IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015

Survey of Scene Classification Approaches

R.Raja#, S.Md.Mansoor Roomi*, A.Lavanya*, S.Ishwarya*
*Department of Electronics and Communication
Thigarajar College of Engineering, Madurai.
#Pandian Saraswathi Yadav Engineering College, Sivagangai.

Abstract—With the exponential growth in storage of digital mixer of both indoor and outdoor scenes in such a case images
images, searching an image takes considerable amount of time. In are classified as hybrid scenes. Example for hybrid scene is
such scenario the search time could be minimized by grouping corridor images.
(classifying) the similar images in the database. Many approaches
are proposed to categorize the scenes into appropriate classes.
This study discusses the evolution of computer-based scene
classification approaches over the last decade, as well as overview
the successes and failures of proposed solutions to the problems
in scene classification. We have also analyzed the performance of
the existing approaches in terms of classification accuracy.

Keywords—digital images; search time; grouping; scene

classification; performance

I. INTRODUCTION
Due to the advancement in digital imaging, digital
photography collection, image databases have grown
exponentially. Searching and retrieving an image in such a
large collection of database takes enormous amount of search
time. Scene classification has gained much attention of
researchers to reduce the search time in addition scene
classification plays a key role in content based image retrieval
[1,2], automatic creation of photo albums, robot navigation [3]
and tourist information access.
Hierarchy of the scene categories is shown in the fig.1.
Generally, images can be categorized [4] into Photographic
images and Synthetic images. Examples for synthetic images
are drawings, computer game screenshots, window application
screenshot, cartoons, logos, charts and maps. Photographic
images can be further classified as Indoor scenery and
Outdoor scenery. Indoor sceneries are categorized [5] into five
major classes viz. Home, Leisure places, Stores, Working Fig. 1. Hierarchy of Scene categories
places and Public places. Examples for Home scene are living
room, bedroom, kitchen, bath room, garage, staircases, New needs have emerged regarding the development of
children room, lobby and dining room. Buffet, restaurant, fast advanced and user-friendly systems for the efficient
food, concert hall, game room, gym, hail salon, bar and movie manipulation of the image content [7] to categorize the scenes.
theater are the case of Leisure places. Working places consists For tackling these challenges, approaches that shift to image
of hospital, class room, art studio, laboratory, college, office, processing have been proposed [8].
school, operating room, TV studio and computer room. The main objectives of this paper are to
Examples of stores are bakery, grocery stores, jewellery shops,
flower shop, shoe shop, mall and video store. Church, inside  Study the scene classification approaches
bus, inside airport, waiting room, subway, prison cell, elevator proposed over the last decade
and train station are examples of public places. Outdoor  Describe the issues in categorizing the scenes into
scenery [6] can be further divided into natural scenery and appropriate classes
artificial scenery. Natural sceneries can be further classified
into sky/clouds, coasts, river, mountain, forest and plains  Analyze Performance of existing approaches of
(desert). If a natural scene contains any manmade objects, it is scene classification
said to be artificial scenery. City outside (street), market and
bus station are the cases of artificial scenes. Images can be a
 IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II
explains the classical approaches of scene classification;
the performance analysis is reported in Section III. Finally,
section IV concludes the study of scene classification
approaches.
II. CLASSICAL APPROACHES
This section presents standard approaches of scene
classification and the issues regarding the representation of
image content.
Scene Classification
approaches
Low level features based Semantic modeling based
approaches approaches
Color features
Bag-of-Features model
Texture features
Spatial Pyramid
Shape features Matching model
Deformable Part based
Model
Fig. 2. Categories of Scene Classification approaches
As proposed in [9], scene classification methods can be
roughly divided into two broad families: low-level and
semantic modeling based approaches. Three types of low level
features are Color, texture and shape. Semantic modeling
based approaches can be further classified into Bag-of-
Features (BoF) model, Spatial Pyramidal Matching (SPM)
model and Deformable Part based Model (DPM) as depicted
in fig.2.
The major issues [10] in scene classification are
 Intra-class variability
 Illumination changes
 View point variations such as scaling and rotation
 Semantic gap between human perception and
machine perception
A. Low level features based approaches
Visual content of images can be extracted using low level
features such color, texture and shape.
a) Color features: Color features are the most widely
used descriptors in content based image retrieval systems.
