Open Access

Evaluation of parameters for combining multiple textual sources of evidence for Web image retrieval using genetic programming

  • Patrícia Correia Saraiva1Email author,
  • João M. B. Cavalcanti1,
  • Marcos A. Gonçalves2,
  • Katia C. Lage dos Santos3,
  • Edleno S. de Moura1 and
  • Ricardo da S. Torres4
Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society201219:87

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13173-012-0087-1

Received: 9 January 2012

Accepted: 16 August 2012

Published: 15 September 2012

Abstract

Web image retrieval is a research area that is receiving a lot of attention in the last few years due to the growing availability of images on the Web. Since content-based image retrieval is still considered very difficult and expensive in the Web context, most current large-scale Web image search engines use textual descriptions to represent the content of the Web images. In this paper we present a study about the usage of genetic programming (GP) to address the problem of image retrieval on the World Wide Web by using textual sources of evidence and textual queries. We investigate several parameter of choices related to the usage of a framework previously proposed by us. The proposed framework uses GP to provide a good solution to combine multiple textual sources of evidence associated with the Web images. Experiments performed using a collection with more than 195,000 images extracted from the Web showed that our evolutionary approach outperforms the best baseline we used with gains of 22.36 % in terms of mean average precision.

Keywords

Web image retrieval Genetic programming

1 Introduction

The World Wide Web is undoubtedly the largest public image repository ever created by human society, posing also new challenges and opportunities to the development of new algorithms and applications of image search. In addition, the popularization of digital devices such as cameras, cell phones, scanners, and personal computers has also simplified the tasks of producing and publishing images on the Web in the recent years. As a result, the volume of information encoded as images is growing fast, which also raises the importance of Web image retrieval applications. One of the difficulties of image retrieval on the Web comes from the fact that image annotations are inherently noisy and incomplete. Since the Web has granted a low-cost and large-scale accessibility to this material, Web image retrieval became a target of many researchers.

Image retrieval can be divided into two main approaches: text-based image retrieval, also known as TBIR, and content-based image retrieval, also known as CBIR. In text-based image retrieval, textual descriptions of the image content are assumed to be stored along with the respective image. Such descriptions are usually based on annotations made by humans. In this approach, the search process starts when the user provides a textual query that describes his/her information need. This query is compared to the descriptions of the stored images in the repository, using traditional text retrieval techniques. The main difficulty of this approach is that many image annotations may be inherently noisy and incomplete. Besides, the process of manually annotating each image in the collection is laborious, time consuming, and expensive.

In CBIR, low-level features (feature vectors) are automatically extracted to describe image visual properties like color, texture or shape and used for indexing and searching. For querying, the user provides a query pattern (e.g., a target image or sketch, or a description of image features), which is compared to the feature vectors of the images in the collection. The images are then ranked according to their distance to the user query.

Although both approaches have been applied for image retrieval in general, the choice between TBIR and CBIR must always consider the characteristics of the target application. In the Web scenario for example, the adoption of CBIR techniques presents some drawbacks. First, the processing cost of image feature extraction and similarity calculation may affect performance negatively. Second, for an uncontrolled and highly heterogeneous collection such as the Web, it is difficult to decide which image features better represent image visual content, since the usefulness of each feature may vary according to the type of image. Finally, users have to provide a sample image or drawing a sketch that describes their information need, which is not a trivial task.

On the other hand, the text on the Web pages is readily available and it can be useful as a source to generate good descriptions of images present on these pages. Further, processing textual terms compared to visual content features is much faster and therefore more suitable for Web applications. As the user query can also be formulated in a textual form to describe the image of interest, it makes this approach a good alternative for Web image retrieval. In fact, current and successful commercial image search engines like Google Image Search1 and Bing Image2 use textual descriptions to represent the images and also use traditional text retrieval techniques to retrieve them. Even when the content-based approach is applied in the Web context, the text of Web pages should not be disregarded, since it often includes some form of human generated descriptions of the images [6].

In this paper, we study the selection of parameters when applying a genetic programming (GP) framework that combines multiple textual sources of evidence previously proposed by us. We present experiments about the impact of parameters and features in the behavior of the GP-based approach and provide a detailed methodology to apply GP in the context of Web image retrieval. Our framework assumes that text and meta-data present on the Web pages can be used as potential evidence to describe the images on the same pages, and uses the principles of GP to derive good evidence combination functions to improve the effectiveness of Web image retrieval systems.

In sum, the main contributions of this paper are: (1) a comprehensive discussion about which textual sources of evidence associated with Web images are more important to represent the image content; (2) the use of different textual features as GP terminals, other than simple statistical information on documents and collection as exploited in previous work [6, 15, 21]; (3) an study about the impact of GP parameters in the results obtained by the evolutionary approach; and (4) a thorough experimental evaluation of the proposed technique in a very large image collection extracted from the Web.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we discuss some related work. Section 3 presents a brief overview of GP. Section 4 describes our GP-based approach that combines multiple textual sources of evidence to generate good ranking functions for Web image retrieval. Sections 5 and 6 discuss the experimental methodology and the results obtained by our evolutionary approach confronted with some baselines. Finally, Sect. 7 presents final remarks with directions to future work.

2 Related work

Image retrieval has been extensively studied in the last years with a lot of papers being published in the literature. For instance, Kherfi et al. [13] provide a comprehensive survey on Web image retrieval systems, giving details on the main issues that have to be addressed during their implementation (e.g., how to perform data gathering, visual feature extraction, indexing, retrieving, and performance evaluation).

In [6], some textual sources of evidence related to the images are considered. The authors proposed a novel model based on Bayesian belief networks for Web image retrieval. Experiments were conducted with a reference collection composed of 54,000 images gathered from Web. The results showed that the combination of information derived from text passages with information derived from HTML tags leads to improved retrieval when compared to the results obtained by the use of each source of evidence in isolation. We use this work as one of our baselines.

