Next Article in Journal
The Accuracy of 3D Optical Reconstruction and Additive Manufacturing Processes in Reproducing Detailed Subject-Specific Anatomy
Next Article in Special Issue
Partition and Inclusion Hierarchies of Images: A Comprehensive Survey
Previous Article in Journal
Color Texture Image Retrieval Based on Local Extrema Features and Riemannian Distance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Face Identification Using Local Binary Patterns and K-Nearest Neighbors
Article Menu
Issue 4 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
J. Imaging 2017, 3(4), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging3040044

Baseline Fusion for Image and Pattern Recognition—What Not to Do (and How to Do Better)

School of Computer Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SX, Scotland, UK
Received: 18 July 2017 / Revised: 30 September 2017 / Accepted: 2 October 2017 / Published: 11 October 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)
Full-Text   |   PDF [1554 KB, uploaded 13 October 2017]   |  

Abstract

The ever-increasing demand for a reliable inference capable of handling unpredictable challenges of practical application in the real world has made research on information fusion of major importance; indeed, this challenge is pervasive in a whole range of image understanding tasks. In the development of the most common type—score-level fusion algorithms—it is virtually universally desirable to have as a reference starting point a simple and universally sound baseline benchmark which newly developed approaches can be compared to. One of the most pervasively used methods is that of weighted linear fusion. It has cemented itself as the default off-the-shelf baseline owing to its simplicity of implementation, interpretability, and surprisingly competitive performance across a widest range of application domains and information source types. In this paper I argue that despite this track record, weighted linear fusion is not a good baseline on the grounds that there is an equally simple and interpretable alternative—namely quadratic mean-based fusion—which is theoretically more principled and which is more successful in practice. I argue the former from first principles and demonstrate the latter using a series of experiments on a diverse set of fusion problems: classification using synthetically generated data, computer vision-based object recognition, arrhythmia detection, and fatality prediction in motor vehicle accidents. On all of the aforementioned problems and in all instances, the proposed fusion approach exhibits superior performance over linear fusion, often increasing class separation by several orders of magnitude. View Full-Text
Keywords: prediction; arrhythmia; image matching; object recognition prediction; arrhythmia; image matching; object recognition
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Arandjelović, O. Baseline Fusion for Image and Pattern Recognition—What Not to Do (and How to Do Better). J. Imaging 2017, 3, 44.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Imaging EISSN 2313-433X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top