We are currently doing a little experiment with machine learning with Deeplearning4j.
We have voltage measurements in time series from different devices that I know that depends on each other.
We manage to labeling huge amount of those data with one and zeroes.
Our problem is to figure out the use of layers for the model.
For us it seems that it is experience that it is used among people and examples seems to be random.
We currently using LSTM and RNN
But how can we clarify if there is better models?
We would like to see if the model can figure out some dependencies through predictions that we haven’t noticed.
The best way to go about this, is to start by looking at your data and what you want to get out of it. Then you should start out by setting up a base line. Use the simplest possible modelling technique you are familiar with just so you have anything at all.
In your case it looks like you have a label for each timestep. So, you might just use simple linear regression for each timestep separately to get a feel for what you would get if you don't incorporate any sequence information at all. Anything that works fast is a good candidate for this step.
Once you have that baseline, you can start looking at building a deeplearning model that outperforms this baseline.
For time series data, you have two options at the moment in DL4J, either you use a recurrent layer like LSTM, or you use convolutions over time.
If you want to have an output at each timestep, then a recurrent layer is probably better for you. The convolutional approach usually works best if you want to have just a single result after reading in the whole sequence.
For choosing how wide those layers should be, and how many layers you should use, you will have to experiment a bit.
The first thing that you want to achieve is to build a model that can over-fit on a subset of your data. So you start out, by passing in only a single batch of examples over and over again. If the model can't overfit on that, you make the layers wider. If the layers start getting too wide, you add another layer on top.
If you use the deeplearning4j-ui module, it will tell you how many parameters your model currently has. They should usually be less than the number of total examples you have, or you risk overfitting on your full data set.
As soon as you can train a model to overfit on a small subset of your data, you can start training it with all of your data.
At that point you can then start looking into finding better hyperparameters and seeing by how much you can beat your baseline.
I am using FCN (Fully Convolutional Networks) and trying to do image segmentation. When training, there are some areas which are mislabeled, however further training doesn't help much to make them go away. I believe this is because network learns about some features which might not be completely correct ones, but because there are enough correctly classified examples, it is stuck in local minimum and can't get out.
One solution I can think of is to train for an epoch, then validate the network on training images, and then adjust weights for mismatched parts to penalize mismatch more there in next epoch.
Intuitively, this makes sense to me - but I haven't found any writing on this. Is this a known technique? If yes, how is it called? If no, what am I missing (what are the downsides)?
It highly depends on your network structure. If you are using the original FCN, due to the pooling operations, the segmentation performance on the boundary of your objects is degraded. There have been quite some variants over the original FCN for image segmentation, although they didn't go the route you're proposing.
Just name a couple of examples here. One approach is to use Conditional Random Field (CRF) on top of the FCN output to refine the segmentation. You may search for the relevant papers to get more idea on that. In some sense, it is close to your idea but the difference is that CRF is separated from the network as a post-processing approach.
Another very interesting work is U-net. It employs some idea from the residual network (RES-net), which enables high resolution features from lower levels can be integrated into high levels to achieve more accurate segmentation.
This is still a very active research area. So you may bring the next break-through with your own idea. Who knows! Have fun!
First, if I understand well you want your network to overfit your training set ? Because that's generally something you don't want to see happening, because this would mean that while training your network have found some "rules" that enables it to have great results on your training set, but it also means that it hasn't been able to generalize so when you'll give it new samples it will probably perform poorly. Moreover, you never talk about any testing set .. have you divided your dataset in training/testing set ?
Secondly, to give you something to look into, the idea of penalizing more where you don't perform well made me think of something that is called "AdaBoost" (It might be unrelated). This short video might help you understand what it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjtSo-YWCjc
Hope it helps
4 years ago I posted this question and got a few answers that were unfortunately outside my skill level. I just attended a build tour conference where they spoke about machine learning and this got me thinking of the possibility of using ML as a solution to my problem. i found this on the azure site but i dont think it will help me because its scope is pretty narrow.
Here is what i am trying to achieve:
i have a source image:
and i want to which one of the following symbols (if any) are contained in the image above:
the compare needs to support minor distortion, scaling, color differences, rotation, and brightness differences.
the number of symbols to match will ultimately at least be greater than 100.
is ML a good tool to solve this problem? if so, any starting tips?
