Cited by 834Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The devil is in the details: an evaluation of recent feature encoding methods

Chatfield, Ken, Lempitsky, Victor, Vedaldi, Andrea, Zisserman, Andrew·2011·Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2011

Abstract

A large number of novel encodings for bag of visual words models have been proposed in the past two years to improve on the standard histogram of quantized local features. Examples include locality-constrained linear encoding [23], improved Fisher encoding [17], super vector encoding [27], and kernel codebook encoding [20]. While several authors have reported very good results on the challenging PASCAL VOC classification data by means of these new techniques, differences in the feature computation and learning algorithms, missing details in the description of the methods, and different tuning of the various components, make it impossible to compare directly these methods and hard to reproduce the results reported. This paper addresses these shortcomings by carrying out a rigorous evaluation of these new techniques by: (1) fixing the other elements of the pipeline (features, learning, tuning); (2) disclosing all the implementation details, and (3) identifying both those aspects of each method which are particularly important to achieve good performance, and those aspects which are less critical. This allows a consistent comparative analysis of these encoding methods. Several conclusions drawn from our analysis cannot be inferred from the original publications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5244/c.25.76

Cites

26 of 26 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chatfield, K., Lempitsky, V., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2011
Published
2011
Pages
76.1-76.12
OpenAlex
W1976921161
Cited by
834
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 133 · 2015: 161 · 2014: 161 · 2013: 100 · 2012: 41
FWCI
72.54
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) (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 › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
bag of visual words, feature encoding, image classification, Pascal VOC, reproducibility, method comparison

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