Noname manuscript No.
(will be inserted by the editor)

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for
Image Representation Learning
Érico Marco D. A. Pereira · Jefersson A.
dos Santos

arXiv:1711.06809v2 [] 23 Nov 2017

the date of receipt and acceptance should be inserted later

Abstract Over the last two decades, hand-crafted feature extractors have
been used in order to compose image representations. Recently, data-driven
feature learning have been explored as a way of producing more representative visual features. In this work, we proposed two approaches to learn image
visual representations which aims at providing more effective and compact
image representations. Our strategy employs Genetic Algorithms to improve
hand-crafted feature extraction algorithms by optimizing colour quantization
for the image domain. Our hypothesis is that changes in the quantization affect
the description quality of the features enabling representation improvements.
We conducted a series of experiments in order to evaluate the robustness of
the proposed approaches in the task of content-based image retrieval in eight
well-known datasets from different visual properties. Experimental results indicated that the approach focused on representation effectiveness outperformed
the baselines in all the tested scenarios. The other approach, more focused
on compactness, was able to produce competitive results by keeping or even
reducing the final feature dimensionality until 25% smaller with statistically
equivalent performance.
Keywords representation learning · color quantization · CBIR · genetic
algorithm · feature extraction

1 Introduction
It is known that the form in which data is represented can highly influence the
performance of machine learning methods in visual pattern recognition tasks,
such as Content-Based Image Retrieval [28], Object Detection [35], Remote
Department of Computer Science
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
31270-901 - Belo Horizonte - MG, Brazil
E-mail: {emarco.pereira, jefersson}@dcc.ufmg.br

2

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

Sensing [6] and Image Classification [14]. In the last years, Representation
Learning [1], which consists on the process of using pattern recognition algorithms to find representations optimized for a given data domain and/or task
at focus, has become a tendency.
The current state-of-art methods for representation learning, which are
based on Deep Learning [11] techniques, in many cases present a considerable
gain in description effectiveness. However, the use of these methods presents
serious drawbacks, such as the difficulties in properly exploring its range of
parameters and possible architectures, the superior computational time spent
its training and the big amount of data required to produce efficient learning
models, leaving space for alternatives.
Existing methodologies for visual representation learning can be classified
into two main approaches: those that learn representations from a feature
set provided by a hand-crafted extractor and those that completely compose
new ones without any prior feature extraction (from scratch). Following the
later approach, complex multi-layered learning processes as the ones executed
by Deep Neural Networks are not always needed in order to produce representative features. Depending on the scenario, the improvement of existent
representations is already enough to fairly solve the task.
Few years ago, before the arising of Deep Neural Networks, hand-crafted
feature extractors were used in order to compose image representations [19, 26,
21]. Among them, the Border Interior Classification (BIC) [30] achieved prominent results, being in several cases more effective than its competitors [17, 20]
and also faster at computing representations. This behaviour states BIC features as promising candidates for undergoing a feature leaning process and
providing better results.
Examining the extraction procedure of this method, a fact comes to observation: it uses a fixed RGB colour-space uniformly quantized in 4 tonalities
for each axis. According to Stehling et. al [29], this configuration was chosen
due the achievement of good results in a majority of tested scenarios and the
compatibility with other feature extraction methods which rely on the same
colour scheme. However, it raises the question whether a different quantization
could provide better representations.
The use of a different colour quantization, specially one adapted to the
current image domain instead of a predefined one, could allow the enhancement of convenient image features and the suppression of others. Since the
representations are based on colour histograms, the enhancement and detailing of colours that favour the closeness of similar images and the distinction
of different ones, according to the task criteria, would provide the composition
of more representative features and, consequently, improvements on the task
performance. Furthermore, a domain-oriented quantization allows the discard
of the less contributing tonalities resulting in a possible reduction of the representation size.
This work proposes an approach of representation learning in order to improve the description effectiveness of an existent feature extractor by exploring
a particular characteristic of the current image context, its colour distribution.

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

3

Our hypothesis is that changing the colour quantization affects the description
quality of the features in the sense that a tonality configuration optimized for
a given domain could produce more effective and compact image representations.

2 Related Work
In the last decade, several feature learning techniques were developed for raw
image data [9, 32, 25, 12, 3, 2, 36]. Approaches regarding deep belief nets [9],
denoising autoencoders [32], deep Boltzmann machines [25], convolutional deep
belief networks [12], K-Means based feature learning [3], hierarchical matching
pursuit [2] and sparse coding [36] address this purpose.
Some works developed quantization leaning using evolutive heuristics for
Image Segmentation [15]. Scheunders [27] treats the quantization problem as
global image segmentation and proposes an optimal mean squared quantizer
and a hybrid technique combining optimal quantization with a Genetic Algorithm modelling [8]. Further, the same author [27] presents a genetic c-means
clustering algorithm (GCMA), which is a hybrid technique combining the cmeans clustering algorithm (CMA) with Genetic Algorithm. Lastly, Omran et
al. [18] developed colour image quantization algorithm based on a combination
of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and K-means clustering.
Regarding the effects of colour quantization changing on image representations, Ponti et al. [22] approached the colour quantization procedure as a
pre-processing step of feature extraction. They applied four fixed quantization
methods - Gleam, Intensity, Luminance and a concatenation of the Most Significant Bits (MSB) - over the images of three datasets and then used four
feature extractors - ACC, BIC, CCV and Haralick-6 - to compute representations intended to solve the tasks of Image Classification and Image Retrieval.
Their conclusions show that it is possible to obtain compact and effective
feature vectors by extracting features from images with reduced pixel depth
and how the feature extraction and dimensionality reduction are affected by
different quantization methods.

