I am solving TSP using simulated annealing.I have a question that :
In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing in Efficient candidate generation block it said:
the travelling salesman problem above, for example, swapping two consecutive cities in a low-energy tour is expected to have a modest effect on its energy (length); whereas swapping two arbitrary cities is far more likely to increase its length than to decrease it. Thus, the consecutive-swap neighbour generator is expected to perform better than the arbitrary-swap one.
So I generated first city randomly and second consecutive to the first.but solution got worsen .
am i doing wrong?
Initially you need to explore all the solution surface. Which you can do in two ways, either by generating effectively random candidates, or by having a high temperature. If you don't use method one, you must use method two. Which means ramping up temperature until essentially all moves are accepted. Then you reduce it as slowly as you are able. A "swap adjacent cities" move will then produce a reasonable result.
Related
I would like to know if from an image like the example it is possible to calculate the area between two consecutive cars:
Detect the two objects, calculate the distances between my camera and the two objects so deduce the area between the two objects
Any advice or references would be welcome thanks
https://i.stack.imgur.com/4IM6y.jpg
This is not a super scalable solution as it would vary by country. But license plates (at least in the US) are always of a similar dimension. This could be used to give you almost perfect distance reference and they are easy to detect. The difficulty remaining would be in estimating the space taken up by the partial view of the near car... but this would significantly reduce the complexity of the problem. To get that remaining bit, I would likely try to identify a tire/ hubcap and apply an offset to that... as I imagine that will get you pretty close (within 1-2 feet)
This is a bit of a theoretical question, but I was wondering how one randomly chooses points when there are multiple lines to be detected in an image. In most examples I have seen so far, there seems to be only one line to be detected, and it seems easy. However, I am not sure how it is extended to detect multiple lines with a lot more points.
I think you are operating under a basic misunderstanding. RANSAC is just an algorithm to robustly partition some data points into two classes: those that are well predicted by a given parametric model, and those that aren't. The property of being "well-predicted" is expressed in terms of a loss function ("error") that depends on both the model parameters and the data points.
Reread the above paragraph, then ask yourself: do I have a parametric model expressing a collection of lines? If yes, go ahead and fit it. However, if your model can only handle single lines, you should first segment your dataset into portions that are themselves likely to belong to one line each, and then apply RANSAC to each portion.
In some (easy) cases one can proceed iteratively: first use RANSAC on a one-line model to find a large segment of data that fits one line, remove its segment from the dataset, and iterate on the remaining points.
RANSAC only works well when you want to detect a single inlier model, as Francesco Callari correctly explained. Of course the simple solution would be to use the a "sequential" RANSAC but that does only really work if your lines are mutually exclusive and or can be well constrained, such that RANSAC does really only fit one line instead of spanning multiple ones in an non-optimal manner. To solve this issues there exists a variety of approaches, for instance energy based geometric fitting approaches or using evolutionary dynamics to iteratively determine good candidates, to name two.
Here is a nice introduction to the problem from David F. Fouhey.
Background:
Assuming there are two shots for the same scene from two different perspective. Applying a registration algorithm on them will result in Homography Matrix that represents the relation between them. By warping one of them using this Homography Matrix will (theoretically) result in two identical images (if the non-shared area is ignored).
Since no perfection is exist, the two images may not be absolutely identical, we may find some differences between them and this differences can be shown obviously while subtracting them.
Example:
Furthermore, the lighting condition may results in huge difference while subtracting.
Problem:
I am looking for a metric that I can evaluate the accuracy of the registration process. This metric should be:
Normalized: 0->1 measurement which does not relate to the image type (natural scene, text, human...). For example, if two totally different registration process on totally different pair of photos have the same confidence, let us say 0.5, this means that the same good (or bad) registeration happened. This should applied even one of the pair is for very details-reach photos and the other of white background with "Hello" in black written.
Distinguishing between miss-registration accuracy and different lighting conditions: Although there is many way to eliminate this difference and make the two images look approximately the same, I am looking of measurement that does not count them rather than fixing them (performance issue).
One of the first thing that came in mind is to sum the absolute differences of the two images. However, this will result in a number that represent the error. This number has no meaning when you want to compare it to another registration process because another images with better registration but more details may give a bigger error rather than a smaller one.