In [5], is described the architecture of a Web image retrieval system with automatic image annotation techniques. The authors proposed four methodologies to generate automatically the annotation for every image, by analyzing the structural blocks, collecting anchor text of link structures, and gathering shared annotation with other images with the same visual signature.

Torres et al. [20] introduced the use of GP for CBIR. The proposed framework combined simple descriptors and used the principles of GP to discover an effective combination function to retrieve images based on their shape. The experiments showed that GP framework yields better results than the genetic algorithm (GA) approach and was able to find better similarity functions than the ones obtained from the individual descriptors.

Three learning algorithms, CBIR-SVM, CBIR-GP and CBIR-AR, were used in [11] for CBIR to effectively combine multiple image content descriptors in order to improve ranking performance. The experiments showed that CBIR-GP and CBIR-AR have similar performance, and both outperformed CBIR-SVM generating a better image ranking function.

Li and Ma [15] present a novel ranking model named WIRank based on GP to automatically generate an effective ranking function by combining different types of evidence for Web image retrieval. Their GP approach includes textual metadata, visual features, and link structure analysis. Temporal information was also used as a new feature to represent the Web images in order to meet the demand by users for the most recent information. Our research work has been developed in the past years in parallel to the one proposed by Li and Ma [15] and presents an extension of a preliminary paper published in [21]. While we also study the usage of GP for image search, in this new article we are particularly interested in studying the application of various different textual features for image search using GP. We present several experiments with users that provide further insights and knowledge about this topic.

An experimental search engine3 was presented in [25], which allows multimedia and multilingual queries in a single search and makes use of the total available information in a multimodal collection. The results from each modality was fused by score normalization (MinMax and \(Z\) score, and the non-linear KIACDF) and combination (summation, multiplication, and maximum). The experiments showed that fusion methods using multiplication or summation seem to favor (in this order) initial precision at an expense of recall. Besides, combination with max seems to favor recall, while two-stage retrieval seems to work best overall.

When compared to our preliminary work [21], we extend it with several new contributions: (1) we present a detailed study about the GP parameters to produce more accurate conclusions. The experimental design in this extended version of the article adopts a two-level full factorial design [12] to better investigate the effect of GP parameter choices in the evolving process; (2) we study issues about the size of text passages around the image and the inclusion of new textual features not exploited in our preliminary work; (3) we include new queries extracted from a query log of a real Web image search system; (4) and finally, we assess the impact of the possible combinations of such features, thus presenting a more comprehensive and more conclusive study about the usage of textual features and GP to develop image search systems on the Web.

When compared with other research articles related to this topic, our paper differs from previous proposals in the following directions. First, we consider each part of the HTML document containing the images (e.g., page title, author, description and keywords meta tags, text passages) as an individual source of evidence. Second, we use many more features extracted from the textual evidence as terminals in the GP framework, not only term frequency (tf) and inverse document frequency (idf) values as used in previous work. Third, we use queries extracted from logs of a real image search engine and also performed effectiveness evaluation using real users, which is a reliable way to test our system. Fourth, we achieve high precision results through the exclusive use of textual information, without requiring the use of costly image processing algorithms. Fifth, we provide a comprehensive discussion about which textual sources of evidence associated with the images are more important to represent the image contents.

3 Fundamentals of genetic programming

In this section we present a brief overview of GP, to provide the necessary background for the description of our proposed method.

Genetic programming is an evolutionary methodology introduced by Koza [14] as an extension to GAs. It is a problem-solving technique based on the principles of biological inheritance and evolution of individuals in a population. The search space of a problem, i.e., the space of all possible solutions to the problem, is investigated by applying a set of optimization techniques that imitate the theory of evolution, combining natural selection and genetic operations, to create more diverse and better performing individuals in subsequent generations to provide a way to find near-optimal solutions for a given task.

In essence, GP evolves a number of candidate solutions, called individuals, represented in memory as binary tree structures. Every internal node of the tree is a function and every leaf node, known as terminal, represents either a variable or a constant. The maximum number of available nodes of an individual is determined by the depth of the tree, which is defined before the evolution process begins. An example of an individual represented by a tree structure is provided in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Example of an individual represented as a tree in GP

The evolution process, which is a simple mimic of natural selection, starts with an initial population composed by a set of individuals. Generally, this initial population is generated randomly. With each individual is associated a fitness value which is determined by an evaluation function, also known as fitness function. This fitness function is commonly modeled by a user-defined measure to score the ability of an individual to adapt to the environment (which in most cases mean the best solution for a given problem) and it is used to eliminate from the populations all unfit individuals, selecting only those that are closest to the desired goal or those that achieve higher scores. The individuals will evolve generation by generation through genetic operations such as reproduction, crossover, and mutation.

Reproduction is the process that copies the individuals that will participate in the crossover and selection processes, without modifying them. The crossover operator allows genetic content exchange between two other individuals, the parents. In a GP process, two parent trees are selected according to a matching selection policy. Next, a random sub-tree is selected from each parent. The children trees result from the swap of the selected sub-trees between the parents. The crossover operation is illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Example of a crossover operation in GP

Finally, the mutation operator has the role of keeping a minimum diversity level of individuals in a population. In the mutation operation, a random node in a tree is selected and then replaced by a new randomly created sub-tree. The mutation operation is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3

Example of a mutation operation in GP

Thus, at the end of an evolutionary process, guided by the application of the genetic operations, a new population is created to replace the current one. The fitness value is measured for each new individual, and the process is repeated over many generations until the termination criterion has been satisfied. This criterion can be a pre-established maximum number of generations or some additional problem-specific success predicate to be reached (e.g., an intended value of fitness for a specific individual).

The size of a computer program in GP is often referred to as the program’s complexity. There are various measures of complexity or size in the GP literature. One of the most natural and commonly used is simply the number of nodes in a tree-based GP system. Other definitions of complexity that have been used are the number of bits needed to express a program in linear form, or the number of instructions, for example, in machine code [3].