3 Background
3.1 Color Quantization-based Feature Extraction Algorithms
Border/Interior Classification. Stehling et al. [30] proposed BIC, a simple and
fast approach for feature extraction which presented prominent results in web
image retrieval [19] and remote sensing image classification [26, 17]. This approach relies on a RGB colour-space uniformly quantized in 4 × 4 × 4 = 64
colours. After the quantization, it applies a segmentation procedure, which
classifies the image pixels according to a neighborhood criterion: a pixel is
classified as interior if its 4-neighbours (right, left, top, and bottom) have the

4

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

same quantized color; otherwise, it is classified as border. Then, two color histograms, one for border pixels and other for interior pixels, are computed and
concatenated composing a 128-bins representation. At the end, the histograms
undergo two normalizations: division by the maximum value, for image dimension invariance, and a transformation according to a discrete logarithmic
function, aiming to smooth major discrepancies.
Global Color Histogram. GCH [31] is a widely used feature extractor which
presents one of the simplest forms of encoding image information in a representation, a color histogram, which is basically the computation of the pixel
frequencies of each color. It relies on the same uniformly quantized RGB colorspace such as BIC and, consequently, produces a feature vector of 64 bins. After
the histogram computation, it undergoes a normalization by the max value in
order to avoid scaling bias.
3.2 Genetic Algorithm
GA is a bio-inspired optimization heuristic that mimics natural genetic evolution to search the optimal in a solution space [8]. It models potential solutions
for the problem as individuals of a population and subject them to a iterative
process of combinations and transformations towards an improved population.
At each step, GA randomly selects individuals from the current population,
called parents, and exchange its parts in order to produce the next generation
in a operation called cross-over. Some individuals are also selected to undergo
a mutation operation, which consist on randomly changing small pieces of
the individual, also integrate the new generation [5]. When a new generation
is formed, its individuals are evaluated by a fitness function, whose the result
provides the individual performance on the current problem. According to this
function score, the algorithm selects the parent individuals that will generate
the next population, simulating a natural selection. At the end of the process,
when the stopping condition be satisfied, the expected result is the individual
which encodes the best solution as possible.
4 Methodology
The present method employs Genetic Algorithm in order to learn quantized
color optimization for the given image domain. Figure 1 illustrate an overview
of the entire process, which is composed by two main steps: (1) quantization
learning and (2) image description. These steps are better described next.
In our modelling, a quantization is represented in an GA individual by
the following manner. The individual takes reference from the widest possible
quantization, presented in Figure 2, and aggregates its intervals according to
the configuration specified by the respective individual as it is detailed in
Figure 3.

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning
Offline

5

Online

Fig. 1: Overview of the proposed approach First, we use Genetic Algorithm
to search an optimized color quantization, then the resultant configuration is
incorporated in the feature extractor to generate improved image representations.

0 1
3 63
95 2 7
1 159

191 223

255

255
223
191
159
127
95
63
31
0
2
2 55
1 23
159 91
1
9 27
6 5
3 3
0 1

(a)

0
31
63
95
127
159
191
223
255

0 1
3 63
95 27
1 159

191 223

255

2
2 55
1 23
1 91
1 59
95 27
6
3 3
0 1

(b)

Fig. 2: Color space according to the widest possible quantization, i. e., the one
that has the maximum number of tonalities used by our method in each color
axis (8 tonalities). Part (b) shows the same space presented in part (a) but
rotated in 180 over Z axis.

4.1 Quantization Learning
In order to find a quantization that would provide a superior power of description and compactness for the image representations generated for a given
image context, we opted by perform an optimization process provided by the
Genetic Algorithm [8]. It provides a fairly chance of reaching a global optimum
by starting with multiple random search points and considering several candidate solutions simultaneously. Consequently, it represents a fair alternative
to an exhaustive search strategy, which would be infeasible given the amount
of possible quantization.
According to this optimization algorithm, an individual corresponds to a
representation of a potential solution to the problem that is being analysed. In

6

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

Widest Quantization

Sample Individual

Resultant Quantization

Fig. 3: Our modelling implements each individual as a binary array, being one
value for each color tonality interval. If a interval has its respective bit as set, it
has its own position in the produced quantization, otherwise, it is aggregated
to the immediate previous interval.

our case, each individual represents a possible color quantization. During the
evolution process, which is based on a survival-of-the-fittest fashion, these individuals are gradually manipulated and selected, according to the established
optimization criteria, in a iterative procedure until the stopping condition be
satisfied. At this point, the expected result is an evolved individual that encodes a quantization by which the improved representations will be generated.

