Skip to content
Back to the collection

PlaNet - Photo Geolocation with Convolutional Neural Networks

Tobias Weyand, Ilya Kostrikov, James Philbin

2016 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Is it possible to build a system to determine the location where a photo was taken using just its pixels? In general, the problem seems exceptionally difficult: it is trivial to construct situations where no location can be inferred. Yet images often contain informative cues such as landmarks, weather patterns, vegetation, road markings, and architectural details, which in combination may allow one to determine an approximate location and occasionally an exact location. Websites such as GeoGuessr and View from your Window suggest that humans are relatively good at integrating these cues to geolocate images, especially en-masse. In computer vision, the photo geolocation problem is usually approached using image retrieval methods. In contrast, we pose the problem as one of classification by subdividing the surface of the earth into thousands of multi-scale geographic cells, and train a deep network using millions of geotagged images. While previous approaches only recognize landmarks or perform approximate matching using global image descriptors, our model is able to use and integrate multiple visible cues. We show that the resulting model, called PlaNet, outperforms previous approaches and even attains superhuman levels of accuracy in some cases. Moreover, we extend our model to photo albums by combining it with a long short-term memory (LSTM) architecture. By learning to exploit temporal coherence to geolocate uncertain photos, we demonstrate that this model achieves a 50% performance improvement over the single-image model.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

aub3bhat
Neutral mention · rule
There are so many issues with this post, let me enumerate: 1. Straw man tweet by some non-practitioner which is used to set up the straw-man argument. 2. The whole Digits example is ridiculous, statisticians "love" toy problems to prove theorems & make "arguments" etc. ML is empirical and not just the performance but the entire pipeline from data to application matters. Let me illustrate: If your aim is to predict 1 vs 0 from images of digits. As an ML researcher I would write a program to synthesize images in all different combinations of fonts/font-color/background color/ location available. The data would easily be more than ~100,000 images. At this point one cannot…
Read the full comment
use LASSO on top 10 pixels (due to jittering), and a Deep Models would be necessary. But in reality my model will outperforms because the thinking process as an ML researcher was not to make an "argument" but to "solve" the problem of detecting 1 vs 0. 3. But the biggest flaw is the following argument """The sample size matters. If you are Google, Amazon, or Facebook and have near infinite data it makes sense to deep learn.""" This is an another issue with Biostatisticians (The author of this post is Bio-Stats professor), is that they are fundamentally unable to recognize importance of programming and ability to collect data. Even if you are not Google, Amazon, Facebook you can easily collect data, even labeled data in scale of terabytes can be collected in within days or a week. Every single PhD student I know is not limited by size of the data but rather computational power and storage available to them. I personally have several terabytes of video and data from YFCC 100M that I would love to process and build models on but I am only limited by the computational power & AWS costs. If you want a concrete example, see the Google PlaNet paper [1] I today have enough data (~5 Tb) to replicate it and build open source geolocation model, the only hurdles are storage and computation costs. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05314
epistasis
Neutral mention · rule
Presumably more accurate than a single human, and you can do it with multiple humans and reaching a consensus. I remember an anecdote in physics class where an experiment required counting a certain number of events in time. A single person would occasionally blink and miss an event. But if you had two people, and you count how many people observed each event, you can solve for super-human accuracy using the estimated error rates of each person. See also this usage in the context of ML: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.05314v1.pdf

Keep following the thread.

More in Computer vision

More from the same topics.