4.6 Article

Deep correspondence restricted Boltzmann machine for cross-modal retrieval

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 50-60

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.12.020

关键词

Cross-modal; RBM; Retrieval; Deep Learning; Multi-modal

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61273365]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA011103]
  3. Discipline Building Plan in 111 Base [B08004]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2013RC0304]
  5. Engineering Research Center of Information Networks, Ministry of Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The task of cross-modal retrieval, i.e., using a text query to search for images or vice versa, has received considerable attention with the rapid growth of multi-modal web data. Modeling the correlations between different modalities is the key to tackle this problem. In this paper, we propose a correspondence restricted Boltzmann machine (Corr-RBM) to map the original features of bimodal data, such as image and text in our setting, into a low-dimensional common space, in which the heterogeneous data are comparable. In our Corr-RBM, two RBMs built for image and text, respectively are connected at their individual hidden representation layers by a correlation loss function. A single objective function is constructed to trade off the correlation loss and likelihoods of both modalities. Through the optimization of this objective function, our Corr-RBM is able to capture the correlations between two modalities and learn the representation of each modality simultaneously. Furthermore, we construct two deep neural structures using Corr-RBM as the main building block for the task of cross-modal retrieval. A number of comparison experiments are performed on three public real-world data sets. All of our models show significantly better results than state-of-the-art models in both searching images via text query and vice versa. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据