4.6 Article

CNN-based features for retrieval and classification of food images

期刊

COMPUTER VISION AND IMAGE UNDERSTANDING
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 70-77

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cviu.2018.09.001

关键词

Food retrieval; Food dataset; Food recognition; CNN-based features

资金

  1. NVIDIA Corporation
  2. POR FESR, Italy, 2014-2020 (Programma Operativo Regionale, Italy, Fondo Europeo di Sviluppo Regionale - Regional Operational Programme, Italy, European Regional Development Fund, EU) [E48116000350009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Features learned by deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have been recognized to be more robust and expressive than hand-crafted ones. They have been successfully used in different computer vision tasks such as object detection, pattern recognition and image understanding. Given a CNN architecture and a training procedure, the efficacy of the learned features depends on the domain-representativeness of the training examples. In this paper we investigate the use of CNN-based features for the purpose of food recognition and retrieval. To this end, we first introduce the Food-475 database, that is the largest publicly available food database with 475 food classes and 247,636 images obtained by merging four publicly available food databases. We then define the food-domain representativeness of different food databases in terms of the total number of images, number of classes of the domain and number of examples for class. Different features are then extracted from a CNN based on the Residual Network with 50 layers architecture and trained on food databases with diverse food-domain representativeness. We evaluate these features for the tasks of food classification and retrieval. Results demonstrate that the features extracted from the Food-475 database outperform the other ones showing that we need larger food databases in order to tackle the challenges in food recognition, and that the created database is a step forward toward this end.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据