There are wide range of color features that can be used in scene
understanding [11,12]. To provide reproducible representations
of color, several color spaces have been introduced like Red
Green Blue (RGB), Hue Saturation Value (HSV) , Hue Min
Max Difference (HMMD and CIE-LAB etc.
Color Layout Descriptor (CLD) [12] is used to describe the
spatial distribution of colors from RGB color space for content
filtering and visualization. Perception of color is not
represented better in RGB color space which leads to the
wider use HSV. Scalable Color Descriptor (SCD) [12] is the
most common way of describing color features by providing
the distribution of color over the image using color
histograms. It uses the HSV colors space uniformly quantized
to 255 bins. The histogram bin values are non-uniformly
quantized in a range from 16 bits/histogram for a rough
representation of color distribution and up to 1000
bits/histogram for high-quality applications. Dominant Color
Descriptor (DCD) [12] provides a more compact way of
representation but at the expense of poorer performance in
high quality applications. It consists of the dominant colors in
each region, their percentages and color variance. Color
structure descriptor (CSD) [12] is used to describe local
features in an image by sliding a window across the image and
counting the occurrence of each color in these regions thereby
constructing the color histogram. Group-of-Frames/Group-of-
Pictures (GoF/GoP) Color Descriptor [12] is used for
describing color features in number of frames in a video by
using SCD which makes it useful for video retrieval
applications. Opponent color spaces [12] proposed by vande et
al. [13] which exhibits lesser dependency on the actual
intensity values. The components of the Opponent color model
can be calculated as,
1
O1  ( R  G)
2 (1)
1
O2  ( R  G  2 B)
6 (2)
b) Texture features: Texture aids in identifying objects
of interest or region of interest irrespective of the source of the
image. Homogeneous Texture Descriptor (HTD) [12] is
extracted by filtering the image using bank of Gabor filters
with five scales and six orientations. The first and second
moments of energy in the frequency bands are used as the
components of the descriptor. Texture Browsing Decriptor
(TBD) [12] is similar to a human characterization which
categorizes texture in terms of regularity and directionality but
it is not appropriate for similarity ranking. Thus, TBD is used
to find a set of candidates and homogenous texture descriptor
is used to get a similarity ranking . A bank of 24 Gabor filters
of 6 orientations and 4 scales is used to filter image and finally
a 12-bit descriptor is computed. Gray Level Co-Occurrence
Matrix [14] describes spatial relationships among grey-levels
in an image. Energy, Entropy, Homogeneity, Information
measure of correlation are used to characterize textured
regions.
c) Shape features
In most of the scene classification applications, the
difference between classes is based on the objects present in
the scenes. Shape descriptors [11] play a vital role in
identification of objects in a particular scene. 2-D Shape
descriptors can be either region-based or contour-based.
Numerous 3-D shape descriptors can also be used depending
on the applications.
 IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015
3-D Shape Descriptor [15]—Shape Spectrum is used to
measure the local convexity of the image region by computing
the histogram of shape indexes with 100 bins. Region-Based
Descriptor ART (Angular Radial Transformation) extracts
shape features from the entire region invariant to
transformations. This descriptor is more immune to
segmentation noise. Contour-Based Descriptor are computed
by applying curvature scale space transforms(CSS) on the
image and matching is done by comparing the CSS index at
the most prominent peaks of the resultant image. 2-D/3-D
Shape Descriptor is used to characterize the shape of a 3-D
object by multiple 2-D images with different view angles and
matching them to calculate similarity. Scale-invariant feature
transform (or SIFT) is an algorithm in computer vision to
detect and describe shape features in images. SIFT [16]
feature descriptor is invariant to uniform scaling, orientation,
and partially invariant to affine distortion and illumination
changes. SIFT descriptor is used to find the important key
points in an object by computing the maxima and minima of
difference of Gaussians function applied in scale space to a
series of smoothed and resampled images which are further
used for matching by computing the Euclidean distances
between them. Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) [17] is
a standard image feature used in object detection and
deformable object detection. It decomposes the image into
square cells of a given size and computes a histogram of
oriented gradient in each cell and then renormalizes the cells
by looking into adjacent blocks.