4 Web image retrieval based on genetic programming

In recent years, the highly adaptive nature of GP has motivated numerous researchers to apply it in many fields of information retrieval (IR) [1, 710, 17, 22]. Inspired by the success of GP in previous work, we propose a GP-based framework to handle the task of ranking for Web image retrieval. Our proposed framework operates from a combination of multiple textual evidence and uses the principles of GP to derive good evidence combination functions to improve the effectiveness of Web image retrieval systems.

4.1 GP-based Web image retrieval framework

The GP framework is basically an evolving process separated in two phases: training and validation. Each phase selects a set of queries and documents from the collection, called the training set and the validation set.

The framework starts with the creation of an initial random population of individuals that evolves generation by generation using genetic operations. The evolutionary process continues until a stopping criterion is met. In the training phase, each time a new generation is created, a user-defined fitness function is applied to each new individual, to select only the fittest. Since each individual represents a similarity function, applying this fitness function corresponds to ranking the set of training documents according to the set of training queries, using the similarity function defined by one individual. The obtained fitness value is simply a quality assessment of the generated ranking.

During the training phase, the GP system is trained with a labeled dataset (e.g., with information about relevance for each pair (image, query)) in order to learn which are the features that better define an individual as a good solution, i.e, a solution with a suitable fitness value, which is computed by using the fitness function. At the validation phase, the best individuals in the previous phase are evaluated using a second dataset. The idea here is to avoid the overfitting problem in which individuals that work well in the training set do not generalize for different unseen queries/documents because of an overspecialization for the characteristics of the training set.

After the last generation is finished, we also evaluate the fitness function of the best individuals in the training set using now the validation set of queries and documents. Only the individuals that perform the best in both, the training and validation sets, are selected as the final solutions. Currently, the selection method is based on a simple sum of the fitness values of the individuals in both sets minus the standard deviation of these values, as suggested in [1]. The GP process is described in Algorithm 1.

We implemented our GP-based image retrieval system using lil-gp (v1.1),4 a well-known and efficient C GP tool for developing GP-based applications.

4.2 Textual sources of evidence

Web documents usually include a diversity of textual data that can be used for image retrieval. However, due to the uncontrolled nature of the Web, the textual contents of a page does not necessarily contain a proper description of the images included in that page. Sometimes, text surrounding the images are only for navigational purposes, like “next” or “click here” messages. Also, image file names might have been automatically generated, like “image01.jpg”, which does not bring any information related to the image contents. Because of these problems, it is not possible to choose only one textual source of evidence in the page to describe the images. A possible solution to address these problems is to consider each part of the HTML as an individual source of evidence. Our proposal is to combine the sources of evidence we have extracted from the Web pages using the GP framework to improve the quality of the set of images retrieved. We consider some textual source of evidence contained in Web pages, namely:
  1. 1.

    Full text: the full plain text on the Web page. It provides a richer set of words for describing the document topic, and possibly, for describing the image content.

     
  2. 2.

    Text passages: text surrounding the images on the Web pages. We use the set of words located close to the images to be related to their content. For example, a 10-term passage is one in which the reference to the image appears in the middle point in the passage, with at most five terms before the image and at most five terms after the image.

     
  3. 3.

    Anchor text: the set of words found between the anchor tags \(\langle A\rangle \) and \(\langle /A\rangle \).

     
  4. 4.

    Image file name: the file name of the image found in the SRC attribute of the IMG tag.

     
  5. 5.

    Alternate text: the text entry extracted from the ALT attribute of the IMG tag.

     
  6. 6.

    Page title: the HTML title of the Web page. Here, it is assumed that the title might provide some information about the content of the images inside the Web page.

     
  7. 7.

    Author: the text extracted from the AUTHOR attribute in META of the HTML document.

     
  8. 8.

    Keywords: the text found in the KEYWORDS attribute in META of the HTML document.

     
  9. 9.

    Description: the text found in the DESCRIPTION attribute in META of the HTML document.

     
In [6], sets of evidence extracted from anchor text, image file name and alternate text were concatenated to compose a single textual evidence named description tags. In the same way, sources of evidence extracted from page title, author, description, and keywords tags were also concatenated to build a single evidence named meta tags. In our GP framework, but differently from [6], we decided to work with all textual evidence separately to analyze their contributions in isolation.

4.3 Terminals

The values of the terminals reflect some statistics directly derived from the collection, such as tf or idf, or some kind of information previously known to be effective, like a ranking score or parts of it, such as BM25 [19] score or average document length (avgdl), allowing a more effectively oriented exploration of the search space.

A description of all terminals we used in our evolutionary process is presented in Table 1. For each textual evidence, presented in the latest section, we apply these features as the GP terminals.
Table 1

Terminals used by our GP-based image retrieval framework

Terminal

Description

tf

Raw term frequency (number of times a term occurs in a document)

idf

Inverse document frequency given by \(\log (1 + \frac{N}{df}), N\) is number of documents in the corpus and \(df\) is number of documents where the term \(t\) appears

\({\text{ tf}}*{\text{ idf}}\)

tf-idf weighting scheme

avgdl

Average document length

\(bm25\)

Okapi BM25 ranking formula (see Eq. 5)

norm

Document length

4.4 Functions

As functions, we used addition (+), subtraction (\(-\)), multiplication (*), division (/), natural logarithm (log), base-10 logarithm (log10), exponential (exp) and square root (sqrt) to combine terminals and subtrees of an individual. Besides these, we also use constant values in the range [\(0\ldots 100\)].

4.5 The individuals

Each individual is represented by terminals and functions, in the form of tree structure, as shown in Fig. 1. As an example, a candidate solution or individual produced by our approach is presented in Eq. 1.
$$\begin{aligned}&(tf\_40term * bm25\_40term)\nonumber \\&\quad + (norm\_TagAlt + bm25\_title) \end{aligned}$$
(1)
where \(tf\_40term\) is the frequency of a term (word) in the 40-term passage, \(bm25\_40term\) the BM25 score of 40-term passage, \(norm\_TagAlt\) the length of the textual evidence Tag ALT (in words), and \(bm25\_title\) is the BM25 score of the page title.

