I have a paper on attribute-based transfer learning for object categorization in ECCV this year. So I am very curious about the views or attitudes of the community on this topic. During this ECCV, there is a one-day workshop on this topic. At the end of this workshop, there is a panel discussion about this topic among five leading researchers in the computer vision community. It turns out that there are two views on this topic which occupy the two extremes of the spectrum. The followings are summaries of their personal views on object attributes:
- Malik doesn’t favorite attributes. He said “vision should not be hijacked by language”
- Mata doesn’t favorite attributes. He said “my dog can recognize as good as the state-of-the-art computer vision algorithms or even better without language”
- Hoiem considers attributes a way to go beyond recognition for image understanding, i.e., describing objects and scene
- Fei-Fei considers attributes as a knowledge
- Lampert considers attributes as a way to transfer knowledge to the vision system
Overall, there is neither clear definition on attributes nor consensus in the community. It is still a controversial topic. But it may be a hot research topic in the next a few years. In this ECCV, there are three papers about attributes.
- Automatic Attribute Discovery and Characterization from Noisy Web Data
- Idea: mining text and image data sampled from the Internet
- Motivation: product images online are often accompanied texts describing their attributes, such as color, parts, functions, etc.
- A Discriminative Latent Model of Object Classes and Attributes
- Attribute-based Transfer Learning for Object Categorization with Zero or One Training Example (my paper)
We really need a definition of "attribute" to make the discussion meaningful. From the use of "attribute" in your paper, I don't see how it has to be related to language as in the views of the first two guys. Those "attributes" are ontological knowledge independent of any language.
ReplyDeleteMy personal feeling is that "attribyte" is more like a misnomer in the recent computer vision literature. C. Lampert and D. Hoiem use it to refer anything that can describe an object, including parts, properties (e.g., color, texture), environments, habits, etc. I think in this case, "attribute" is just used as shorthand for things that beyond object's categories. I follow the way of C. Lampert and D. Hoiem. Certainly, this definition is controversial, as I discussed in my main post, two extreme attitudes exist in the community, the one love it loves it very much while the one dislike it just stay away. Anyhow, I think the research in this direction still has lots of potentials.
ReplyDelete"Attributes" seems a semantic way to describe objects, human defined most times, like color, type, etc.
ReplyDelete