Li Zhou et al. [18] proposed an approach based on low
level feature combination (texture and shape). This method
represents sub- regions of the image more effectively using a
new visual descriptor called GBPWHGO. The GBPWHGO
descriptor is composed of a GBP (Gradient Binary Pattern)
and a WHGO (Weighted Histogram of Gradient Orientation)
to capture structural and textural properties of images
effectively. Unlike LBP, GBP operator describes each pixel by
the relative gradient on different directions of the pixel similar
to the gradient information extracted by SIFT, HOG etc. These
descriptors describe regions of interest using the distribution
of gradient by accumulating the gradient magnitude of each
pixel into orientation bins. But they do not use the frequency
of occurrence of gradient orientation, which is actually very
useful in scene discrimination. S.M.M. Roomi et al. [20, 21]
presented methods for classifying images into major
categories such as Indoor/Outdoor scenes using color, texture
and shape information. Kelly et al. [22] proposed an approach
for scene classification using neighborhood and spatial
information. In this approach, the features are extracted from
the images using Contextual Mean Census Transform
(CMCT). The information from distant neighbors increments
the contextual information of a 3x3 window of pixels and
helps in differentiating similar windows placed in different
regions. In this way, the local information is extracted from
the regions by CMCT. Multi channel feature generation [23] is
recently proposed to categorize the scenes. In this approach,
hyper opponent color space is used to extract the features
using mCENRIST technique. All these existing methods
suffer to group when the same scene is taken at different
viewpoints. To overcome the issues such as illumination
changes and view point variations, Roomi et al.[10] proposed
a robust scene classification algorithm. In this method to
achieve rotation and scale invariant property, Gabor filter is
applied on the image followed by which low level features are
extracted from the filtered image. Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) is used to reduce the dimensionality of the
features.
B. Semantic Modeling based Approaches
Although the low level feature based approaches offer
simplicity and low computational cost, they often exhibit poor
performance when number of scene categories are more. To
solve this problem, semantic modeling based methods were
evolved. These approaches use a semantic intermediate
representation to model the content of images and fill the gap
between low-level and high-level features.
a) Bag-of-Features model: Because of the excellent
performance, these semantic modeling based methods are
widely used for scene classification, especially the Bag-of-
Features (BoF) model. The BoF model samples an image
efficiently with various local interest point detectors [24] or
dense regions [25], and describes it with local descriptors [26].
The image is then represented as a histogram of code word
occurrences by mapping the local features to a codebook,
which is typically generated with a clustering method. Zhong
Ji et al. [27] presented a novel Object-Enhanced (OE)
mechanism to strengthen the classical BoF based approaches.
In this method, bottom-up saliency detection method is first
adopted to detect and segment the object regions of interest.
Next, local features are extracted from images. These
enhanced features in object regions together with features in
background regions are reunited against the pre-generated
visual vocabulary to form the OE-BoF features. Dictionary
Learning Approach [28] is proposed to separate the features
which are specific to particular classes from the features
commonly present across various classes in a dictionary built
by usual methods like sparse coding. K mean clustering based
code book generation results in poor code book due to non
uniformly distribution. To overcome this hindrance, simple
fixed radius cluster [29] based on mean shift is used for code
book generation.
There are two drawbacks of the traditional codebook
model
 code-word uncertainty
 codeword plausibility
To circumvent these problems, kernel code books [30] are
proposed by Jan et al. An uncertainty modeling method is
used for the codebook generation. In addition, kernel density
estimation is applied to allow a degree of ambiguity in
assigning code words to image features. By using kernel
density estimation, the uncertainty between code words and
image features is lifted beyond the vocabulary and becomes
part of the codebook model. Christoph et al. [31] proposed an
approach to recognize the scene using Bag-of-Space time
Energies (BoSE). This approach is built on primitive features
that uniformly capture spatial and temporal orientation
structure of the scenes.
 IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015
b) Spatial Pyramid Matching model: Spatial Pyramid
Matching model [32] (SPM) is the extension of BoF model.
This technique works by partitioning the image into
increasingly fine sub-regions at multiple scales and computing
histograms of local features found inside each sub-region.