Individuals are used to compute ranking of images for each query submitted to the image search system. For each query term, the individual formula is used to compute a score for each image in the collection. Then, to compute the final score of an image in regard to the query, we sum the scores obtained for each query term. The final ranking is obtained sorting the images in decreasing order by their respective scores.

More details about the textual sources of evidence, functions and terminals used in this work can be found in Sects. 4.24.4.

4.6 Genetic operations

Based on [14], our GP framework uses the genetic operators of reproduction, crossover, and mutation as detailed in Sect. 3. Table 2 presents the methods and rates associated with genetic operators. The values were the same used in [21].
Table 2

Genetic operations used by our GP-based image retrieval framework

Operation

Method

Rate

Crossover

One point, tournament selection

0.9

Reproduction

The best individual

0.05

Mutation

Tournament selection

0.05

4.7 Fitness function

The fitness function adopted in the evolving process should be able to select the best ranking function among the population of functions generated. Such selection should consider the results obtained by the training and validation phases as stated before.

In our GP framework, we have adopted the mean average precision (MAP) [2] measure to evaluate the quality of a ranking for a set of queries. MAP, showed in Eq. 7, is a popular metric used in IR to express the quality of a ranking in a single measure across the recall levels. To evaluate each individual, we take each training query, compute a ranking of images using the formula represented by the individual, and then compute the MAP results obtained in such ranking. The final fitness score of the individual is the average MAP value obtained when processing all the training queries.

5 Experimental setup

In this section, we provide details about the experiments performed, describing the parameters adopted for the GP framework, the baselines, the dataset, and some evaluation metrics used in the experiments.

5.1 GP setup

A modern GP system has a large number of parameters that must be set in order to start the evolving process. This initial setup creates a combinatorial explosion in the complete parameter space and makes the search for an optimal or near optimal parameter setting a difficult task for the user. To overcome the combinatorial explosion in the number of parameter combinations that need to be considered in the GP setup, we use an experimental design technique for evaluating the effect of some GP parameters and their interactions to determine their quantitative effects on the final results. Feldt and Nordin [12] were the first to introduce experimental design as a solid and systematic methodology to study the effect of GP parameters. This technique can be used to increase the performance of a GP system, by guiding the user in choosing good parameter combinations. Finally, this analysis can also help in investigating the impact on using high values for some parameters such as population size and maximum number of generations, which, if kept high, could impact negatively the training time. If a parameter does not impact much the results in terms of effectiveness, we could reduce its levels to gain in efficiency.

Based on the results obtained in [12] we performed a two-level full factorial design [4] to investigate the impact of three parameters: the population size, the number of generations, and the maximum depth of an individual in the GP system. The two first parameters were selected because they were those with higher impact on the GP experiments performed in [12]. The last parameter was added into the factorial design to investigate if the size of tree depth (the GP individual) presents significant influence in the final response.

In a full two-level factorial design, each parameter being investigated is called as a factor and has two discrete levels, a low level (\(-\)) and a high level (+). The output is called the response variable. The experimental design is performed varying the levels of each factor, resulting in \(2^k\) different runs, where \(k\) is the number of factors. The three factors and their respective values at low and high levels used in the experiments are described below. The levels of the parameters were chosen to represent qualitatively distinct levels based on our previous experience with the GP system in use.
  1. A.

    pop_size: the numbers of individuals in the population. At the low level it was set to 50 and at the high level to 300. Previously, experiments have shown that an even larger population does not bring benefits in terms of the GP effectiveness.

     
  2. B.

    max_gen: the maximum number of generations to evolve the individuals in the GP framework. At the low level it was set to 5 and at the high level to 30.

     
  3. C.

    max_depth: the maximum depth of individual in the population. At the low level it was set to 4 and at the high level to 12.

     
In our paper, we have used the MAP as the response variable. As we have three factors (\(A, B\), and \(C\)) and two levels for each factor (\(a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2, c_1,\) and \(c_2\)), our factorial design resulted in eight (\(2^3\)) different experiments as shown in Table 3. For each of the eight experiments, three replications were carried out allowing us to assess the experimental error, resulting in 24 runs. In our experimental design, each replication is a repeated experiment with a new random seed in the GP framework to generate a new initial population of individuals. The effects of each factor are calculated by subtracting the average response of all experimental runs for which the factor was at its low level from the average response of all experimental runs for which the factor was at its high level. For more detailed information on factorial designs see [4].
Table 3

Full two-level factorial design configuration

Factors

Runs

 

\(a_1b_1c_1\)

\(a_2b_1c_1\)

\(a_1b_2c_1\)

\(a_2b_2c_1\)

\(a_1b_1c_2\)

\(a_2b_1c_2\)

\(a_1b_2c_2\)

\(a_2b_2c_2\)

Factor \(A\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

Factor \(B\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

Factor \(C\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

Interaction \(AB\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

Interaction \(AC\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

Interaction \(BC\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

Interaction \(ABC\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

\(-\)

\(-\)

\(+\)

The standard error calculated from these 24 runs was \(0.33\) giving a 90 % confidence interval of \(0.59\). All the effects were statistically significant at this confidence level. The effects of each factor and their interactions are showed in Table 4 (in order of decreasing effect):
Table 4

Factors and their effects for our GP framework

Factor

Effect (%)

\(A\)

34.27

\(B\)

16.05

\(C\)

15.55

\(BC\)

9.16

\(ABC\)

7.8

\(AB\)

4.5

\(AC\)

3.6

We can observe that population size (factor \(A\)) has the largest effect as it explains 34.27 % of the variation in the response. Factor A was about 113 % larger than the effect of factor \(B\) and was about 120 % larger than the effect of factor \(C\). This result indicates that setting a large population is important to get good results with GP in the experimental scenario. Experimental errors or non-observed parameters are responsible for about 9 % of the variation in the response. Although this experiment is not the main focus of our paper, the factorial design was helpful to guide us on the GP parameter settings.

Thus, in our experiments, we have set the size of population to 300 individuals. The initial population was randomly generated using the ramped half-and-half [14] method with an initial depth of the trees varying between 2 and 6. Due to the stability of our results after 30 generations, we set this value as the termination criterion.