Algorithm 1 GA-based quantization
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Let T be a training set
Let S be a set of pairs (q, f itnessq ), where q and f itnessq are an individual and its
fitness, respectively
S←∅
P ← Initial random population of individuals
For each generation g of Ng generations do
For each individual q ∈ P do
f itnessq ← f itness(q, T )
End For
Record the k top individuals and their fitness in Sg
S ← S ∪ Sg
Create a new population P according to genetic operations
End For
Select the best individual q ∗ = arg max(f itnessq )
q∈S

Algorithm 1 illustrates the proposed GA-based quantization. The population starts with individuals created randomly (line 4). The population evolution starts generation by generation through genetic operations (line 5). A
function is used to assign the fitness value for each individual (lines 6-7). The
best individuals in each generation are recorded (lines 9-10). Then, genetic
operators are applied to evolve this population (line 11). The last step is to
select the best individual q ∗ along all generations (line 13). The individual

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

7

q ∗ will be used to define the quantization used in the feature representation
process.
4.2 Image Description
On the second phase, the learnt individual quantization q ∗ is used with the
feature extractor algorithm to produce color image representation. In order
to do that, it was necessary to implement a slightly modified version of the
feature extractor, that incorporates the capacity of generating representations
according to a specified color quantization. The equations 1, 2 and 3, where N
is the maximum color axis size and q ∗ the quantization individual, show how
to calculate the new R, G and B values for each pixel.
r
X

Rnew =

!
∗

q [i]

|Raxis |
,
256

∗

i=0



g+N
X

Gnew = 


q ∗ [i] ∗

j=N

Bnew =

b+2N
X
k=2N

!
∗

q [i]

∗

N

where r = R ∗

X
N
; |Raxis | =
q ∗ [l] (1)
256
l=0

|Gaxis |
,
256

where g = G ∗

|Baxis |
,
256

where b = B ∗

2N
X
N
; |Gaxis | =
q ∗ [m](2)
256
m=N

3N
X
N
; |Baxis | =
q ∗ [n](3)
256
n=2N

5 Experimental Setup
In order to verify our colour quantization hypothesis and evaluate the proposed
method approaches, we conducted experiments using eight different image
datasets. The details about the experiments setup are presented as follows.
5.1 Task
Although the discriminative property of the method produced representations
make them suitable to be used in variety of patter recognition tasks, such as
Image Classification [26] and Image Retrieval [19], we opted by evaluate the
method on the task of Content-Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) [28]. This task
can be briefly described as retrieving the most similar images, according to a
semantic criteria, to a given query image.
The chosen process intended to evaluate this task consists on describing
the whole image set, computing one similarity ranking by Manhattan Distance
(L1) for each image against the rest and measuring the overall ranking quality.
For this measurement, the image class is adopted as similarity criteria. Consequently, as many images of the same class of the image in comparison remains
at the top, better is the ranking.

8

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

5.2 Datasets
The experiments were executed over a set of 8 image datasets presented on
Table 1. The first two were initially created for Remote Sensing purposes, and
the remaining are intended for tasks of general CBIR and Image Classification.
Figures 4, 11, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively, show samples of these datasets.
Table 1: Image datasets and statistics
Dataset

# of samples

# of classes

2,100
2,876
7,200
1,566
3,906
3,280
4,320
4,960

21
2
100
43
85
80
20
15

UC Merced Land-use [34]
Brazilian Coffee Scenes [20]
Coil-100 [16]
Corel-1566 [33]
Corel-3906 [33]
ETH-80 [13]
MSRCORID [4]
Tropical Fruits and Vegetables [23]

(a) Forest

(b) Beach

(c) Tennis Court

(d) Dense Residential

(e) Medium Residential

(f) Sparse Residential

Fig. 4: Examples of the UC Merced Land-use dataset.

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

(a) Object 13

(b) Object 14

(c) Object 87

(d) Object 81

Fig. 5: Examples of the COIL-100 dataset.

(a) A6140

(d) A0908

(b) A14935

(e) A7840

(c) A2231

(f) A0004

(g) A12147

Fig. 6: Examples of the COREL 1566 dataset.

(a) A0628

(b) A1401

(c) A4604

(d) A4932

(e) A4932

(f) A7601

Fig. 7: Examples of the COREL 3906 dataset.

9

10

.

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

(a) Car

(b) Cow

(c) Cup

Fig. 8: Examples of the ETH-80 dataset.