Sorry for the long post. I am glad to provide any further information and collaborating in finding the solution.
P.S. Using OpenCV is acceptable and preferable.
You can always use invariant (lighting/scale/rotation) features in both images. For example SIFT features.
When you match these using typical ratio (between nearest and next nearest), you'll have a large set of matches. You can calculate the homography using your method, or using RANSAC on these matches.
In any case, for any homography candidate, you can calculate the number of feature matches (out of all), which agree with the model.
The number divided by the total matches number gives you a metric of 0-1 as to the quality of the model.
If you use RANSAC using the matches to calculate the homography, the quality metric is already built in.
This problem is given two images decide how misaligned they are.
Thats why we did the registration. The registration approach cannot answer itself how bad a job it did becasue if it knew it it would have done it.
Only in the absolute correct case do we know the result: 0
You want a deterministic answer? you add deterministic input.
a red square in a given fixed position which can be measured how rotated - translated-scaled it is. In the conditions of lab this can be achieved.
On a job for a customer, I am locating items within a grayscale scene with nonuniform background illumination. Once the items are located, I need to do another search within each one for details. The items are easy enough to locate by masking with the output of a variance filter; and within the items, if the threshold is correct, the details are easy to locate as well. But the mean and contrast of these items varies substantially.
I played around with threshold calculation for a while, and none of the techniques I implemented is perfect; but the one that turns out simplest, as accurate as any other, and quite low cost, is to take the mean pixel value and add one standard deviation.
My question is: is there some analytical way to defend this calculation other than "it works well"? I mean, I did sort of fall on this technique accidentally (only later did I find this answer), and using it seems arbitrary.
So I've recorded some data from an Android GPS, and I'm trying to find the peaks of these graphs, but I haven't been able to find anything specific, perhaps because I'm not too sure what I'm looking for. I have found some MatLab functions, but I can't find the actual algorithms that do it. I need to do this in Java, but I should be able to translate code from other languages.
As you can see, there are lots of 'mini-peaks', but I just want the main ones.
Your solution depends on what you want to do with the data. If you want to do very serious things then you should most likely use (Fast) Fourier Transforms, and extract both the phase and frequency output from it. But that's very computationally intensive and takes a long while to program. If you just want to do something simple that doesn't require a lot of computational resources, then here's a suggestion:
For that exact problem i implemented the below algorithm a few hours ago. I invented the algorithm myself so i do not know if it has a name already, but it is working great on very noisy data.
You need to determine the average peak-to-peak distance and call that PtP. Do that measurement any what you like. Judging from the graph in your case it appears to be about 35. In my code i have another algorithm i invented to do that automatically.
Then choose a random starting index on the graph. Poll every new datapoint from then on and wait until the graph has either risen or fallen from the starting index level by about 70% of PtP. If it was a fall then that's a tock. If it was a rise then that's a tick. Store that level as the last tick or tock height. Produce a 'tick' or 'tock' event at this index.
Continue forward in the data. After ticks, if the data continues to rise after that point then store that level as the new 'height-of-tick' but do not produce a new tick event. After tocks, if the data continues to fall after that point then store that level as the new 'depth-of-tock' but do not produce a new tock event.
If last event was a tock then wait for a tick, if last event was a tick then wait for a tock.
Each time you detect a tick, then that should be a peak! Good luck.
I think what you want to do is run this through some sort of low-pass filter. Depending on exactly what you want to get out of this dataset, a simple "box car" filter might be
sufficient: at each point, take the average of the N samples centered on that point,
and take the average as the filtered value. The larger N is, the more aggressively smoothed the filtered data will be.
I guess you have lots of points... Calculate mean value of them, subtract it from all point's values and get highest point value (negative or positive) from each range where points have same sign till they change it. I hope I am clear...
With particulary nasty and noisy data I usually use smoothing. Easiest example of smoothing is moving average. Then you can find peacks on that moving average. And then you simply go back to your original data and take the closest peak to one you found on moving average.
I've done some looking into peak detection and I can tell you that if your data doesn't behave, it could mess up your algorithm. Off the top of my head, you could try: Pick a threshold, i.e threshold = 250. If data is above threshold, find the max at that period. This is assuming that the data you have has a mean about 230. Not sure how fancy you want to get. Hope that helps.