As far as I know, Project Oxford (MS Azure CV API) wouldn't be suitable for your task. Their APIs are very focused to Face related tasks (detection, verification, etc), OCR and Image description. And apparently you can't extend their models or train new ones from the existing ones.
However, even though I don't know an out of the box solution for your object detection problem; there are easy enough approaches that you could try and that would give you some start point results.
For instance, here is a naive method you could use:
1) Create your dataset:
This is probably the more tedious step and paradoxically a crucial one. I will assume you have a good amount of images to work with. What would you need to do is to pick a fixed window size and extract positive and negative examples.
If some of the images in your dataset are in different sizes you would need to rescale them to a common size. You don't need to get too crazy about the size, probably 30x30 images would be more than enough. To make things easier I would turn the images to gray scale too.
2) Pick a classification algorithm and train it:
There is an awful amount of classification algorithms out there. But if you are new to machine learning I will pick the one I would understand the most. Keeping that in mind, I would check out logistic regression which give decent results, it's easy enough for starters and have a lot of libraries and tutorials. For instance, this one or this one. At first I would say to focus in a binary classification problem (like if there is an UD logo in the picture or not) and when you master that one you can jump to the multi-class case. There are resources for that too or you can always have several models one per logo and run this recipe for each one separately.
To train your model, you just need to read the images generated in the step 1 and turn them into a vector and label them accordingly. That would be the dataset that will feed your model. If you are using images in gray scale, then each position in the vector would correspond to a pixel value in the range 0-255. Depending on the algorithm you might need to rescale those values to the range [0-1] (this is because some algorithms perform better with values in that range). Notice that rescaling the range in this case is fairly easy (new_value = value/255).
You also need to split your dataset, reserving some examples for training, a subset for validation and another one for testing. Again, there are different ways to do this, but I'm keeping this answer as naive as possible.
3) Perform the detection:
So now let's start the fun part. Given any image you want to run your model and produce coordinates in the picture where there is a logo. There are different ways to do this and I will describe one that probably is not the best nor the more efficient, but it's easier to develop in my opinion.
You are going to scan the picture, extracting the pixels in a "window", rescaling those pixels to the size you selected in step 1 and then feed them to your model.
If the model give you a positive answer then you mark that window in the original image. Since the logo might appear in different scales you need to repeat this process with different window sizes. You also would need to tweak the amount of space between windows.
4) Rinse and repeat:
At the first iteration it's very likely that you will get a lot of false positives. Then you need to take those as negative examples and retrain your model. This would be an iterative process and hopefully on each iteration you will have less and less false positives and fewer false negatives.
Once you are reasonable happy with your solution, you might want to improve it. You might want to try other classification algorithms like SVM or Deep Learning Artificial Neural Networks, or to try better object detection frameworks like Viola-Jones. Also, you will probably need to use crossvalidation to compare all your solutions (you can actually use crossvalidation from the beginning). By this moment I bet you would be confident enough that you would like to use OpenCV or another ready to use framework in which case you will have a fair understanding of what is going on under the hood.
Also you could just disregard all this answer and go for an OpenCV object detection tutorial like this one. Or take another answer from another question like this one. Good luck!
I am trying out vlfeat, got huge amount of features from an image database, and I am testing with the ground truth for mean average precision (MAp). Overall, I got roughly 40%. I see that some of the papers got higher MAp, while using techniques very similar to mine; the standard bag of word.
I am currently looking for an answer for obtaining higher MAp for the standard bag of word technique. While I see that there are other implementation such as SURF and what not, let's stick to the standard Lowe's SIFT and the standard bag of word in this question.
So the thing is this, I see that vl_sift got thresholding to allow you to be more strict on feature selection. Currently, I understand that going for higher threshold might net you smaller and more meaningful "good" features list, and possibly reduce some noisy features. "Good" features mean, given the same images with different variation, very similar features are also detected on other images.
However, how high should we go for this thresholding? Sometimes, I see that an image returns no features at all with higher threshold. At first, I was thinking of keep on adjusting the threshold, until I get better MAp. But again, I think it's a bad idea to keep on adjusting just to find the best MAp for the respective database. So my questions are:
While adjusting threshold may decrease numbers of features, does increasing threshold always return a lesser number yet better features?
