How to calculate mAP (mean average precision) for the whole dataset? - machine-learning

I am new to computer vision and I have a simple question that could not get any answer for on the web. I am using mask rcnn implementation by Matterport to perform a binary classification on some images and I have some extra lines of code that compute the mAP for each image. Now I would like to know, if I can add up the mAPs calculated for each image and then divide the number to get mAP for the whole dataset, and if not, how can I compute the overall mAP? (preferrably using the utilities of the mask rcnn model)

Yes, you can do something like
np.sum(recall)/num_test
np.sum(precision)/num_test
where num_test is number of test images
Just keep training and test data separate.

Related

Can i Retrain Inception's Final Layer using depth images from Kinect.?

I like to know whether I can use data set of signs that is made using Kinect to retrain inception's final layer like mentioned in the Tensor Flow tutorial website that uses ordinary RGB images.I am new to this field. Opinions are much appreciated.
The short answer is "No. You cannot just fine tune only the last layer. But you can fine tune the whole pre-trained network.". The first layers of the pre-trained network is looking for RGB features. Your depth frames will hardly provide enough entropy to match that. Your options are:
If the recognised/tracked objects (hands) are not masked and you have actual depth data for the background, you can train from scratch on depth images with few contrast stretching and data whitening ((x-mu)/sigma). This will take very long time for the ivy league networks like Inception and ResNet. Also, keep in mind that most python based deep learning frameworks rely on PIL image loaders which by default assumes images are of 8bits channels mapped in the range [0, 1]. These image loaders cast all 16bits pixels ones.
If the recognised/tracked object (hands) are masked which means your background is set to the same value or barely have gradient in it, the network will overfit on the silhouette of the object because this is where the strongest edges are. The solution for this is to colorise the depth image using normal maps, HSA, HSV, JET colour coding to convert it into 3x8bits channeled image. This makes the training converge much faster and in my late experiments we found that you can fine tune the ivy league networks on the colorised depth.
Since you are new to this field.I would like to suggest you to read what is transfer learning all the three types mentioned.I would like to tell you to apply any of the mentioned forms of transfer learning basing on your data set.If your data set is very similar to the type of model you are using then you can pass through last layers.If you data is not similar you have to tune the existing model and use it.
As the layers of the neural networks increases the data specific feature extraction increases so you have to take care of the specific layers if your dataset is not very similar to the pre-built model dataset. The starting layers will contain more generic features.

CNN Object Localization Preprocessing?

I'm trying to use a pretrained VGG16 as an object localizer in Tensorflow on ImageNet data. In their paper, the group mentions that they basically just strip off the softmax layer and either toss on a 4D/4000D fc layer for bounding box regression. I'm not trying to do anything fancy here (sliding windows, RCNN), just get some mediocre results.
I'm sort of new to this and I'm just confused about the preprocessing done here for localization. In the paper, they say that they scale the image to 256 as its shortest side, then take the central 224x224 crop and train on this. I've looked all over and can't find a simple explanation on how to handle localization data.
Questions: How do people usually handle the bounding boxes here?...
Do you use something like the tf.sample_distorted_bounding_box command, and then rescale the image based on that?
Do you just rescale/crop the image itself, and then interpolate the bounding box with the transformed scales? Wouldn't this result in negative box coordinates in some cases?
How are multiple objects per image handled?
Do you just choose a single bounding box from the beginning ,crop to that, then train on this crop?
Or, do you feed it the whole (centrally cropped) image, and then try to predict 1 or more boxes somehow?
Does any of this generalize to the Detection or segmentation (like MS-CoCo) challenges, or is it completely different?
Anything helps...
Thanks
Localization is usually performed as an intersection of sliding windows where the network identifies the presence of the object you want.
Generalizing that to multiple objects works the same.
Segmentation is more complex. You can train your model on a pixel mask with your object filled, and you try to output a pixel mask of the same size

How do I test if jpeg is photo (or rather logo)

