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.
Related
Last day I learned about the convolution neural network, And went through some implementations of CNN using Tensorflow, All the implementation only specify the size, number of filters and strides for the filter. But when I learned about the filter it says that filter on each layer extracts different feature like edges, corners etc.
My question is can we explicitly specify filter which all feature we should extract, Or which portion for the image is more important etc
All the explanation says that we take a small part of an input image a slide across it with convolving. If so do we take all the parts of image and convolve across the image?
can we explicitly specify filter which all feature we should extract, Or which portion for the image is more important etc
Sure, this could be done. But the advantage of CNNs is that they learn the best features themselves (or at least very good ones; better ones than we can come up with in most cases).
One famous example is the ImageNet dataset:
In 2012 the first end-to-end learned CNN was used. End-to-end means that the network gets the raw data on one end as input and the optimization objective on the other end.
Before CNNs, the computer vision community used manually designed features for many years. After AlexNet in 2012, nobody did so (for "typical" computer vision - there are special applications where it is still worth a shot).
All the explanation says that we take a small part of an input image a slide across it with convolving. If so do we take all the parts of image and convolve across the image?
It is always the complete image which is convolved with a small filter. The convolution operation is local, meaning you can compute much of it in parallel as the result of the convolution in the upper left corner is not
dependent of the convolution in the lower left corner.
I think you may be confusing filters and channels. A filter is the weight window size in your convolution which can be used to produce channels from the convolution output. It is typically these channels that represent different features:
In this car identification example you can see some of the earlier channels picking up things like the hood, doors, and other borders of the car. It is hard to truly specify which features the network is extracting. If you already have knowledge of features that are important to the network you can feed them in as an additional mask layer or using some type of weighting matrix on them.
I am working on a limited number of large size images, each of which can have 3072*3072 pixels. To train a semantic segmentation model using FCN or U-net, I construct a large sample of training sets, each training image is 128*128.
In the prediction stage, what I do is to cut a large image into small pieces, the same as trainning set of 128*128, and feed these small pieces into the trained model, get the predicted mask. Afterwards, I just stitch these small patches together to get the mask for the whole image. Is this the right mechanism to perform the semantic segmentation against the large images?
Your solution is often used for this kind of problem. However, I would argue that it depends on the data if it truly makes sense. Let me give you two examples you can still find on kaggle.
If you wanted to mask certain parts of satellite images, you would probably get away with this approach without a drop in accuracy. These images are highly repetitive and there's likely no correlation between the segmented area and where in the original image it was taken from.
If you wanted to segment a car from its background, it wouldn't be desirable to break it into patches. Over several layers the network will learn the global distribution of a car in the frame. It's very likely that the mask is positive in the middle and negative in the corners of the image.
Since you didn't give any specifics what you're trying to solve, I can only give a general recommendation: Try to keep the input images as large as your hardware allows. In many situation I would rather downsample the original images than breaking it down into patches.
Concerning the recommendation of curio1729, I can only advise against training on small patches and testing on the original images. While it's technically possible thanks to fully convolutional networks, you're changing the data to an extend, that might very likely hurt performance. CNNs are known for their extraction of local features, but there's a large amount of global information that is learned over the abstraction of multiple layers.
Input image data:
I would not advice feeding the big image (3072x3072) directly into the caffe.
Batch of small images will fit better into the memory and parallel programming will too come into play.
Data Augmentation will also be feasible.
Output for big Image:
As for the output of big Image, you better recast the input size of FCN to 3072x3072 during test phase. Because, layers of FCN can accept inputs of any size.
Then you will get 3072x3072 segmented image as output.
I'm working on a image retrieval task(not involving faces) and one of the things I am trying is to swap out the softmax layer in the CNN model and use the LMNN classifier. For this purpose I fine tuned the model and then extracted the features at fully connected layer. I have about 3000 images right now. The fully connected layer gives a 4096 dim vector. So my final vector is a 3000x4096 vector with about 700 classes(Each class has 2+ images). I believe this is an extremely large dimension size which the LMNN algorithm is going to take forever(it really did take forever).
How can I reduce the number of dimensions? I tried PCA but that didn't squeeze down the dimensions too much(got down to 3000x3000). I am thinking 256/512/1024 dim vector should be able to help. If I were to add another layer to reduce dimensions, say a new fully connected layer would I have to fine tune my network again? Inputs on how to do that would be great!
I am also currently trying to augment my data to get more images per class and increase the size of my dataset.
Thank you.
PCA should let you reduce the data further - you should be able to specify the desired dimensionality - see the wikipedia article.
As well as PCA you can try t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE). I really enjoyed Wattenberg, et al.'s article - worth a read if you want to get an insight into how it works and some of the pitfalls.
In a neural net the standard way to reduce dimensionality is by adding more, smaller layers, as you suggested. As they can only learn during training, you'll need to re-run your fine-tuning. Ideally you would re-run the entire training process if you make a change to the model structure but if you have enough data it may be OK still.
To add new layers in TensorFlow, you would add a fully connected layer whose input is the output of your 3000 element layer, and output size is the desired number of elements. You may repeat this if you want to go down gradually (e.g. 3000 -> 1024 -> 512). You would then perform your training (or fine tuning) again.
Lastly, I did a quick search and found this paper that claims to support LMNN over large datasets through random sampling. You might be able to use that to save a few headaches: Fast LMNN Algorithm through Random Sampling
Probably lots of people already saw this article by Google research:
http://googleresearch.blogspot.ru/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html
It describes how Google team have made neural networks to actually draw pictures, like an artificial artist :)
I wanted to do something similar just to see how it works and maybe use it in future to better understand what makes my network to fail. The question is - how to achieve it with nolearn\lasagne (or maybe pybrain - it will also work but I prefer nolearn).