Are there better approaches to obtain the good features?
What are other factors that can increase the rate of obtaining good features?
Have a look into some of the papers put out in response to the Pascal challenge in recent years. The impression they seem to give me is that standard 'feature detection' methods don't work very well with the Bag of Words technique. This makes sense when you think about it - BoW works by pulling together lots of weak, often unrelated features. It's less about detecting a specific object, but instead recognizing classes of objects and scenes. As such, putting too much emphasis on normal 'key features' can harm more than help.
As such, we see folks using dense grids and even random points as their features. From experience, using one of these methods over Harris corners, LoG, SIFT, MSER, or any of the like, has a great positive impact on performance.
To answer your questions directly:
Yes. From the SIFT api:
Keypoints are further refined by eliminating those that are likely to be unstable, either because they are selected nearby an image edge, rather than an image blob, or are found on image structures with low contrast. Filtering is controlled by the follow:
Peak threshold. This is the minimum amount of contrast to accept a keypoint. It is set by configuring the SIFT filter object by vl_sift_set_peak_thresh().
Edge threshold. This is the edge rejection threshold. It is set by configuring the SIFT filter object by vl_sift_set_edge_thresh().
You can see examples of the two thresholds in action in the 'Detector parameters' section here.
Research suggests features densely selected from the scene yield more descriptive 'words' than those selected using more 'intelligent' methods (eg: SIFT, Harris, MSER). Try your Bag of Words pipeline with vl_feat's DSIFT or PHOW implementation. You should see a great improvement in performance (assuming your 'word' selection and classification steps are tuned well).
After a dense set of feature points, the biggest breakthrough in this field seems to have been the 'Spatial Pyramid' approach. This increases the number of words produced for an image, but provides a location aspect to the features - something inherently lacking in Bag of Words. After that, make sure your parameters are well tuned (which feature descriptor you're using (SIFT, HOG, SURF, etc), how many words are in your vocabulary, what classifier are you using ect.) Then.. you're in active research land. Enjoy =)
A developer I am working with is developing a program that analyzes images of pavement to find cracks in the pavement. For every crack his program finds, it produces an entry in a file that tells me which pixels make up that particular crack. There are two problems with his software though:
1) It produces several false positives
2) If he finds a crack, he only finds small sections of it and denotes those sections as being separate cracks.
My job is to write software that will read this data, analyze it, and tell the difference between false-positives and actual cracks. I also need to determine how to group together all the small sections of a crack as one.
I have tried various ways of filtering the data to eliminate false-positives, and have been using neural networks to a limited degree of success to group cracks together. I understand there will be error, but as of now, there is just too much error. Does anyone have any insight for a non-AI expert as to the best way to accomplish my task or learn more about it? What kinds of books should I read, or what kind of classes should I take?
EDIT My question is more about how to notice patterns in my coworker's data and identify those patterns as actual cracks. It's the higher-level logic that I'm concerned with, not so much the low-level logic.
EDIT In all actuality, it would take AT LEAST 20 sample images to give an accurate representation of the data I'm working with. It varies a lot. But I do have a sample here, here, and here. These images have already been processed by my coworker's process. The red, blue, and green data is what I have to classify (red stands for dark crack, blue stands for light crack, and green stands for a wide/sealed crack).
In addition to the useful comments about image processing, it also sounds like you're dealing with a clustering problem.
Clustering algorithms come from the machine learning literature, specifically unsupervised learning. As the name implies, the basic idea is to try to identify natural clusters of data points within some large set of data.
For example, the picture below shows how a clustering algorithm might group a bunch of points into 7 clusters (indicated by circles and color):
(source: natekohl.net)
In your case, a clustering algorithm would attempt to repeatedly merge small cracks to form larger cracks, until some stopping criteria is met. The end result would be a smaller set of joined cracks. Of course, cracks are a little different than two-dimensional points -- part of the trick in getting a clustering algorithm to work here will be defining a useful distance metric between two cracks.
Popular clustering algorithms include k-means clustering (demo) and hierarchical clustering. That second link also has a nice step-by-step explanation of how k-means works.