I am extracting all images from given PDF files (containing real estate synopses) using the pdfimages tool as jpegs. Now I want to automatically distinguish between photos and other pictures, like maybe the broker's logo. How should I do this?
Is there an open tool that can distinguish between photos and clipart/line drawings etc. like google image search does?
Is there an open tool that gives me the number of colors used for a given jpeg?
I know this will bear a certain uncertainty, but that's okay.
I would look at colour distribution. The colours are likely to be densely packed or "too" evenly spread in the case of gradients. Alternatively, you could look at the frequency distribution of the image.
You can solve your problem in two steps: (1) extract some kind of information from the image and (2) train a classifier that can distinguish the two types of images:
1 - Feature Extraction
In this step you will have to write a program/function that takes a image as input and returns a numeric vector to describe its visual information. As koan points out in his answer, the color distribution contains a lot of useful information. So I would try the following measures:
* Histogram of each color channel (Red, Green, Blue), as this is a basic description of the color distribution of the image;
* Mean, standard deviation and other statistical moments of each histogram. This should give you information on how the colors are distributed in the image. For a drawing, such as logo, the color distribution should be significantly different from a photo;
* Fourier Descriptors. In a drawing, you will probably find a lot edges whereas in a photo this is not expected. With fourier descriptors, you can get this kind of information.
2 - Classification
In this step you will train some sort of classifier. Basically, get a set of images and label each one manually as a drawing or a photo. Also, use your extraction function that you wrote in step 1 to extract vectors from each image. This will be your training set. The training set will be used as input to train a classifier. As Neil N commented, a neural network may be an overkill (or maybe not?), but there are a lot of classifier that you can use (e.g. k-NN, SVM, decision trees). You don't have to implement the classifier yourself, as you can use a machine learning software such as Weka.
Finally, after you have trained your classifier, extract the vector from the image you want test. Use this vector as input to the classifier to get a prediction of whether the image is a photo or a logo.
A simpler solution is to automatically send the image to google image search with the 'similar images' setting on, and see if google sends back primarily PNG results or JPEG results.

How to match texture similarity in images?

What are the ways in which to quantify the texture of a portion of an image? I'm trying to detect areas that are similar in texture in an image, sort of a measure of "how closely similar are they?"
So the question is what information about the image (edge, pixel value, gradient etc.) can be taken as containing its texture information.
Please note that this is not based on template matching.
Wikipedia didn't give much details on actually implementing any of the texture analyses.
Do you want to find two distinct areas in the image that looks the same (same texture) or match a texture in one image to another?
The second is harder due to different radiometry.
Here is a basic scheme of how to measure similarity of areas.
You write a function which as input gets an area in the image and calculates scalar value. Like average brightness. This scalar is called a feature
You write more such functions to obtain about 8 - 30 features. which form together a vector which encodes information about the area in the image
Calculate such vector to both areas that you want to compare
Define similarity function which takes two vectors and output how much they are alike.
You need to focus on steps 2 and 4.
Step 2.: Use the following features: std() of brightness, some kind of corner detector, entropy filter, histogram of edges orientation, histogram of FFT frequencies (x and y directions). Use color information if available.
Step 4. You can use cosine simmilarity, min-max or weighted cosine.
After you implement about 4-6 such features and a similarity function start to run tests. Look at the results and try to understand why or where it doesnt work. Then add a specific feature to cover that topic.
For example if you see that texture with big blobs is regarded as simmilar to texture with tiny blobs then add morphological filter calculated densitiy of objects with size > 20sq pixels.
Iterate the process of identifying problem-design specific feature about 5 times and you will start to get very good results.
I'd suggest to use wavelet analysis. Wavelets are localized in both time and frequency and give a better signal representation using multiresolution analysis than FT does.
Thre is a paper explaining a wavelete approach for texture description. There is also a comparison method.
You might need to slightly modify an algorithm to process images of arbitrary shape.
An interesting approach for this, is to use the Local Binary Patterns.
Here is an basic example and some explanations : http://hanzratech.in/2015/05/30/local-binary-patterns.html
See that method as one of the many different ways to get features from your pictures. It corresponds to the 2nd step of DanielHsH's method.

Projecting from 60D (shape context) space to 2D for visual analysis

I have a set of 60D shape context vectors. These were constructed using a sample of 400 edge points from a silhouette using 5 radial bins and 12 angular bins (thus, I have 400 shape context vectors of 60D).
I would like to analyse just how descriptive these vectors are in representing the overall shape of the underlying silhouette. To do this, I would like to project the 60D shape context vectors back into 2D space and visually inspect the result -- what I am hoping to see is a set of points that roughly resemble the original silhouette's shape.
An approach to do this is by projecting on the first two principal components (PCA). Based on my implementation, the projected points did not resemble the silhouette's shape. I can see two main reasons for this (assuming for the time being that my implementation is correct): (1) shape context is either not appropriate as a descriptor given the silhouettes, or it's parameters need to be better tuned (2) this analysis method is flawed / not valid.
My question is whether this is the right approach for analysing the descriptiveness of shape contexts in relation to my silhouette's shape? If not, can someone please explain why and propose an alternative method?
Thanks,
Josh
The good way to check whether features are descriptive or not is to try train some classifier(svm/bayes/tree/whatever) upon them and check it cross-validated precision/recall etc. You also can filter your feature vector by feature selector like Chi/infogain.
Other than PCA, you can visualize your data with SOM, or by clustering.
I think this analysis method is flawed/not valid. I think this would be a similar reasoning: I can reconstruct the view from above on a football field by doing PCA on what each football player sees. It just isn't reasonable to expect that.
I think the simplest way to analyze the descriptiveness of shape context is to download MNIST or some other databases of written digits, and compute the 10x10 matrix of the shape similarities of 5 ones and 5 twos, and then draw this graph using (say) graphviz.

Resources