(a) Windowns

(b) Trees

(c) Kitchen Utensils

(d) Scenes Office

(e) Scenes Countryside

(f) Buildings

Fig. 9: Examples of the MSRCORID dataset.

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

(a) Windowns

(b) Trees

(c) Kitchen Utensils

(d) Scenes Office

(e) Scenes Countryside

(f) Buildings

11

Fig. 10: Examples of the Tropical Fruits and Vegetables dataset.

(a) Coffee

(b) Non-coffee

Fig. 11: Examples of the Brazilian Coffee Scenes dataset.

5.3 Parameters
For the GA in the quantization learning phase of the method were used the
parameters described in Table 2. The reason behind these values choices regarding cross-over, mutation and tournament relies on being the configuration
of best results on the majority of tested scenarios. Regarding the specified
population size, it indicated sufficient exploration of the solutions space while
its increasing provided no significant improvement. The number of population
was chosen according to a criteria of maintaining a distance of at least 50 generations from the best result first appearance in order to ensure convergence.
Table 2: Genetic Algorithm Parameters
Two-point Cross-over Probability
One-point Mutation Probability
Number of Generations
Population Size
Tournament
Elitism

60%
40%
200
200
5
1%

12

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

The fitness function adopted on our GA evolution process was based on
FFP4 [7]. This score is defined for a given query image q as:
F F P 4q =

|D|
X

rq (di ) ∗ k8 ∗ k9i

(4)

i=1

where |D| is the image dataset; rq (d) ∈ [0, 1] is the relevance score for the
image di associated to the query, it being 1 if relevant and 0 otherwise; and
k8 and k9 are two scaling factors adjusted to 7 e 0.982 respectively. The final
fitness function is computed as the mean F F P 4 for all images q ∈ D.
The use of this fitness is motivated by good results observed in previous
works ([7], [24]), which apply this measure on similar evolutive approaches
that address the same task.

5.4 Baselines
Since our goal is to propose a method capable of producing improved representations from already defined feature extraction, in order to measure the
representations performances, the most suitable baselines are the feature extractor themselves, BIC and GCH, committed to the same experimental process although using its original colour quantization.

5.5 Experimental Protocol
In order to evaluate the proposed method, we conducted k-fold cross-validation.
According to this protocol, the dataset is randomly split into k mutually exclusive samples subset (folds) of approximated size. Then, the k − 1 subsets
are chosen as training set, and the remaining one as test set. To work with all
the dataset, the execution is repeated k times, and each time a different subset (without replacement) is chosen as the current test set and the remaining
compose the training set.
We carried out all experiments choosing k = 5 folds. As a consequence, for
each experiment, the method was executed 5 times using 80% of the dataset
as training set and 20% as test set.

6 Results and Discussion
We propose two approaches for the described method. The first, named NonLimited Approach (NLA), is intended to provided a quantization focused on
generating representations that have the better performance as possible. The
second, named Limited Approach (LA), has the same goal, however it imposes
a limitation on the representations size by giving negative fitness for the generated individuals that present dimensions over this limit. As a consequence,

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

13

this later approach tends to focus on compactness. The following subsections
present and discuss the experimental results and comparison between these
two approaches of our method and its baseline.
6.1 Non-limited Approach
Figures 12a and 12b present the performance comparison between NLA and
the baselines in the described task. Considering only the mean values of avg.
P@10, our method outperforms the baseline. However, due to the proximity of
the results, we used the Students Paired t-Test [10] to statistically verify this
conclusion. According to the null hypothesis criteria of this test, it is possible
to say that our method results outperforms the ones of the baseline in all
datasets.
Observing the resultant feature vector dimensions in Figures 14a and 14b,
the discrepancy between the two methods is easily noticeable. The representations produced by our method approach are, on average, around 300% bigger
than the ones generated by the baseline. The reason for this outcome relies
on the fact that the fitness function used for evaluate the genetic algorithm
individuals prioritizes the representations performance on the task and does
not consider any aspect related to its dimensions. That being said, it is likely
that occurred a detailing of the colour tonalities generating a superior number
of intervals and resulting in higher dimensions.

1.0
0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

E
FFE

CO

CO

00

IL1

L15
RE

CO

66

06

L39

RE

CO

80

ETH

Dataset

(a) BIC

UIT
FR

S

ID
OR

RC

MS

d
rce

Me

UC

NLA
GCH

0.9

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

1.0

NLA
BIC

0.9

0.0
CO

E

FFE

00
IL1

CO

66
L15

RE

CO

06

L39
RE

CO

80
ETH

Dataset

FR

S

UIT

RID
CO

R
MS

UC

d
rce

Me

(b) GCH

Fig. 12: Comparison between the P@10 results of NLA and the feature extractors.