For genetic operations we used rates of 90, 5, and 5 % for crossover, reproduction, and mutation, respectively. At the end of each generation, the validation phase was run for the top 20 best individuals returned by the training phase of that generation. The maximum depth of the generated trees was set to 7, which is large enough to contain all the text features used in this work. The terminals used were those described in our image retrieval framework in Table 1.

5.2 Baselines

This section presents the ranking strategies used as baselines in our work.

5.2.1 Bayesian belief network

To evaluate the performance of our GP framework we compare it with the work done by Coelho et al. [6]. In that work the author presented an image ranking strategy based on Bayesian belief networks. They analyzed the combination of several textual evidence present in the Web pages in order to compound a ranking formula to retrieve images available on the World Wide Web.

Coelho et al. [6] explored the same textual evidence described in Sect. 4.2. The difference is that in [6], the sources of evidence 3–5 are grouped together to compound one evidence which they called description tags. Also in [6], the sources of evidence 6–9 are grouped together to compound the textual evidence which they called meta tags. While [6] only analyzed three passage sizes (10 terms, 20 terms, and 40 terms), our work investigates more three different sizes of text passages.

From the Bayesian model presented in [6], seven ranking strategies were derived and used in their experiments. These ranking formulas can be summarized in Table 5 where each formula defines an expression \(P(i_j|q)\) for ranking an image \(i_j\) with regard to a query \(q\) and the textual evidence extracted from the Web pages containing the images in the database. \(RD_{j,q}, RM_{j,q}\), and \(RP_{j,q}\) are the probabilities of textual evidence being observed, with regard to query \(q\), given by description tags, meta tags, and text passages, respectively. \(\eta \) is a normalizing constant [18], introduced to make the sum of all probabilities equal to 1.
Table 5

Ranking strategies modeled in the belief network model

Ranking approach

\(P(i_j|q)\)

Description tags

\(\eta \times RD_{j,q}\)

Meta tags

\(\eta \times RM_{j,q}\)

Passage/full text

\(\eta \times RP_{j,q}\)

Description + meta tags

\(\eta \times [1-(1-RD_{j,q}) \times (1-RM_{j,q})]\)

Description + passage/full text

\(\eta \times [1-(1-RD_{j,q}) \times (1-RP_{j,q})]\)

Passage/full text + meta tags

\(\eta \times [1-(1-RP_{j,q}) \times (1-RM_{j,q})]\)

Description + meta tags + passage/full text

\(\eta \times [1-(1-RD_{j,q}) \times (1-RM_{j,q})\times (1-RP_{j,q})]\)

According to [6], the probability of each source of evidence \(e_j\) being observed, given \(k\), can be estimated by the similarity function provided by the vector space model [16], thus being computed as follows:
$$\begin{aligned} P(e_j|k) = \frac{\sum _{i=1}^t w_{i,j} \times w_{i,q}}{\sqrt{\sum _{i=1}^t w_{i,j}^2} \times \sqrt{\sum _{i=1}^t w_{i,q}^2}} \end{aligned}$$
(2)
where \(k\) is the state (\(1\) if term \(i \in q\), 0 otherwise) for each term \(i\). The \(w_{i,j}\) is the weight of the term \(i\) in the respective source of evidence being considered and associated with the image \(I_j, w_{i,q}\) is the weight of the term \(i\) in the user query. As in [24], we define these weights as:
$$\begin{aligned} w_{i,j} = (1+ \ln (f_{i,j})) \times \left(\ln \left(1+\frac{N}{n_i}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$
(3)
$$\begin{aligned} w_{i,q} = (1+ \ln (f_{i,q})) \times \left(\ln \left(1+\frac{N}{n_i}\right)\right) \end{aligned}$$
(4)
The \(f_{i,j}\) is the raw frequency of the term \(i\) in the document containing the image \(I_j, f_{i,q}\) is the raw frequency of the term \(i\) in the user query \(q, N\) is the total number of images in the collection, \(n_i\) is the number of textual evidence, being considered, that contains the term \(i\). More details about the image ranking using the Bayesian model can be found in [6]. To provide a fair comparison, we use the same ranking formulas proposed in [6] as baselines in our work.

5.2.2 Okapi BM25

We also compared our GP-based image retrieval framework with the ranking strategy Okapi BM25, as described in [19]. Okapi BM25 is designed based on the 2-Poisson model and has consistently performed very well in TREC competitions. More formally, given a query \(Q\) containing keywords \(q_1,\ldots ,q_n\), the BM25 score of a document \(D\) is defined by Eq. 5.
$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{i=1}^{n} \frac{(k_1 \!+\! 1) \times }{{\text{ tf}} \!+\! k_1 \!\times \! \left( (1 - b) \!+\! b \!\times \! \frac{\mid D\mid }{{\text{ avgdl}}} \right)} \!\times \! \log {\frac{N \!-\! df \!+\! 0.5}{df \!+\! 0.5}}\qquad \end{aligned}$$
(5)
where tf is the frequency of a term (word) in the document text, \(N\) the total number of documents in the collection, \(df\) the number of documents in the collection in which the term under consideration is present, \({\vert {D}\vert }\) the length of the document (in words), avgdl the average document length in the collection (in words), \(k_1\) and \(b\) are the parameters used to fine-tune the search performance. We use the same value as in [19] for \(k_1\) and \(b: k1 = 2\) and \(b = 0.75\).

