My project is to create a software that recognizes certain objects like an apple or a coin etc. I want to use Kinect. My question is: Do I need to have a machine learning algorithm like haar classifier to recognize a object or kinect itself can do that?
Kinect itself cannot recognize objects. It will give you a dense depth map. Then you can use the depth features along with some simple features (in your case, maybe color features or gradient features would do the job). Those features you input to a classifier (SVM or Random Forest for example) to train the system. You use the trained model for testing on new samples.
Regarding Haar features, I think they could do the job but you would need a sufficiently large database of features. It all depends on what you want to detect. In the case of an apple and a coin, just color would suffice.
Refer this paper to get an idea how to perform human pose recognition using Kinect camera. You just have to pay attention to their depth features and their classifiers. Do not apply their approach directly. Your problem is simpler.
Edit: simple gradient orientations histogram
Gradient orientations can give you a coarse idea about the shape of the object (It is not a shape-feature to be specific, better shape features exist, but this one is extremely fast to calculate).
Code snippet:
%calculate gradient
[dx,dy] = gradient(double(img));
A = (atan(dy./(dx+eps))*180)/pi; %eps added to avoid division by zero.
A will contain orientation for each pixel. Segment your original image according to the depth values. For a segment having similar depth values, calculate color histogram. Extract the pixel orientations corresponding to that region, call it A_r. calculate a 9-bin (you can have more bins. Nine bins mean each bin will contain 180/9=20 degrees) histogram. Concatenate the color features and the gradient histogram. Do this for sufficient number of leaves. Then you can give this to a classifier for training.
Edit: This is a reply to a comment below.
Regarding MaxDepth parameter in opencv_traincascade
The documentation says, "Maximal depth of a weak tree. A decent choice is 1, that is case of stumps". When you perform binary classification, it takes a form of:
if yourFeatureValue>=learntThresh
class=1;
else
class=0;
end
The above type of classifier which performs thresholding on a single feature value (a scalar) is called decision stumps. There is only one split between positive and negative class (therefore maxDepth is one). For example, it would work in following scenario. Imagine you have a 1-D feature:
f=[1 2 3 4 -1 -2 -3 -4]
First 4 are class 1, rest are class 0. Decision stumps would get 100% accuracy on this data by setting the threshold to zero. Now, imagine a complicated feature space such as:
f=[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12];
First 4 and last 4 are class 1, rest are class 0. Here, you cannot get 100% classification by decision stumps. You need two thresholds/splits. Therefore, you can construct a tree with depth value 2. You will have 2^(2-1)=2 thresholds. For depth=3, you get 4 thresholds, for depth=4, you get 8 thresholds and so on. Here, I assume a tree with a single node has height 1.
You may feel that the more the number of levels, you can achieve more accuracy, but then there is a problem of overfitting (and computation, memory storage etc.). Therefore, you have to set a good value for depth. I usually set it to 3.
Related
My FCN is trained to detect 10 different classes and produces an output of 500x500x10 with each of the final dimensions being the prediction probabilities for a different class.
Usually, I've seen using a uniform threshold, for instance 0.5, to binarize the probability matrices. However, in my case, this doesn't quite cut it because the IoU for some of the classes increases when the threshold is 0.3 and for other classes it is 0.8.
Hence, I don't have to arbitrarily pick the threshold for each class but rather use a more probabilistic approach to finalizing the threshold values. I thought of using CRFs but this also requires the thresholding to have already been done. Any ideas on how to proceed?
Example: consider an image of a forest with 5 different birds. Now im trying to output an image that has segmented the forest and the five birds, 6 classes, each with a separate label. The network outputs 6 confusion matrices indicating the confidence that a pixel falls into a particular class. Now, the correct answer for a pixel isnt always the class with the highest confidence value. Therefore, a one size fits all method or a max value method won't work.
CRF Postprocessing Approch
You don't need to set thresholds to use a CRF. I'm not familiar with any python libraries for CRFs, but in principle, what you need to define is:
A probability distribution of the 10 classes for each of the nodes
(pixels), which is simply the output of your network.
Pairwise potentials: 10*10 matrix, where element Aij denotes the "strength" of the configuration that one pixel is of class i and the other of class j. If you set the potentials to have a value alpha (alpha >> 1) in the diagonal and 1 elsewhere, then alpha is the regularization force that gives you consistency of the predictions (if pixel X is of class Y, then the neighboring pixels of X are more likely to be of the same class).
This is just one example of how you can define your CRF.
End to End NN Approach
Add a loss to your network that will penalize pixels that have neighbors of a different class. Please note that you will still end up with a tune-able parameter for the weight of the new regularization loss.