EDIT: This paper by some engineers at Phillips looks relevant to what you're trying to do:
Chenn-Jung Huang, Chua-Chin Wang, Chi-Feng Wu, "Image Processing Techniques for Wafer Defect Cluster Identification," IEEE Design and Test of Computers, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 44-48, March/April, 2002.
They're doing a visual inspection for defects on silicon wafers, and use a median filter to remove noise before using a nearest-neighbor clustering algorithm to detect the defects.
Here are some related papers/books that they cite that might be useful:
M. Taubenlatt and J. Batchelder, “Patterned Wafer Inspection Using Spatial Filtering for Cluster Environment,” Applied Optics, vol. 31, no. 17, June 1992, pp. 3354-3362.
F.-L. Chen and S.-F. Liu, “A Neural-Network Approach to Recognize Defect Spatial Pattern in Semiconductor Fabrication.” IEEE Trans. Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 3, Aug. 2000, pp. 366-373.
G. Earl, R. Johnsonbaugh, and S. Jost, Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996.
Your problem falls in the very broad field of image classification. These types of problems can be notoriously difficult, and at the end of the day, solving them is an art. You must exploit every piece of knowledge you have about the problem domain to make it tractable.
One fundamental issue is normalization. You want to have similarly classified objects to be as similar as possible in their data representation. For example, if you have an image of the cracks, do all images have the same orientation? If not, then rotating the image may help in your classification. Similarly, scaling and translation (refer to this)
You also want to remove as much irrelevant data as possible from your training sets. Rather than directly working on the image, perhaps you could use edge extraction (for example Canny edge detection). This will remove all the 'noise' from the image, leaving only the edges. The exercise is then reduced to identifying which edges are the cracks and which are the natural pavement.
If you want to fast track to a solution then I suggest you first try the your luck with a Convolutional Neural Net, which can perform pretty good image classification with a minimum of preprocessing and noramlization. Its pretty well known in handwriting recognition, and might be just right for what you're doing.
I'm a bit confused by the way you've chosen to break down the problem. If your coworker isn't identifying complete cracks, and that's the spec, then that makes it your problem. But if you manage to stitch all the cracks together, and avoid his false positives, then haven't you just done his job?
That aside, I think this is an edge detection problem rather than a classification problem. If the edge detector is good, then your issues go away.
If you are still set on classification, then you are going to need a training set with known answers, since you need a way to quantify what differentiates a false positive from a real crack. However I still think it is unlikely that your classifier will be able to connect the cracks, since these are specific to each individual paving slab.
I have to agree with ire_and_curses, once you dive into the realm of edge detection to patch your co-developers crack detection, and remove his false positives, it seems as if you would be doing his job. If you can patch what his software did not detect, and remove his false positives around what he has given you. It seems like you would be able to do this for the full image.
If the spec is for him to detect the cracks, and you classify them, then it's his job to do the edge detection and remove false positives. And your job to take what he has given you and classify what type of crack it is. If you have to do edge detection to do that, then it sounds like you are not far from putting your co-developer out of work.
There are some very good answers here. But if you are unable to solve the problem, you may consider Mechanical Turk. In some cases it can be very cost-effective for stubborn problems. I know people who use it for all kinds of things like this (verification that a human can do easily but proves hard to code).
https://www.mturk.com/mturk/welcome
I am no expert by any means, but try looking at Haar Cascades. You may also wish to experiment with the OpenCV toolkit. These two things together do face detection and other object-detection tasks.
You may have to do "training" to develop a Haar Cascade for cracks in pavement.
What’s the best approach to recognize patterns in data, and what’s the best way to learn more on the topic?
The best approach is to study pattern recognition and machine learning. I would start with Duda's Pattern Classification and use Bishop's Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning as reference. It would take a good while for the material to sink in, but getting basic sense of pattern recognition and major approaches of classification problem should give you the direction. I can sit here and make some assumptions about your data, but honestly you probably have the best idea about the data set since you've been dealing with it more than anyone. Some of the useful technique for instance could be support vector machine and boosting.
Edit: An interesting application of boosting is real-time face detection. See Viola/Jones's Rapid Object Detection using a Boosted Cascade of Simple
Features (pdf). Also, looking at the sample images, I'd say you should try improving the edge detection a bit. Maybe smoothing the image with Gaussian and running more aggressive edge detection can increase detection of smaller cracks.