5.3 Dataset

In order to evaluate our approach, we have performed several experiments using a collection of Web pages5 crawled from Yahoo6 directory. All the Web pages collected were stored with their respective images to extract the textual evidence depicted in Sect. 4.2. Table 6 presents some statistics about the collection used in the experiments. The image database is very heterogeneous, with no categorization or subdivision in classes, and the images were stored in the same way they were collected, with no post-processing or dimension reduction. We considered as distinct images those that present distinct absolute URLs. Therefore, images that appeared in distinct pages, were considered distinct images. Our experiments were conducted using 50 keyword-based queries in Portuguese extracted from a log of a real image search engine.7 The queries used in our experiments were: Rio de Janeiro beach, sunset, Fernando de Noronha, map of Brazil, church, football ball, Serra da Canastra, Jesus, carnival photos, flower pot, Mônica’s gang, Gloria Hotel, mangalarga horse, Marisa Monte, shark, Linux, Skol beer, coke, Carrefour, Corcovado, basset, Pirenópolis, Machado de Assis, Brazil empire, ranch, military dictatorship, missing children, marijuana, Backstreet Boys, Pokemon, indians, Corinthians, Barbie, roses, palm, landscape, fruits, Halloween, graduation, global warming, beaches, Christmas, dog, baby, coloring, Flamengo, Santa Claus, animals, newspaper, and virus.
Table 6

Statistics of the data set used in our experiments

Collection’s size

21 GB

Number of HTML pages

89,568

Number of distinct images

195,794

Number of test queries

50

Average number of images per query pool

62

Average number of relevant images per query pool

28

We adopted TREC-style pooling of the retrieved images with a pool depth of 30. For each query, we ran the baseline methods and assembled the 30 top ranked images retrieved by each ranking strategy. For the Bayesian model, all seven strategies presented in Table 5 were considered. These images were pooled into a unique set of candidate images for each query. Thus, in this way, it was not possible to tell which ranking strategy retrieved which image. Each pool was then evaluated by a group of volunteers as relevant or non-relevant with regard to its respective test query. At the end of the evaluation, we have a set of images for each image query, labeled as relevant or non-relevant, independently of how they were retrieved. This set of images formed a pool with 62 images on average per query (relevant and non-relevant). Considering only the relevant images there were 28 images on average per query pool, as presented in Table 6. This pooling method was the same method used in [6, 23]. It avoids the need to evaluate the whole collection. Further, it guarantees that the user will not have any information about the ranking strategy adopted to retrieve the images, thus providing an unbiased evaluation.

5.4 Evaluation metrics

To evaluate the performance of our approach against the baselines, we used Precision@N and MAP measures over all relevant documents. We also plot all retrieval results in precision-recall curves. These metrics are detailed as follows.
  • Precision at N Position (P@N) [2] for a given query, its precision for the top \(N\) results of the ranking list is defined as Eq. 6, where \(\mid {\text{ rel}}_N \mid \) is the number of relevant images in top \(N\) results.
    $$\begin{aligned} {\text{ P@N}} = \frac{\mid {\text{ rel}}_N \mid }{N} \end{aligned}$$
    (6)
  • MAP [2] is a popular metric used in IR that provides a single-figure measure of quality across all recall levels. It is defined as the mean of average precisions over a set of queries and computed by Eq. 7, where \(k\) is the total number of queries and \(P_\mathrm{q}\) is the average precision for the query \(q\).
    $$\begin{aligned} {\text{ MAP}} = \frac{1}{k}\sum _{q=1}^kP_\mathrm{q} \end{aligned}$$
    (7)
    \(P_\mathrm{q}\) is defined by Eq. 8, where \(m\) is the number of retrieved documents for the query \(q, n\) is the number of relevant documents for the query \(q\) and \(r_{\mathrm{q}_i}\) is a binary function indicating whether the \(i\)th document is relevant or not for the query \(q\).
    $$\begin{aligned} P_\mathrm{q} =\frac{1}{n}\left(\sum _{i=1}^m r_{\mathrm{q}_i} \times \frac{1}{i}\sum _{j=1}^ir_{\mathrm{q}_j}\right) \end{aligned}$$
    (8)
  • Precision/recall are defined in terms of a set of retrieved documents by a given approach and a set of relevant documents for a certain topic. Precision is the fraction of retrieved documents which is relevant and recall is the fraction of the relevant documents which has been retrieved.
    $$\begin{aligned}&{\text{ Precision}} \!=\! \frac{\vert \text{ Relevant} \text{ documents} \cap \text{ Retrieved} \text{ documents} \vert }{\mid \text{ Retrieved} \text{ documents} \mid }\qquad \end{aligned}$$
    (9)
    $$\begin{aligned}& {\text{ Recall}} \!=\! \frac{\vert \text{ Relevant} \text{ documents} \cap \text{ Retrieved} \text{ documents} \mid }{\mid \text{ Relevant} \text{ documents} \vert } \end{aligned}$$
    (10)
 

6 Experimental results

In order to validate our GP-based image retrieval approach, we performed a 5-fold cross-validation using the whole set of evaluated queries adopted in our experiments.

6.1 Experiments with Bayesian belief network model

In this section we present the results obtained with the Bayesian belief network model presented in [6].

6.1.1 Full text versus text passages

Our first experiment was performed to determine the best size for the passages surrounding the images. Initially, we decided to investigate the size of documents, that is the full text without HTML tags, in order to choose good sizes for the passages to be used in our experiments. Figure 4 shows the document size distribution, in logarithmic scale, in which the documents were plotted in descending order according to their sizes. The document size is expressed in number of terms, meaning that the first document plotted in the distribution is the document that has the largest number of terms, the second document is the one that has the second largest number of terms, and so on. We observed that this distribution is heavy tailed, where a small fraction of documents has a large number of terms, and a large fraction of documents, about 76 % of documents, has \({<}100\) terms. Table 7 shows some statistics about the document size distribution.
Fig. 4

Document size distribution

 
Table 7

Statistics of the document size distribution

Average size of documents

288

Median size of documents

90

Size of largest document

126,712

Size of smallest document

1

The average size of documents is higher than the median which means this distribution is skewed. Further, there is a large variability in the size of documents in the collection. Based on these observations, we decided to experiment several passage sizes in order to determine the best size for the passages to be used in our experiments, namely: 10-term, 20-term, 40-term, 60-term, 80-term, and 100-term passages.

