text: Understanding a visual scene goes beyond recognizing individual objects in isolation. Relationships between objects also constitute rich semantic information about the scene. In this work, we explicitly model the objects and their relationships using scene graphs, a visually-grounded graphical structure of an image. We propose a novel end-to-end model that generates such structured scene representation from an input image. The model solves the scene graph inference problem using standard RNNs and learns to iteratively improves its predictions via message passing. Our joint inference model can take advantage of contextual cues to make better predictions on objects and their relationships. The experiments show that our model significantly outperforms previous methods for generating scene graphs using Visual Genome dataset and inferring support relations with NYU Depth v2 dataset.
  @cite_30: This paper introduces situation recognition, the problem of producing a concise summary of the situation an image depicts including: (1) the main activity (e.g., clipping), (2) the participating actors, objects, substances, and locations (e.g., man, shears, sheep, wool, and field) and most importantly (3) the roles these participants play in the activity (e.g., the man is clipping, the shears are his tool, the wool is being clipped from the sheep, and the clipping is in a field). We use FrameNet, a verb and role lexicon developed by linguists, to define a large space of possible situations and collect a large-scale dataset containing over 500 activities, 1,700 roles, 11,000 objects, 125,000 images, and 200,000 unique situations. We also introduce structured prediction baselines and show that, in activity-centric images, situation-driven prediction of objects and activities outperforms independent object and activity recognition.
  @cite_7: By taking the semantic object parsing task as an exemplar application scenario, we propose the Graph Long Short-Term Memory (Graph LSTM) network, which is the generalization of LSTM from sequential data or multi-dimensional data to general graph-structured data. Particularly, instead of evenly and fixedly dividing an image to pixels or patches in existing multi-dimensional LSTM structures (e.g., Row, Grid and Diagonal LSTMs), we take each arbitrary-shaped superpixel as a semantically consistent node, and adaptively construct an undirected graph for each image, where the spatial relations of the superpixels are naturally used as edges. Constructed on such an adaptive graph topology, the Graph LSTM is more naturally aligned with the visual patterns in the image (e.g., object boundaries or appearance similarities) and provides a more economical information propagation route. Furthermore, for each optimization step over Graph LSTM, we propose to use a confidence-driven scheme to update the hidden and memory states of nodes progressively till all nodes are updated. In addition, for each node, the forgets gates are adaptively learned to capture different degrees of semantic correlation with neighboring nodes. Comprehensive evaluations on four diverse semantic object parsing datasets well demonstrate the significant superiority of our Graph LSTM over other state-of-the-art solutions.
  @cite_32: Deep Recurrent Neural Network architectures, though remarkably capable at modeling sequences, lack an intuitive high-level spatio-temporal structure. That is while many problems in computer vision inherently have an underlying high-level structure and can benefit from it. Spatio-temporal graphs are a popular tool for imposing such high-level intuitions in the formulation of real world problems. In this paper, we propose an approach for combining the power of high-level spatio-temporal graphs and sequence learning success of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs). We develop a scalable method for casting an arbitrary spatio-temporal graph as a rich RNN mixture that is feedforward, fully differentiable, and jointly trainable. The proposed method is generic and principled as it can be used for transforming any spatio-temporal graph through employing a certain set of well defined steps. The evaluations of the proposed approach on a diverse set of problems, ranging from modeling human motion to object interactions, shows improvement over the state-of-the-art with a large margin. We expect this method to empower new approaches to problem formulation through high-level spatio-temporal graphs and Recurrent Neural Networks.
  @cite_31: 
  @cite_20: This paper develops a novel framework for semantic image retrieval based on the notion of a scene graph. Our scene graphs represent objects (“man”, “boat”), attributes of objects (“boat is white”) and relationships between objects (“man standing on boat”). We use these scene graphs as queries to retrieve semantically related images. To this end, we design a conditional random field model that reasons about possible groundings of scene graphs to test images. The likelihoods of these groundings are used as ranking scores for retrieval. We introduce a novel dataset of 5,000 human-generated scene graphs grounded to images and use this dataset to evaluate our method for image retrieval. In particular, we evaluate retrieval using full scene graphs and small scene subgraphs, and show that our method outperforms retrieval methods that use only objects or low-level image features. In addition, we show that our full model can be used to improve object localization compared to baseline methods.
summary: Conditional Random Fields (CRF) have been used extensively in graph inference. Johnson al used CRF to infer scene graph grounding distributions for image retrieval @cite_20 . Yatskar al @cite_30 proposed situation-driven object and action prediction using a deep CRF model. Our work is closely related to CRFasRNN @cite_31 and Graph-LSTM @cite_7 in that we also formulate the graph inference problem using an RNN-based model. A key difference is that they focus on node inference while treating edges as pairwise constraints, whereas we enable edge predictions using a novel primal-dual graph inference scheme. We also share the same spirit as Structural RNN @cite_32 . A crucial distinction is that our model iteratively refines its predictions through message passing, whereas the Structural RNN model only makes one-time predictions along the temporal dimension, and thus cannot refine its past predictions.