(11):2189-2202, 2012. -
  2. [2][2] L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning , 45(1):5-32, 2001. -
  3. [3][3] J. Carreira and C. Sminchisescu. Cpmc: Automatic object segmentation using constrained parametric min-cuts. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 34(7):1312-1328, 2012. -
  4. [4][4] C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACMTrans. Intelligent Systems and Technology , 2(3):27, 2011. -
  5. [5][5] Q. Chen, Z. Song, J. Dong, Z. Huang, Y. Hua, and S. Yan. Contextualizing object detection and classication. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2014. -
  6. [6][6] Q. Chen, Z. Song, Y. Hua, Z. Huang, and S. Yan. Hierarchical matching with side information for image classification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3426-3433, 2012. -
  7. [7][7] M.-M. Cheng, J. Warrell, W.-Y. Lin, S. Zheng, V. Vineet, and N. Crook. Efficient salient region detection with soft image abstraction. In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1529-1536, 2013. cat TABLE 3 Comparison in terms of rigid categories and articulated categories among NUS-PSL, PRE-1512 and HCP-2000C. -
  8. [9][9] N. Dalal and B. Triggs. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , volume 1, pages 886-893, 2005. -
  9. [10][10] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. FeiFei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248-255, 2009. -
  10. [11][11] J. Donahue, Y. Jia, O. Vinyals, J. Hoffman, N. Zhang, E. Tzeng, and T. Darrell. Decaf: A deep convolutional activation feature for generic visual recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.1531 , 2013. - · arXiv
  11. [12][12] J. Dong, W. Xia, Q. Chen, J. Feng, Z. Huang, and S. Yan. Subcategory-aware object classification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 827-834, 2013. -
  12. [13][13] M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision , 88(2):303-338, 2010. -
  13. [14][14] L. Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P. Perona. Learning generative visual models from few training examples: An incremental bayesian approach tested on 101 object categories. Computer Vision and Image Understanding , 106(1):59-70, 2007. -
  14. [15][15] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2524 , 2013. - · arXiv
  15. [16][16] Y. Gong, Y. Jia, T. K. leung, A. Toshev, and S. Ioffe. deep convolutional ranking for multi label image annotation. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2014. -
  16. [17][17] Y. Gong, L. Wang, R. Guo, and S. Lazebnik. Multi-scale orderless pooling of deep convolutional activation features. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.1840 , 2014. - · arXiv
  17. [19][19] H. Harzallah, F. Jurie, and C. Schmid. Combining efficient object localization and image classification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 237-244, 2009. -
  18. [20][20] P. Hedelin and J. Skoglund. Vector quantization based on gaussian mixture models. IEEE Trans. Speech and Audio Processing , 8(4):385-401, 2000. -
  19. [21][21] K. Jarrett, K. Kavukcuoglu, M. Ranzato, and Y. LeCun. What is the best multi-stage architecture for object recognition? In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2146-2153, 2009. -
  20. [24][24] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1106-1114, 2012. -
  21. [25][25] S. Lazebnik, C. Schmid, and J. Ponce. Beyond bags of features: Spatial pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , volume 2, pages 2169-2178, 2006. -
  22. [26][26] Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. Denker, D. Henderson, R. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. Jackel. Handwritten digit recognition with a back-propagation network. In Neural Information Processing Systems , 1990. -
  23. [28][28] Y. LeCun and M. Ranzato. Deep learning tutorial. In International Conference on Machine Learning , 2013. -
  24. [29][29] H. Lee, R. Grosse, R. Ranganath, and A. Y. Ng. Convolutional deep belief networks for scalable unsupervised learning of hierarchical representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 609-616, 2009. -
  25. [30][30] M. Lin, Q. Chen, and S. Yan. Network in network. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2014. -
  26. [31][31] T. Liu, Z. Yuan, J. Sun, J. Wang, N. Zheng, X. Tang, and H.-Y. Shum. Learning to detect a salient object. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 33(2):353-367, 2011. -
  27. [32][32] D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision , 60(2):91110, 2004. -
  28. [33][33] N. M. Nasrabadi and R. A. King. Image coding using vector quantization: A review. IEEE Trans. Communications , 36(8):957971, 1988. -
  29. [34][34] T. Ojala, M. Pietik¨ ainen, and D. Harwood. A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern recognition , 29(1):51-59, 1996. -
  30. [35][35] M. Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic. Learning and transferring mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks. arXiv , 2013. -
  31. [36][36] W. Ouyang and X. Wang. Joint deep learning for pedestrian detection. In International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 2056-2063, 2013. -
  32. [37][37] F. Perronnin, J. S´ anchez, and T. Mensink. Improving the fisher kernel for large-scale image classification. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 143-156, 2010. -
  33. [38][38] A. S. Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan, and S. Carlsson. Cnn - features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.6382 , 2014. - · arXiv
  34. [39][39] O. Russakovsky, Y. Lin, K. Yu, and L. Fei-Fei. Object-centric spatial pooling for image classification. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 1-15. 2012. -
  35. [40][40] P. Sermanet, D. Eigen, X. Zhang, M. Mathieu, R. Fergus, and Y. LeCun. Overfeat: Integrated recognition, localization and detection using convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6229 , 2013. - · arXiv
  36. [41][41] J. Shi and J. Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 22(8):888905, 2000. -
  37. [42][42] Z. Song, Q. Chen, Z. Huang, Y. Hua, and S. Yan. Contextualizing object detection and classification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1585-1592, 2011. -
  38. [43][43] J. Uijlings, K. van de Sande, T. Gevers, and A. Smeulders. Selective search for object recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision , 104(2):154-171, 2013. -
  39. [44][44] J. Wang, J. Yang, K. Yu, F. Lv, T. Huang, and Y. Gong. Localityconstrained linear coding for image classification. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3360-3367, 2010. -
  40. [45][45] J. Wright, Y. Ma, J. Mairal, G. Sapiro, T. S. Huang, and S. Yan. Sparse representation for computer vision and pattern recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE , 98(6):1031-1044, 2010. -
  41. [46][46] Q. Yan, L. Xu, J. Shi, and J. Jia. Hierarchical saliency detection. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1155-1162, 2013. -
  42. [47][47] S. Yan, J. Dong, Q. Chen, Z. Song, Y. Pan, W. Xia, H. Zhongyang, Y. Hua, and S. Shen. Generalized hierarchical matching for subcategory aware object classification. In Visual Recognition Challange workshop, European Conference on Computer Vision , 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wei, Y., Xia, W., Huang, J., Ni, B., Dong, J., Zhao, Y., & Yan, S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Beijing Jiaotong University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2014
Volume
38
Issue
9
Pages
1901-1907
ISSN
0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1406.5726
arXiv
1406.5726
OpenAlex
W1567302070
Cited by
784
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 7
FWCI
65.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Key Research and Development Program of China (2012CB316400)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
multi-label image classification, max pooling, Pascal VOC 2007, Pascal VOC 2012, object layout

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