When reading about image classification, the only occurring terms are "neural networks", "deep learning" and "CNN". It seems like there are no other methods for this task. I have worked with neural networks and see why it works so well, but I am just curious whether there are other methods used for this task as well?

Are there any other (efficient) methods for image classification besides using neural networks?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are a couple of links under "Traditional Computer Vision" in this blog post, though I can't vouch for them. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2019 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Off the bat, SVM were pretty decent especially for smaller dataset (e.g. MNIST). $\endgroup$
    – usεr11852
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 12:28

1 Answer 1


Before CNNs took off, people would use the following approach:

  1. Using a feature extractor, convert an image to a vector of visual features
  2. Train a standard classifier on the extracted feature representation

Multitude of feature extractors exists, such as SIFT or HOG. Extracted features can be further used to represent the image as a bag of visual words, building a histogram of features describing the image globally. You can move on and design intricate schemes how to incorporate spatial relations into this vector representation, only to find that what works well for one image domain fails miserably in another one. The result is a pipeline of handcrafted algorithms and a little change in any of its blocks may yield unpredictable changes in the output.

Looking at the overall scheme, you can see that it is the same what convolutional neural networks do: A series of convolutional and pooling layers is used to extract visual features which are later classified using a multilayer perceptron (fully connected layers).

The key of CNN's success is that the feature extraction part is not fixed. It provides a framework which is flexible enough to learn a suitable feature representation for the given task, yet constrained enough to be tractable and avoid overfitting. The classifier part is generally convenient since it allows joint training via backpropagation, but having the learned feature extraction part of the network, you could also use any other classifier such as SVM.

In this regard, neural networks are not a revolution shattering all the previous work, they are a natural evolution of a field with a long history.

This page seems to be a good source of lectures on the topic: http://people.csail.mit.edu/torralba/shortCourseRLOC/

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1. There are various papers and blog entries (e.g. medium.com/bethgelab/…) that posit that older methods are still competitive. I can't find it, but one paper claims that most of the improvement is attributable to better parameter searches and training. $\endgroup$
    – Wayne
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 13:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.