Table 8 shows the MAP results for each passage size, for our 50 test queries, considering the set of relevant images. Passages of 60 terms produced the highest MAP values, while shorter passages, 10-term and 20-term led to lower values. We can conclude that a passage of text surrounding the image can be much more informative about the image contents than the full text in the page. One reason is that the whole text in a Web document is often very ambiguous, dealing with several topics frequently not related to the contents of the images in the document. On the other hand, text passages with very few terms may be insufficient to provide good descriptions.
Table 8

Mean average precision for text passages surrounding the images

Passage sizes

MAP

Full text

24.86

10-term

21.54

20-term

19.98

40-term

26.79

60-term

28.34

80-term

27.94

100-term

25.43

Figure 5 shows the 11-point average precision curve for all passage sizes. We can observe that 10-term and 20-term passages performed worst at almost all recall levels and full text only surpasses the other approaches at recall levels superior than 50 %. We can also observe that 60-term, 80-term, and 100-term text passages had similar performance followed by 40-term approach. In order to assess whether the text passages we tested are statistically different from each other, we applied a Wilcoxon-test on the results to guide our choice for the best approach. Although the 60-term approach has led to the best result in terms of MAP, it was statistically equivalent to 40-term, 80-term, 100-term and full text approaches according to the Wilcoxon-test. Due to the good compromise between retrieval performance and low computational resources achieved by the 40-term text passage, we consider only passages of 40 terms in comparison with other sources of evidence in isolation, since it represented the best cost-benefit in the collection we used.
Fig. 5

11-Point average precision obtained for all passage sizes

6.1.2 Single sources of evidence

To further investigate how passages of 40 terms contribute to the relevance of the images, we confronted them with meta and description tags to evaluate each of them separately. Figure 6 shows the 11-point average precision for these three sources of evidence. We observe that text passages are much better than meta tags and description tags to describe the Web images in the dataset we used. The description tags were the least informative source of relevance evidence among the ones considered.
Fig. 6

11-Point average precision obtained using each source of evidence in isolation

Table 9 presents the MAP obtained for three sources of evidence in isolation. We observed that text passages give more contribution in image retrieval, followed by meta tags. Description tags give the worst result in the dataset we used. We have applied a Wilcoxon-test to the results and all the differences between text passage and other two approaches are statistically significant with a confidence level higher than 95 %.
Table 9

Mean average precision for sources of evidence in isolation

Sources of evidence

MAP

Meta tags

18.17

Description tags

9.13

Text passage

26.79

6.1.3 Multiple sources of evidence

We now compare the results obtained when we combine multiple sources of evidence. Figure 7 presents the results for the four combination formulas presented in [6]: description + passage, description + metatags, metatags + passage, and description + metatags + passage.

We can observe that description + metatags and description + passage combinations performed the worst due to the poor performance of the description tags approach. The metatags + passage and metatags + description + passage approaches performed similarly although the metatags + passage approach presented higher precision values at recall levels up to 60 %. For recall levels above 60 %, the metatag + description + passage approach presented a slightly better retrieval performance. However, it is important to say that for a real Web image search engine high precision is most important at low recall levels.
Fig. 7

11-Point average precision obtained using multiple sources of evidence

Table 10 shows the MAP results obtained for multiple sources of evidence. We have applied a Wilcoxon-test to the results and metatags + passage was significantly superior to description + metatags with 99 % of confidence level and resulted in higher MAP values when compared to description + passage, although with only 90 % of confidence level.
Table 10

Mean average precision for multiple sources of evidence

Multiple sources of evidence

MAP

Description + metatags

19.37

Description + passage

24.69

Metatags + passage

29.27

Description + metatags + passage

27.40

Due to the good results obtained with the use of metatags + passage, this approach will be used in comparison with our GP framework.

6.2 Experiments with GP framework

In this section we present the results of our experiments with the GP framework and comparison with the baselines described in Sect. 5.2.

Figure 8 shows the evolutionary process of our GP framework at training, validation and test phases during the 30 generations. For each generation, we plotted the best 20 individuals sorted according to their performance, achieved with the fitness function. Despite the fact that training, validation, and test phases present different fitness values, validation and test curves tend to follow the training behavior.
Fig. 8

Evolutionary process for the best individuals in 30 generations

Figure 9 shows the precision-recall curves obtained by our GP framework, the best result obtained in Bayesian framework (metatags + passage), and the BM25 ranking obtained over the full text. We observe that our GP approach yields better precision values than BM25 and Bayesian ranking throughout all recall levels.
Fig. 9

11-Point average precision obtained using GP framework and the baselines

Table 11 depicts the MAP and P@N results obtained by our method and the baselines BM25 and Bayesian combination (metatags + passage). Surprisingly, the results obtained with the Bayesian method was not superior to the ones achieved with BM25 using full text. On the other hand, the GP framework was able to improve the results of BM25 from 34.79 to 42.57 in MAP, a gain of 22.36 %. According to Wilcoxon test, the results obtained with our GP framework were statistically significant with a confidence level of 99 % in relation to Bayesian model and 98 % in relation to BM25.
Table 11

Mean average precision and P@N measures for GP framework and the baselines

Image ranking

MAP

P10

P20

P30

GP

42.57

48.00

40.50

37.00

BM25

34.79

45.00

38.30

13.90

Bayesian

29.28

14.80

23.60

0.90

 
$$\begin{aligned}&((((avgdl\_10term * avgdl\_20term) + (tf\_40term * bm25\_40term)) \nonumber \\&\quad +((norm\_TagAlt + bm25\_title) + ((avgdl\_10term * avgdl\_20term) + (tf\_40term * bm25\_40term))))\nonumber \\&\quad +(((\sqrt{bm25\_title + ((avgdl\_10term * avgdl\_20term) + (bm25\_text + bm25\_title))})\nonumber \\&\quad *(avgdl\_10term * avgdl\_20term)) + (bm25\_text + (avgdl\_10term * avgdl\_20term)))) \end{aligned}$$
(11)
Further analysis in the final ranking functions generated by our GP framework showed that the BM25 scores of page title and full text, and the avgdl of 10-term passage were the textual evidence that most appear in the final ranking functions. An example of a ranking formula generated by our GP approach is presented in Eq. 11.