14

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

1.0
0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

E
FFE

CO

CO

00

IL1

L15
RE

66

CO

06

L39

RE

CO

80

ETH

UIT
FR

S

ID
OR

RC

MS

Dataset

0.0

d
rce

Me

UC

NLA
GCH

0.9

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

1.0

NLA
BIC

0.9

CO

E

FFE

00
IL1

CO

66
L15

RE

CO

(a) BIC

06
L39
RE

CO

80
ETH

FR

S

UIT

RID
CO

R
MS

Dataset

UC

d
rce

Me

(b) GCH

NLA
BIC

960
896
832
768
704
640
576
512
448
384
320
256
192
128
64
0

Representation Size

Representation Size

Fig. 13: Comparison between the MAP results of NLA and the feature extractors.

E
FFE

CO

CO

00

IL1

L15
RE

CO

66

06

L39

RE

CO

80

ETH

(a) BIC

UIT
FR

S

ID
OR

RC

MS

d
rce

Me

UC

NLA
GCH

480
448
416
384
352
320
288
256
224
192
160
128
96
64
32
0
CO

E

FFE

00
IL1

CO

66
L15

RE

CO

06

L39
RE

CO

80
ETH

FR

S

UIT

RID
CO

R
MS

UC

d
rce

Me

(b) GCH

Fig. 14: Comparison between the representation size results of NLA and the
feature extractors.

6.2 Limited Approach
The charts of Figures 21 and 22 show a pattern among for all datasets. The
performance results of LA were superior than the baseline for limits 64, 96, and
128. However, statistical tests according the Students Paired Method show an
overlapping between the results for the limits 96 and 64. Consequently, it is
possible to declare that BIC method was outperformed only in cases of limit
128. Furthermore, the ascending behaviour of the performances suggests that
as bigger the representation as superior its feature detailing level, which leads
to a better representation quality.
The results of Figures 25 and 26 show that the generated quantizations almost exhausted the feature detailing by producing representations that reached

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

15

or stayed very close to the dimension upper-bound. This is possibly a consequence of the optimization strategy of the method which is guided by the task
performance. A fitness function that also considers the feature vector dimension would likely favour the generation of smaller representations under the
same limit.
The presented results prove our hypothesis that it is possible to find an
quantization optimized for a given domain that could provide an improved representation effectiveness and compactness. According to Figure 21, the results
of limit 128, which present the same representation size as the ones of the BIC
extractor, outperformed the retrieval quality of the baseline. Some results of
limit 96 were even further presenting better performance with a smaller feature
vector leading to conclude the possibility of improvements in performance and
compactness simultaneously on the same quantization. Other results of limit
96 and 64 were statically tied with the baseline demonstrating the possibility
of a significant reduction of the description size, until 50% in this case, but
maintaining similar performance. Lastly, results of limit 32 and 16, performed
badly for all datasets, showing the occurrence of loss in representation quality
at a linear decay.

7 Conclusions
We proposed two approaches of a representation learning method which intends to provide more effective and compact image representations by optimizing the colour quantization for the image domain. We performed experiments
on eight different image datasets comparing the results with a pre-defined
quantization approach in terms of performance on the task of CBIR and representations dimensionality.
The first approach, produced representations that outperform the performance of the baseline by a small percentage and presented a two times higher
dimensionality. The second approach, which imposes a limitation on the representation dimension, presented results that show improvements on performance for the same dimensionality (128 bins), results that performed better
even reducing the dimensionality in 25%, and also others that reduced the
representation size until 50% but maintained statistically equivalent performance. Finally, the later approach also had results that imposed a reduction
of more than 75% but presented poor performance showing the existence of a
lower-bound for lossless compactness and that representations quality declines
linearly with the limit.
At the end, the results prove the hypothesis, for the tested scenarios, that
it was possible to produce more effective and compact fitness by exploring a
colour quantization optimized for the image domain. Moreover, we remain at
the end with a method capable of improve already existent feature extraction
methods by providing descriptions more effective in terms of representation
quality and more compact according to a parametric upper bound.

16

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

As future work we plan experimenting on approaches that use fitness functions that consider both effectiveness and compactness in the optimization
process as the way of softening the dimensionality increasing. Furthermore,
we aim to analyse how the presented approaches behave using different feature extractors and performing over other pattern recognition tasks. As long
as the hypothesis were confirmed in these different scenarios, we consider scaling a similar optimization processes for use in GPUs aiming an alternative for
Deep Learning approaches.
Acknowledgements This work was financed by CNPq (grant 449638/2014-6), CAPES,
and Fapemig (APQ-00768-14). We also thank Microsoft Azure for the Research Grant.