Pyramid matching works by placing a sequence of
increasingly coarser grids over the feature space and taking a
weighted sum of the number of matches that occur at each
level of resolution. At any fixed resolution, two points are said
to match if they fall into the same cell of the grid; matches
found at finer resolutions are weighted more highly than
matches found at coarser resolutions. But SPM performs
pyramid matching in the two-dimensional image space, and
use traditional clustering techniques in feature space. Roland
et al. [33]. proposed an approach based on spatial information
encoding, kernel design, and data embeddings compatible with
image representation on a probability simplex. To achieve
better classification performance for SPM, the spatial pyramid
match kernel (SPMK) is used. SPMK replaces the l2 norm of
RBF by the histogram intersection (HI) metric. The
appearance representation was based on SIFT descriptors
computed on an evenly-spaced 4x4 pixel grid. The 128-
component Gaussian mixtures of diagonal covariance were
used to model theme distributions, and mixture parameters
estimated with the EM algorithm. Randomized spatial
pyramids [34] are used to extract more finer spatial
information than SPM techniques where the image is
randomly partitioned multiple times and a pool of
independent partition patterns is obtained. Different from SPM
where each local feature is hard-quantized into the unique sub-
region at each level, the RSP-based method provides many
partition patterns in the same level, such that each local feature
can be soft-quantized into multiple sub-regions. This will
make the image representation more robust as it is less
sensitive to the spatial quantization error.
c) Deformable Part based Model: An image
representation based on objects can be very useful in high-
level visual recognition tasks for scenes cluttered with objects.
For scene classification, Deformable Part based Model (DPM)
[35] can be used to capture the recurring visual elements and
salient objects using standard global image features. A DPM
represents an object by a lower-resolution root filter and a set
of higher-resolution part filters arranged in a flexible spatial
configuration. Congcong Li [36] proposed a new image
representation based on DPM to model a full spectrum of
arbitrarily higher-order object interactions for deeper scene
understanding. This approach discovers the groups of objects
by exploiting object-level annotations in images. The group of
objects tend to be semantically meaningful, and are not
dependent on the appearance modeling choices. Insipied by
DPM, Object bank [37] is proposed by Li-Jia-Li et al. In this
technique, image contents are represented based on objects, or
more rigorously, a collection of object sensing filters built on a
generic collection of labeled objects. A regularized logistic
regression method is used for describing structured sparsity as
well as to explore both feature and object sparsity. This object
bank is used as high-level image representation to discover
semantically meaningful descriptions of the scene classes.
Yingbin [38] presented a new image representation based on
response extracted from object part filters. Since different
objects may contain similar parts, the method uses a semantic
hierarchy to automatically determine and merge filters shared
by multiple objects to form hybrid part filters. The proposed
hybrid-Parts are generated by pooling the response maps of
the hybrid filters. Contrast to other scene recognition
approaches, this method adopts object-level detections as
feature inputs, which enable a richer and finer-grained
representation.
III. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
This section reports the performance analysis of various
scene classification approaches. Analysis on 15 scene category
and MIT 67 indoor scene categories are discussed in terms of
performance metrics. 15 scene category dataset consists of 15
categories of Indoor scenes like bedroom, kitchen, living
room, store, etc. and Outdoor scenes like coast, forest, tall
building, street, etc. At first A. Oliva et al [39] reported that
their approach achieves 73.28 %. Latter on many approaches
are proposed to classify the scenes in 15 scene category.
Yuning Jiang et al [34] achieved 88.1% because their method
is based on hybrid part filters response.
TABLE I. CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF 15 SCENE CATEGORIES
Classification Accuracy
Methods
(%)
A.Oliva et al. [39] 73.28
Wu et al. [40] 73.29
K. Gazolli et al. [41] 76.87
Li et al [37] 80.9
S. Lazebnik et al. [32] 81.40
MorcoFornoni et al. 82.42
[42]
Bosch et al. [43] 83.7
J. Wu et al [31] 84.1
Yingbin Zheng et al 86.3
[38]
Yuning Jiang et al [34] 88.1
MIT 67 Indoor scene category is a challenging dataset
because it contains more number class as well as more number
of cluttered images. Initially, Dalal et al .[17] has reported
22.8% accuracy which is not preferably better for indoor scene
classification. Hence several researchers strived hard to
improve performance of the system. This lead to a subsequent
increase in overall accuracy owing to the usage of high level
semantic approaches like BoF, SPM and DPM method.
Ultimately, Yingbin Zheng et al [38] achieved a high accuracy
of 47.2 % using object response derived from hybrid part
filters.
 IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015

TABLE II. CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY OF 67 INDOOR SCENE [7] R. Datta, D. Joshi, J. Li, J. Wang, “Image retrieval: ideas, influences,
CATEGORIES and trends of the new age”, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 40 (2)
pp. 1–60, 2008.
[8] A. Hanjalic, R. Lienhart, W. Ma, J. Smith, “The holy grail of multimedia
Classification Accuracy information retrieval: so close or yet so far away” Proceedings of the
Methods
(%) IEEE 9 (4) pp. 541–547, 2008.