I suggest you pick up any image processing textbook and read on the subject.
Particularly, you might be interested in Morphological Operations like Dilation and Erosion, which complements the job of an edge detector. Plenty of materials on the net...
This is an image processing problem. There are lots of books written on the subject, and much of the material in these books will go beyond a line-detection problem like this. Here is the outline of one technique that would work for the problem.
When you find a crack, you find some pixels that make up the crack. Edge detection filters or other edge detection methods can be used for this.
Start with one (any) pixel in a crack, then "follow" it to make a multipoint line out of the crack -- save the points that make up the line. You can remove some intermediate points if they lie close to a straight line. Do this with all the crack pixels. If you have a star-shaped crack, don't worry about it. Just follow the pixels in one (or two) directions to make up a line, then remove these pixels from the set of crack pixels. The other legs of the star will recognized as separate lines (for now).
You might perform some thinning on the crack pixels before step 1. In other words, check the neighbors of the pixels, and if there are too many then ignore that pixel. (This is a simplification -- you can find several algorithms for this.) Another preprocessing step might be to remove all the lines that are too thin or two faint. This might help with the false positives.
Now you have a lot of short, multipoint lines. For the endpoints of each line, find the nearest line. If the lines are within a tolerance, then "connect" the lines -- link them or add them to the same structure or array. This way, you can connect the close cracks, which would likely be the same crack in the concrete.
It seems like no matter the algorithm, some parameter adjustment will be necessary for good performance. Write it so it's easy to make minor changes in things like intensity thresholds, minimum and maximum thickness, etc.
Depending on the usage environment, you might want to allow user judgement do determine the questionable cases, and/or allow a user to review the all the cracks and click to combine, split or remove detected cracks.
You got some very good answer, esp. #Nate's, and all the links and books suggested are worthwhile. However, I'm surprised nobody suggested the one book that would have been my top pick -- O'Reilly's Programming Collective Intelligence. The title may not seem germane to your question, but, believe me, the contents are: one of the most practical, programmer-oriented coverage of data mining and "machine learning" I've ever seen. Give it a spin!-)
It sounds a little like a problem there is in Rock Mechanics, where there are joints in a rock mass and these joints have to be grouped into 'sets' by orientation, length and other properties. In this instance one method that works well is clustering, although classical K-means does seem to have a few problems which I have addressed in the past using a genetic algorithm to run the interative solution.
In this instance I suspect it might not work quite the same way. In this case I suspect that you need to create your groups to start with i.e. longitudinal, transverse etc. and define exactly what the behviour of each group is i.e. can a single longitudinal crack branch part way along it's length, and if it does what does that do to it's classification.
Once you have that then for each crack, I would generate a random crack or pattern of cracks based on the classification you have created. You can then use something like a least squares approach to see how closely the crack you are checking fits against the random crack / cracks you have generated. You can repeat this analysis many times in the manner of a Monte-Carlo analysis to identify which of the randomly generated crack / cracks best fits the one you are checking.
To then deal with the false positives you will need to create a pattern for each of the different types of false positives i.e. the edge of a kerb is a straight line. You will then be able to run the analysis picking out which is the most likely group for each crack you analyse.
Finally, you will need to 'tweak' the definition of different crack types to try and get a better result. I guess this could either use an automated approach or a manual approach depending on how you define your different crack types.
One other modification that sometimes helps when I'm doing problems like this is to have a random group. By tweaking the sensitivity of a random group i.e. how more or less likely a crack is to be included in the random group, you can sometimes adjust the sensitivty of the model to complex patterns that don't really fit anywhere.
Good luck, looks to me like you have a real challenge.
You should read about data mining, specially pattern mining.
Data mining is the process of extracting patterns from data. As more data are gathered, with the amount of data doubling every three years, data mining is becoming an increasingly important tool to transform these data into information. It is commonly used in a wide range of profiling practices, such as marketing, surveillance, fraud detection and scientific discovery.
A good book on the subject is Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
(source: waikato.ac.nz) ](http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Ian-H-Witten/dp/3446215336 "ISBN 0-12-088407-0")
Basically what you have to do is apply statistical tools and methodologies to your datasets. The most used comparison methodologies are Student's t-test and the Chi squared test, to see if two unrelated variables are related with some confidence.