Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Maria-Elena Nilsback

dblp:28/3025 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 3 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Representation and self-supervised learning · 67% Image recognition and object detection · 33%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Image and video processing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › visual representation › image representation
bag of visual words
0.112006
A Visual Vocabulary for Flower Classification · CVPR (2) 2006
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection › image classification
fine-grained image classification
0.112006
A Visual Vocabulary for Flower Classification · CVPR (2) 2006
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning › visual representation › image representation
visual vocabulary
0.112006
A Visual Vocabulary for Flower Classification · CVPR (2) 2006

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

nearest neighbour classifier · 0.1discriminative accumulation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Delving deeper into the whorl of flower segmentation
Maria-Elena Nilsback, Andrew Zisserman
Image Vis. Comput.1
2007 Delving into the Whorl of Flower Segmentation
abstract
We describe an algorithm for automatically segmenting flowers in colour photographs. This is a challenging problem because of the sheer variety of flower classes, the intra-class variability, the variation within a particular flower, and the variability of imaging conditions – lighting, pose, foreshortening etc. The method couples two models – a colour model for foreground and background, and a generic shape model for the petal structure. This shape model is tolerant to viewpoint changes and petal deformations, and applicable across many different flower classes. The segmentations are produced using a MRF cost function optimized using graph cuts. The algorithm is tested on 13 flower classes and more than 750 examples. Performance is assessed against ground truth segmentations. 1
Maria-Elena Nilsback, Andrew Zisserman
BMVC1
2006 A Visual Vocabulary for Flower Classification
abstract
We investigate to what extent ‘bag of visual words’ models can be used to distinguish categories which have significant visual similarity. To this end we develop and optimize a nearest neighbour classifier architecture, which is evaluated on a very challenging database of flower images. The flower categories are chosen to be indistinguishable on colour alone (for example), and have considerable variation in shape, scale, and viewpoint. We demonstrate that by developing a visual vocabulary that explicitly represents the various aspects (colour, shape, and texture) that distinguish one flower from another, we can overcome the ambiguities that exist between flower categories. The novelty lies in the vocabulary used for each aspect, and how these vocabularies are combined into a final classifier. The various stages of the classifier (vocabulary selection and combination) are each optimized on a validation set. Results are presented on a dataset of 1360 images consisting of 17 flower species. It is shown that excellent performance can be achieved, far surpassing standard baseline algorithms using (for example) colour cues alone.
Maria-Elena Nilsback, Andrew Zisserman
CVPR (2)1
2004 Cue Integration through Discriminative Accumulation
Maria-Elena Nilsback, Barbara Caputo
CVPR (2)1