N. Dalal et al [17] 22.8 [9] A.Bosch, X.Munz, R.Marti, “A review: which is the best way to
organize/ classify images by content, Image and Vision Computing 25
(6) pp.778–791, 2007.
J. Wu et al [40] 22.46
[10] S.M.M.Roomi, R.Raja, D.Dharmalakshmi, “Robust Indoor/Outdoor
A. Oliva et al [39] 23.2 scene classification”, ICAPR 2015.
[11] A.Yamada, M. Pickering, S. Jeannin, L. Cieplinski, “MPEG-7 Visual
A. Quattoni et al. [5] 25 Part of Experimentation Model Version 8.0”, ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC29/WG11/N3673, 2000.
K. Gazolli et al [41] 25.82 [12] B. S. Manjunath, J.-R. Ohm, V. V. Vasudevan, and A. Yamada,
“MPEG-7 color and texture descriptors,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.
MorcoFornoni et al. 39.6 Video Technol., vol. 11, pp. 703–715, June 2001.
[42]
Li Zhou et al [18] 42.9 [13] Julia Vogel, Bernt Schiele, “Semantic Modeling of Natural Scenes for
Content-Based Image Retrieval”, Int. J. Comput. Vision, 72:133-157,
M. Pandey, et al [35] 43.1 july 2006. DOI: 10.1007/s11263-006-8614-1.
[14] Haralick, R.M., K. Shanmugan, and I. Dinstein, "Textural Features for
Yingbin Zheng et al 47.2 Image Classification", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
[38] Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-3, pp. 610-621, 1973.
[15] M. Bober, “ MPEG-7 Visual Shape Descriptors,” IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. Video Technol., vol. 11, pp. xref–x, June 2001.
[16] D. Lowe, Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints, Int.
IV. CONCLUSION J. Comput.Vis. 60(2) pp. 91–110, 2004.
The proper classification of scene categories is highly [17] N. Dalal,B.Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for human
essential to reduce time complexity in retrieval applications. detection”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
Several paradigms have been proposed in literature to and Pattern Recognition, pp.886–893, 2005.
accomplish this task effectively. In this article, a gist on [18] Li Zhou, Zongtan Zhou, DewenHu, “Scene classification using
multiresolution low level feature combination”, nurocomputing 122
various approaches of scene classification is presented. The (2013) 284–297, 2013.
possible scene categories and the challenging issues involved
[19] S.M.M. Roomi, R.Raja, D.Dharmalakshmi, “Classification and Retrieval
in their classification are also discussed. This paper can better of Natural scenes”, IEEE International Conference on ICCCNT 2013,
assist emerging researchers in this field with the analysis of all pp. 1-8, July, 2013.
the existing techniques. Though several methodologies are [20] S.M.M Roomi, R.Raja, D.Dharmalakshmi, S.Rohini, “ Classificationof
available, there is still a need for further improvement in scene indoor / outdoor scenes ”, IEEE International Conference on ICCIC
recognition systems. 2013, pp. 1-4, Dec., 2013.
[21] R.Raja, S.Md.Mansoor Roomi, D.Dharmalakshmi, “Classification
scenes into Indoor/Outdoor ”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
REFERENCES Engineering and Technology 8(21): 2172-2178, 2014.
[22] Kelly, Evandro, “ Exploring neighborhood and spatial information for
improving scene classification”, Pattern Recognition Letters vol.46, pp.
[1] A. Vailaya, A. Jain, M. Figueiredo, H. Zhang, “Content-based 83–88, 2014.
hierarchical classification of vacation images”, Proceedings of the IEEE [23] Yang Xiao, Jianxin Wu, Junsong Yuan, “mCENTRIST: A Multi-
International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, vol. 2, Channel Feature Generation Mechanism for Scene Categorization” IEEE
IEEE ComputerSociety, pp. 518–523, 1999. transaction on Image Processing, vol. 23, no. 2, 2014.
[2] E. Chang, K.G.K. Goh, G. Sychay, G.W.G. Wu, “Cbsa: content-based [24] K. Mikolajczyk, C. Schmid, “Scale and affine invariant interest point
soft annotation for multimodal image retrieval using bayes point detectors”, International Journal of Computer Vision 60 (1), pp. 63–86,
machines”, IEEETrans. Circuits Syst. Video Tech. 13 (1) 26–38, 2003. 2004.