References
1. Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation learning: A review
and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35(8):1798–
1828
2. Bo L, Ren X, Fox D (2011) Hierarchical matching pursuit for image classification: Architecture and fast algorithms. Advances in neural information
processing systems pp 2115–2123
3. Coates A, Ng AY (2011) The importance of encoding versus training with
sparse coding and vector quantization. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11) pp 921–928
4. Criminisi A (2004) Microsoft research cambridge object recognition image
database
5. Davis L (1991) Handbook of genetic algorithms
6. Davis SM, Landgrebe DA, Phillips TL, Swain PH, Hoffer RM, Lindenlaub
JC, Silva LF (1978) Remote sensing: the quantitative approach. New York,
McGraw-Hill International Book Co, 1978 405 p
7. Fan W, Fox EA, Pathak P, Wu H (2004) The effects of fitness functions on
genetic programming-based ranking discovery for web search. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55(7):628–
636
8. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning, 1989. Reading: Addison-Wesley
9. Hinton GE, Osindero S, Teh YW (2006) A fast learning algorithm for deep
belief nets. Neural computation 18(7):1527–1554
10. Kim TK (2015) T test as a parametric statistic. Korean journal of anesthesiology 68(6):540–546
11. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature
521(7553):436–444
12. Lee H, Grosse R, Ranganath R, Ng AY (2009) Convolutional deep belief
networks for scalable unsupervised learning of hierarchical representations.
Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning pp 609–616

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

17

13. Leibe B, Schiele B (2003) Analyzing appearance and contour based methods for object categorization. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2003 Proceedings 2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on 2:II–409
14. Lu D, Weng Q (2007) A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. International journal of
Remote sensing 28(5):823–870
15. Luccheseyz L, Mitray S (2001) Color image segmentation: A state-of-theart survey. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA-A)
67(2):207–221
16. Nene SA, Nayar SK, Murase H, et al (1996) Columbia object image library
(coil-20)
17. Nogueira K, Penatti OA, dos Santos JA (2017) Towards better exploiting convolutional neural networks for remote sensing scene classification.
Pattern Recognition 61:539 – 556
18. Omran MG, Engelbrecht AP, Salman A (2005) A color image quantization
algorithm based on particle swarm optimization. Informatica 29(3)
19. Penatti OA, Valle E, Torres RdS (2012) Comparative study of global color
and texture descriptors for web image retrieval. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation
20. Penatti OA, Nogueira K, dos Santos JA (2015) Do deep features generalize
from everyday objects to remote sensing and aerial scenes domains? IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops
21. Penatti OAB, d S Torres R (2008) Color descriptors for web image retrieval: A comparative study. 2008 XXI Brazilian Symposium on Computer Graphics and Image Processing pp 163–170
22. Ponti M, Nazaré TS, Thumé GS (2016) Image quantization as a dimensionality reduction procedure in color and texture feature extraction. Neurocomputing 173:385–396
23. Rocha A, Hauagge DC, Wainer J, Goldenstein S (2010) Automatic fruit
and vegetable classification from images. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 70(1):96–104
24. da S Torres R, Falco AX, Gonalves MA, Papa JP, Zhang B, Fan W, Fox
EA (2009) A genetic programming framework for content-based image
retrieval. Pattern Recognition 42(2):283 – 292
25. Salakhutdinov R, Hinton G (2009) Deep boltzmann machines. Artificial
Intelligence and Statistics pp 448–455
26. dos Santos JA, Penatti OAB, da Silva Torres R (2010) Evaluating the
potential of texture and color descriptors for remote sensing image retrieval
and classification. VISAPP (2) pp 203–208
27. Scheunders P (1996) A genetic lloyd-max image quantization algorithm.
Pattern Recognition Letters 17(5):547–556
28. Smeulders AW, Worring M, Santini S, Gupta A, Jain R (2000) Contentbased image retrieval at the end of the early years. IEEE Transactions on
pattern analysis and machine intelligence 22(12):1349–1380
29. Stehling RdO (2002) Recuperação por conteudo em grandes coleções de
imagens heterogeneas. PhD thesis, Unicamp

18

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

30. Stehling RO, Nascimento MA, Falcão AX (2002) A compact and efficient image retrieval approach based on border/interior pixel classification. Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information
and knowledge management pp 102–109
31. Swain MJ, Ballard DH (1991) Color indexing. International journal of
computer vision 7(1):11–32
32. Vincent P, Larochelle H, Bengio Y, Manzagol PA (2008) Extracting and
composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. Proceedings of
the 25th international conference on Machine learning pp 1096–1103
33. Wang JZ, Li J, Wiederhold G (2001) Simplicity: Semantics-sensitive integrated matching for picture libraries. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 23(9):947–963
34. Yang Y, Newsam S (2010) Bag-of-visual-words and spatial extensions for
land-use classification. Proceedings of the 18th SIGSPATIAL international
conference on advances in geographic information systems pp 270–279
35. Yilmaz A, Javed O, Shah M (2006) Object tracking: A survey. Acm computing surveys (CSUR) 38(4):13
36. Yu K, Lin Y, Lafferty J (2011) Learning image representations from the
pixel level via hierarchical sparse coding. Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on pp 1713–1720

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.66)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

NLA (AUC = 0.92)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.63)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.9

1.0

(d) Corel-3906

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

0.7

NLA (AUC = 0.40)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

(c) Corel-1566

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.70)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