7 Conclusions and future work

This paper presented a GP-based approach for adopting several different textual sources of evidence for ranking in Web image search systems. The sources of textual evidence considered in this work are the page title, content of HTML src and alt tags, the metatags author, keywords and description, text passages around the image, the anchor text and the full text. For each textual evidence several statistical sources of information, including tf, idf and norm were used, as well as the BM25 score produced by each single evidence used in isolation.

Among these sources of evidence, the ones with higher impact in the quality of the search results are the BM25 scores of page title and full text, and the avgdl of 10-term passage.

According to our experiments, the adopted approach presented significant gains over the baseline methods. Our GP approach presented a gain of 22.36 % over the second best result, which was achieved when using BM25 over the full text of the pages that contain the searched image. When comparedto the method proposed previously in [6], the gain was roughly 43 %, which is surprisingly even higher than the gain over BM25 applied to the full text.

Another contribution of this article is the study about how to set the GP parameters, which was performed by using the factorial design technique. The usage of such technique has proved to be useful for reducing the cost of adjusting GP parameters, allowing us to achieve higher performance when using the GP framework, when compared to our previous study.

As future work, we plan to introduce evidence related to the image content in the GP framework, so that we will be able to combine both image and textual sources of evidence in a single ranking function, as done in [15]. Another future direction is to study the possibility of deriving distinct GP functions for specific query types, such as tourism and arts and science. The idea is to check whether such specific functions can outperform the results obtained by the generic function studied here. Finally, another possible future direction is to assert the impact of GP in specific query types, studying its performance in query groups such as tourism, arts and science.

Footnotes
1

http://images.google.com/ (as of 10/06/2011).

 
2

http://br.bing.com/ (as of 10/06/2011).

 
5

Image dataset can be made available upon request.

 
6

http://www.yahoo.com (as of 10/06/2011).

 
7
 

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by CAPES, CNPq, FAPEMIG, FAPEAM, FAPESP and by project INWeb (MCT/CNPq Grant 57.3871/2008-6).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Computing, Federal University of Amazonas
(2)
Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais
(3)
Institute of Engineering of Systems and Information Technology, Federal University of Itajubá
(4)
Institute of Computing, Campinas University

References

  1. de Almeida HM, Gonçalves MA, Cristo M, Calado PP (2007) A combined component approach for finding collection-adapted ranking functions based on genetic programming. In: ACM SIGIR, pp 399–406Google Scholar
  2. Baeza-Yates RA, Ribeiro-Neto BA (2011) Modern information retrieval—the concepts and technology behind search, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  3. Banzhaf W, Nordin P, Keller RE, Francone FD (1998) Genetic programming: an introduction. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoMATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS (1978) Statistics for experimenters: an introduction to design, data analysis, and model building. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang HT (2008) Web image retrieval systems with automatic web image annotating techniques. WSEAS 5(8):1313–1322Google Scholar
  6. Coelho TAS, Calado P, Souza LV, Ribeiro-Neto BA, Muntz RR (2004) Image retrieval using multiple evidence ranking. IEEE TKDE 16(4):408–417Google Scholar
  7. Fan W, Gordon MD, Pathak P (2000) Personalization of search engine services for effective retrieval and knowledge management. In: ICIS, pp 20–34Google Scholar
  8. Fan W, Gordon MD, Pathak P (2004) Discovery of context-specific ranking functions for effective information retrieval using genetic programming. IEEE TKDE 16(4):523–527Google Scholar
  9. Fan W, Gordon MD, Pathak P (2005) Genetic programming-based discovery of ranking functions for effective web search. J Manag Inf Syst 21(4):37–56Google Scholar
  10. Fan W, Pathak P, Zhou M (2009) Genetic-based approaches in ranking function discovery and optimization in information retrieval—a framework. Decis Support Syst 47(4):398–407View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Faria FF, Veloso A, Almeida HM, Valle E, da S Torres R, Gonçalves MA, Meira W (2010) Learning to rank for content-based image retrieval. In: ACM MIR, pp 285–294Google Scholar
  12. Feldt R, Nordin P (2000) Using factorial experiments to evaluate the effect of genetic programming parameters. In: Genetic programming, Proceedings of EuroGP, pp 271–282Google Scholar
  13. Kherfi ML, Ziou D, Bernardi A (2004) Image retrieval from the world wide web: issues, techniques, and systems. ACM Comput Surv 36:35–67Google Scholar
  14. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Li P, Ma J (2009) Learning to rank for web image retrieval based on genetic programming. In: IEEE IC-BNMT, pp 137–142Google Scholar
  16. McGill M, Salton G (1983) Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill, NYMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Oren N (2002) Reexamining tf.idf based information retrieval with genetic programming. In: SAICSIT, pp 224–234Google Scholar
  18. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  19. Robertson S, Walker S, Beaulieu M, Gatford M, Payne A (1996) Okapi at trec-4. In: TREC-4, pp 73–96Google Scholar
  20. da S Torres R, Falcão AX, Gonçalves MA, Papa JP, Zhang B, Fan W, Fox EA, (2009) A genetic programming framework for content-based image retrieval. Pattern Recognit 42:283–292Google Scholar
  21. Santos KCL, Almeida HM, Goncalves MA, da S Torres R (2009) Recuperação de imagens da web utilizando múltiplas evidências textuais e programação genética. In: SBBD, pp 91–105Google Scholar
  22. Trotman A (2005) Learning to rank. Inf Retr 8(3):359–381MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Voorhees EM, Harman D (1999) Overview of the eighth text retrieval conference (trec-8). In: TREC-8Google Scholar
  24. Witten IH, Moffat A, Bell TC (1999) Managing gigabytes: compressing and indexing documents and images, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  25. Zagoris K, Arampatzis A, Chatzichristofis SA (2010) www.MMRetrieval.net: a multimodal search engine. In: ACM SISAP, pp 117–118Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Brazilian Computer Society 2012