[3] C. Siagian, L. Itti, “Gist: a mobile robotics application of context-based [25] J. Qin, N.H.C. Yung, “Scene categorization via contextual visual words,
vision in outdoor environment”, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Pattern Recognition” vol.43, pp.1874–1888, 2010.
Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition (CVPR’05) – Workshops, vol. 3, IEEE Computer Society, [26] K. Mikolajczyk, C. Schmid, “A performance evaluation of local
pp. 1063–1069, 2005 descriptors”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence 27 (10), 1615–1630, 2010.
[4] A. Vailaya, A. Jain, and H. Zhang. “Video clustering” Tech. Rep.
MSU-CPS-96-64, Michigan State University, 1996. [27] Zhong Ji , JingWang , YutingSu , ZhanjieSong , ShikaiXing, “Balance
between object and background:Object-enhanced features for scene
[5] A.Quattoni,A.Torralba, “Recognizing indoor scenes” , IEEE Computer image classification”, neurocomputing ,2013.
Society Conferenceon Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.
413–420, 2009. [28] Shu Kong and Donghui Wang, “A Dictionary Learning Approach for
Classification: Separating the Particularity and the Commonality”
[6] S.M.M.Roomi, R.Raja, D.Dharmalakshmi, “Classification and retrieval Europian Conference of Computer Vision (ECCV), 2012.
of natural scenes”, Fourth International Conference on Computing,
Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), [29] Frederic Jurie and Bill Triggs, “Creating Efficient Codebooks for Visual
DOI:10.1109/ICCCNT.2013.6726534, pp.1- 8, 2013. Recognition”, ICCV, 2005.
[30] Jan C. van Gemert, Jan-Mark Geusebroek, Cor J. Veenman, and Arnold
W.M. Smeulders, “Kernel Codebooks for Scene Categorization”, ICCV,
2008.
 IEEE Sponsored 2nd International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication systems (ICIIECS) 2015
[31] Christoph Feichtenhofer, Axel Pinz1 Richard, P. Wildes, “Bags of Space
time Energies for Dynamic Scene Recognition”, IEEE transaction on
Pattern Recognition, 2014.
[32] S. Lazebnik, C. Schmid, J. Ponce, “Beyond bags of features: spatial
pyramid matching for recognizing natural scene categories”,
Proceedings IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, IEEE Computer Society, 2006, pp.
2169–2178.
[33] Roland Kwitt, Nuno Vasconcelos, and Nikhil Rasiwasia, “Scene
Recognition on the Semantic Manifold”, ECCV, 2012.
[34] Yuning Jiang, Junsong Yuan, and Gang Yu , “Randomized Spatial
Partition for Scene Recognition”, ECCV 2012.
[35] M. Pandey and Svetlana Lazebnik, “Scene Recognition and Weakly
Supervised Object Localization with Deformable Part-Based Models”,
In International Conferrence on Computer Vision (ICCV),2011.
[36] Congcong Li, Devi Parikh, Tsuhan Chen, “Automatic Discovery of
Groups of Objects for Scene Understanding”, CVPR, 2012.
[37] Li-Jia Li, Hao Su, Eric P. Xing, Li Fei-Fei1, “Object Bank: A High-
Level Image Representation for Scene Classification & Semantic
Feature Sparsification”, International journal of computer vision, 2012.
[38] Yingbin Zheng, Yu-Gang Jiang, Xiangyang Xue, “Learning Hybrid Part
Filters for Scene Recognition”, CVPR 2012.
[39] A. Oliva, A. Torralba, “Modeling the shape of the scene: a holistic
representation of the spatial envelope”, Int. J. Comput. Vis. 42 (3) pp.
145–175,2001.
[40] Wu, J.M. Rehg, “Centrist: a visual descriptor for scene categorization”,
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 33 (8), 1489–1501, 2011.
[41] K. Gazolli, E. Salles, “A contextual image descriptor for scene
classification”, in: Online Proceedings on Trends in Innovative
Computing, pp. 66–71, 2012.
[42] Marco Fornoni,Barbara Caputo, “ Recognition with Naive Bayes Non-
linear Learning”, pattern recognition, ICPR, 2014.
[43] Bosch, A., Zisserman, A., Munoz, X.: “Scene classification using a
hybrid generative/discriminative approach”. TPAMI 30, pp. 712–
727,2008.
[44] J. Wu, Rehg, J.M. “Beyond the euclidean distance: Creating effective
visual codebooks using the histogram intersection kernel”. In: ICCV.
2009.