(e) ETH-80

NLA (AUC = 0.84)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

0.6

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.5
Recall

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.4

(b) Coil-100

Precision

Precision

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

0.0

19

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.41)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

(g) MSRCORID

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

NLA (AUC = 0.49)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 15: Comparison between the Precision-Recall Curves of NLA and BIC
feature extractor

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

20

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

NLA (AUC = 0.89)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.69)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.9

1.0

(d) Corel-3906

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

(e) ETH-80

NLA (AUC = 0.79)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Precision

Precision

0.8

NLA (AUC = 0.42)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

(c) Corel-1566

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.7

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.0

0.5
Recall

(b) Coil-100

Precision

Precision

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

0.4

0.1

NLA (AUC = 0.39)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

(g) MSRCORID

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

NLA (AUC = 0.44)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 16: Comparison between the Precision-Recall curves of NLA and BIC
feature extractor

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning
B. Coffee Scenes
0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.2
0.1

LA (AUC = 0.25)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.68)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.1
0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.65)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.65)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

LA (AUC = 0.37)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.90)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.34)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.59)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.88)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.33)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.55)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.83)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.29)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.53)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.82)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.21)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.48)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.75)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.39)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.5

1.0

0.5

LA (AUC = 0.13)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.58)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

64

Precision
Precision

96

0.1

Precision

Precision

32

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.36)
BIC (AUC = 0.79)

0.5

1.0

0.0

Precision

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
BIC (AUC = 0.64)

0.1

128

0.5

0.4

0.0

Precision

0.5

Precision

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.1

256

Corel-3906

1.0

0.0

Precision

Corel-1566

1.0

0.1

384

Coil-100

1.0

Precision

Precision

16

.

21

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.61)
BIC (AUC = 0.52)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

LA (AUC = 0.38)
BIC (AUC = 0.32)
0.0

0.1

0.2

Fig. 17: Comparison between the Precision-Recall curves of LA and BIC feature extractor considering all representation size limits for the datasets Brazilian Coffee Scenes, Coil-100, Corel-1566 and Corel-3906

22

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos
ETH-80
0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.2
0.1

LA (AUC = 0.25)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.55)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.1
0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.63)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.69)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.70)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

LA (AUC = 0.47)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.82)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.42)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.40)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.80)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.40)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.38)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.76)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.37)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.38)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.74)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.32)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.34)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.70)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.30)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.5

1.0

0.5

LA (AUC = 0.26)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.58)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

64

Precision
Precision

96

0.1

Precision

Precision

32

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.39)
BIC (AUC = 0.71)

0.5

1.0

0.0

Precision

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.44)
BIC (AUC = 0.61)

0.1

128

0.5

0.4

0.0

Precision

0.5

Precision

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.1

256

UCMerced L.

1.0

0.0

Precision

MSRCORID

1.0

0.1

384

T. Fruits and V.

1.0

Precision

Precision

16

.

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.41)
BIC (AUC = 0.34)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

LA (AUC = 0.47)
BIC (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

Fig. 18: Comparison between the Precision-Recall curves of LA and BIC feature extractor considering all representation size limits for the datasets ETH80, Tropical Fruits and Vegetables, MSRCORID and UCMerced Landuse

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.2
0.1

LA (AUC = 0.53)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.1
0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.67)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

LA (AUC = 0.41)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.88)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.39)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.68)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.87)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.38)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.65)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.86)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.36)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.64)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.85)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.34)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.63)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.84)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.60)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.5

1.0

0.5

LA (AUC = 0.30)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.80)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

32

Precision
Precision

48

0.1

Precision

Precision

16

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.74)
GCH (AUC = 0.85)

0.5

1.0

0.0

Precision

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.68)
GCH (AUC = 0.65)

0.1

64

0.5

0.4

0.0

Precision

0.5

Precision

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.1

128

Corel-3906

1.0

0.0

Precision

Corel-1566

1.0

0.1

192

Coil-100

1.0

Precision

8

B. Coffee Scenes

Precision

.

23

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.69)
GCH (AUC = 0.64)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

LA (AUC = 0.41)
GCH (AUC = 0.37)
0.0

0.1

0.2

Fig. 19: Comparison between the Precision-Recall curves of LA and GCH
feature extractor considering all representation size limits for the datasets
Brazilian Coffee Scenes, Coil-100, Corel-1566 and Corel-3906

24

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.2
0.1

LA (AUC = 0.33)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.64)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.1
0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.65)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.65)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.65)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1
0.0

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

LA (AUC = 0.43)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.79)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.42)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.38)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.79)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.41)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.37)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.78)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.4

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.40)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.1

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.37)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)

0.9

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.78)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.4

0.8

LA (AUC = 0.37)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1
0.3

1.0

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.36)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)

0.9

0.5

0.5
Recall

0.5

1.0

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.75)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.3

LA (AUC = 0.34)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)

0.9

0.5

0.1

0.5

1.0

0.5

LA (AUC = 0.33)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.72)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)
0.0

Precision

1.0

0.9

0.8

Precision

1.0

0.9

Precision

32

Precision
Precision

48

0.1

Precision

Precision

16

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.66)
GCH (AUC = 0.78)

0.5

1.0

0.0

Precision

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.60)
GCH (AUC = 0.48)

0.1

64

0.5

0.4

0.0

Precision

0.5

Precision

0.9

Precision

1.0

0.1

128

UCMerced L.