To be more specific, guys from Google have trained an ANN with some architecture to classify images (for example, to classify which fish is on a photo). Fine, suppose I have an ANN constructed in nolearn with some architecture and I have trained to some degree. But... What to do next? I don't get it from their article. It doesn't seem that they just visualize the weights of some specific layers. It seems to me (maybe I am wrong) like they do one of 2 things:
1) Feed some existing image or purely a random noise to the trained network and visualize the activation of one of the neuron layers. But - looks like it is not fully true, since if they used convolution neural network the dimensionality of the layers might be lower then the dimensionality of original image
2) Or they feed random noise to the trained ANN, get its intermediate output from one of the middlelayers and feed it back into the network - to get some kind of a loop and inspect what neural networks layers think might be out there in the random noise. But again, I might be wrong due to the same dimensionality issue as in #1
So... Any thoughts on that? How we could do the similar stuff as Google did in original article using nolearn or pybrain?
From their ipython notebook on github:
Making the "dream" images is very simple. Essentially it is just a
gradient ascent process that tries to maximize the L2 norm of
activations of a particular DNN layer. Here are a few simple tricks
that we found useful for getting good images:
offset image by a random jitter
normalize the magnitude of gradient
ascent steps apply ascent across multiple scales (octaves)
It is done using a convolutional neural network, which you are correct that the dimensions of the activations will be smaller than the original image, but this isn't a problem.
You change the image with iterations of forward/backward propagation just how you would normally train a network. On the forward pass, you only need to go until you reach the particular layer you want to work with. Then on the backward pass, you are propagating back to the inputs of the network instead of the weights.
So instead of finding the gradients to the weights with respect to a loss function, you are finding gradients to inputs with respect to the l2 Normalization of a certain set of activations.
I want to develop an application in which user input an image (of a person), a system should be able to identify face from an image of a person. System also works if there are more than one persons in an image.
I need a logic, I dont have any idea how can work on image pixel data in such a manner that it identifies person faces.
Eigenface might be a good algorithm to start with if you're looking to build a system for educational purposes, since it's relatively simple and serves as the starting point for a lot of other algorithms in the field. Basically what you do is take a bunch of face images (training data), switch them to grayscale if they're RGB, resize them so that every image has the same dimensions, make the images into vectors by stacking the columns of the images (which are now 2D matrices) on top of each other, compute the mean of every pixel value in all the images, and subtract that value from every entry in the matrix so that the component vectors won't be affine. Once that's done, you compute the covariance matrix of the result, solve for its eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and find the principal components. These components will serve as the basis for a vector space, and together describe the most significant ways in which face images differ from one another.
Once you've done that, you can compute a similarity score for a new face image by converting it into a face vector, projecting into the new vector space, and computing the linear distance between it and other projected face vectors.
If you decide to go this route, be careful to choose face images that were taken under an appropriate range of lighting conditions and pose angles. Those two factors play a huge role in how well your system will perform when presented with new faces. If the training gallery doesn't account for the properties of a probe image, you're going to get nonsense results. (I once trained an eigenface system on random pictures pulled down from the internet, and it gave me Bill Clinton as the strongest match for a picture of Elizabeth II, even though there was another picture of the Queen in the gallery. They both had white hair, were facing in the same direction, and were photographed under similar lighting conditions, and that was good enough for the computer.)
If you want to pull faces from multiple people in the same image, you're going to need a full system to detect faces, pull them into separate files, and preprocess them so that they're comparable with other faces drawn from other pictures. Those are all huge subjects in their own right. I've seen some good work done by people using skin color and texture-based methods to cut out image components that aren't faces, but these are also highly subject to variations in training data. Color casting is particularly hard to control, which is why grayscale conversion and/or wavelet representations of images are popular.
Machine learning is the keystone of many important processes in an FR system, so I can't stress the importance of good training data enough. There are a bunch of learning algorithms out there, but the most important one in my view is the naive Bayes classifier; the other methods converge on Bayes as the size of the training dataset increases, so you only need to get fancy if you plan to work with smaller datasets. Just remember that the quality of your training data will make or break the system as a whole, and as long as it's solid, you can pick whatever trees you like from the forest of algorithms that have been written to support the enterprise.
EDIT: A good sanity check for your training data is to compute average faces for your probe and gallery images. (This is exactly what it sounds like; after controlling for image size, take the sum of the RGB channels for every image and divide each pixel by the number of images.) The better your preprocessing, the more human the average faces will look. If the two average faces look like different people -- different gender, ethnicity, hair color, whatever -- that's a warning sign that your training data may not be appropriate for what you have in mind.
Have a look at the Face Recognition Hompage - there are algorithms, papers, and even some source code.
There are many many different alghorithms out there. Basically what you are looking for is "computer vision". We had made a project in university based around facial recognition and detection. What you need to do is google extensively and try to understand all this stuff. There is a bit of mathematics involved so be prepared. First go to wikipedia. Then you will want to search for pdf publications of specific algorithms.
You can go a hard way - write an implementaion of all alghorithms by yourself. Or easy way - use some computer vision library like OpenCV or OpenVIDIA.
And actually it is not that hard to make something that will work. So be brave. A lot harder is to make a software that will work under different and constantly varying conditions. And that is where google won't help you. But I suppose you don't want to go that deep.