1.0

0.0

Precision

MSRCORID

1.0

0.1

192

T. Fruits and V.

1.0

Precision

8

ETH-80

Precision

.

0.1

LA (AUC = 0.38)
GCH (AUC = 0.36)
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Recall

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

LA (AUC = 0.44)
GCH (AUC = 0.40)
0.0

0.1

0.2

Fig. 20: Comparison between the Precision-Recall curves of LA and GCH
feature extractor considering all representation size limits for the datasets
ETH-80, Tropical Fruits and Vegetables, MSRCORID and UCMerced Landuse

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

(e) ETH-80

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(d) Corel-3906

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

(c) Corel-1566

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(b) Coil-100

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

25

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 21: Comparison between the P@10 results of LA and BIC feature extractor

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

26

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

16

32

48

Overall P@10

Overall P@10
16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

(e) ETH-80

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

64

(d) Corel-3906

LA
GCH
0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

LA
GCH
0

(c) Corel-1566

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

80

(b) Coil-100

Overall P@10

Overall P@10

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

64

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 22: Comparison between the P@10 results of LA and GCH feature extractor

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

(e) ETH-80

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(d) Corel-3906

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

(c) Corel-1566

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(b) Coil-100

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

27

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
BIC
0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 23: Comparison between the MAP results of LA and BIC feature extractor

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

28

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

16

32

48

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision
16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

(e) ETH-80

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

64

(d) Corel-3906

LA
GCH
0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

LA
GCH
0

(c) Corel-1566

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

80

(b) Coil-100

Mean Average Precision

Mean Average Precision

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

64

0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

LA
GCH
0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 24: Comparison between the MAP results of LA and GCH feature extractor

A Color Quantization Optimization Approach for Image Representation Learning

29

384
384

352

352

320

320

288

256

Representation Size

Representation Size

288
224
192
160
128

224
192
160
128
96

96

64

64
LA
BIC

32
0

256

0

32

64

96

LA
BIC

32
0

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0

32

64

96

(b) Coil-100

384

384

352

352

320

320

288

288

256

256

Representation Size

Representation Size

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

224
192
160
128

224
192
160
128
96

96

64

64
LA
BIC

32
0

0

32

64

96

LA
BIC

32
0

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0

32

64

96

(c) Corel-1566

384

352

352

320

320

288

288

256

256

Representation Size

Representation Size

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(d) Corel-3906

384

224
192
160
128
96

224
192
160
128
96

64

64
LA
BIC

32
0

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

0

32

64

96

LA
BIC

32
0

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(e) ETH-80

0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

384
384

352

352

320

320
288

256

Representation Size

Representation Size

288
224
192
160
128
96

224
192
160
128
96

64

64
LA
BIC

32
0

256

0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

LA
BIC

32
0

0

32

64

96

128 160 192 224 256 288 320 352 384
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 25: Comparison between the representation size results of LA and BIC
feature extractor

Érico Marco D. A. Pereira, Jefersson A. dos Santos

192

192

176

176

160

160

144

144

128

128

Representation Size

Representation Size

30

112
96
80
64

96
80
64
48

48

32

32
LA
GCH

16
0

112

0

16

32

48

64

80

LA
GCH

16
0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0

16

32

48

192

192

176

176

160

160

144

144

128

128

112
96
80
64

112
96
80
64
32

32
LA
GCH

16
0

16

32

48

64

80

LA
GCH

16
0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

0

16

32

48

192

192

176

176

160

160

144

144

128

128

112
96
80
64
48

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

112
96
80
64
32

LA
GCH

16
0

16

32

48

64

80

LA
GCH

16
0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(e) ETH-80

0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(f) Tropical Fruits and Vegetables

192

192

176

176

160

160

144

144
128

Representation Size

Representation Size

80

48

32

112
96
80
64

128
112
96
80
64
48

48

32

32
LA
GCH

16
0

64

(d) Corel-3906

Representation Size

Representation Size

(c) Corel-1566

0

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

48

48

0

80

(b) Coil-100

Representation Size

Representation Size

(a) Brazilian Coffee Scenes

64

0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(g) MSRCORID

LA
GCH

16
0

0

16

32

48

64

80

96 112 128 144 160 176 192
Size Limit

(h) UCMerced Land-use

Fig. 26: Comparison between the representation size results of LA and GCH
feature extractor