I've created a feedforward neural network using DL4J in Java.
Hypothetically and to keep things simple, assume this neural network is a binary classifier of squares and circles.
The input, a feature vector, would be composed of say... 5 different variables:
[number_of_corners,
number_of_edges,
area,
height,
width]
Now so far, my binary classifier can tell the two shapes apart quite well as I'm giving it a complete feature vector.
My question: is it possible to input only maybe 2 or 3 of these features? Or even 1? I understand results will be less accurate while doing so, I just need to be able to do so.
If it is possible, how?
How would I do it for a neural network with 213 different features in the input vector?
Let's assume, for example, that you know the area, height, and width features (so you don't know the number_of_corners and number_of_edges features).
If you know that a shape can have, say, a maximum of 10 corners and 10 edges, you could input 10 feature vectors with the same area, height and width but where each vector has a different value for the number_of_corners and number_of_edges features. Then you can just average over the 10 outputs of the network and round to the nearest integer (so that you still get a binary value).
Similarly, if you only know the area feature you could average over the outputs of the network given several random combinations of input values, where the only fixed value is the area and all the others vary. (I.e. the area feature is the same for each vector but every other feature has a random value.)
This may be a "trick" but I think that the average will converge to a value as you increase the number of (almost-)random vectors.
Edit
My solution would not be a good choice if you have a lot of features. In this case you could try to use maybe a Deep Belief Network or some autoencoder to infer the values of the other features given a small number of them. For example, a DBN can "reconstruct" a noisy output (if you train it enough, of course); you could then try to give the reconstructed input vector to your feed-forward network.
I am using Linear regression to predict data. But, I am getting totally contrasting results when I Normalize (Vs) Standardize variables.
Normalization = x -xmin/ xmax – xmin
Zero Score Standardization = x - xmean/ xstd
a) Also, when to Normalize (Vs) Standardize ?
b) How Normalization affects Linear Regression?
c) Is it okay if I don't normalize all the attributes/lables in the linear regression?
Thanks,
Santosh
Note that the results might not necessarily be so different. You might simply need different hyperparameters for the two options to give similar results.
The ideal thing is to test what works best for your problem. If you can't afford this for some reason, most algorithms will probably benefit from standardization more so than from normalization.
See here for some examples of when one should be preferred over the other:
For example, in clustering analyses, standardization may be especially crucial in order to compare similarities between features based on certain distance measures. Another prominent example is the Principal Component Analysis, where we usually prefer standardization over Min-Max scaling, since we are interested in the components that maximize the variance (depending on the question and if the PCA computes the components via the correlation matrix instead of the covariance matrix; but more about PCA in my previous article).
However, this doesn’t mean that Min-Max scaling is not useful at all! A popular application is image processing, where pixel intensities have to be normalized to fit within a certain range (i.e., 0 to 255 for the RGB color range). Also, typical neural network algorithm require data that on a 0-1 scale.
One disadvantage of normalization over standardization is that it loses some information in the data, especially about outliers.
Also on the linked page, there is this picture:
As you can see, scaling clusters all the data very close together, which may not be what you want. It might cause algorithms such as gradient descent to take longer to converge to the same solution they would on a standardized data set, or it might even make it impossible.
"Normalizing variables" doesn't really make sense. The correct terminology is "normalizing / scaling the features". If you're going to normalize or scale one feature, you should do the same for the rest.
That makes sense because normalization and standardization do different things.
Normalization transforms your data into a range between 0 and 1
Standardization transforms your data such that the resulting distribution has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1
Normalization/standardization are designed to achieve a similar goal, which is to create features that have similar ranges to each other. We want that so we can be sure we are capturing the true information in a feature, and that we dont over weigh a particular feature just because its values are much larger than other features.
If all of your features are within a similar range of each other then theres no real need to standardize/normalize. If, however, some features naturally take on values that are much larger/smaller than others then normalization/standardization is called for
If you're going to be normalizing at least one variable/feature, I would do the same thing to all of the others as well
First question is why we need Normalisation/Standardisation?
=> We take a example of dataset where we have salary variable and age variable.
Age can take range from 0 to 90 where salary can be from 25thousand to 2.5lakh.
We compare difference for 2 person then age difference will be in range of below 100 where salary difference will in range of thousands.
So if we don't want one variable to dominate other then we use either Normalisation or Standardization. Now both age and salary will be in same scale
but when we use standardiztion or normalisation, we lose original values and it is transformed to some values. So loss of interpretation but extremely important when we want to draw inference from our data.
Normalization rescales the values into a range of [0,1]. also called min-max scaled.
Standardization rescales data to have a mean (μ) of 0 and standard deviation (σ) of 1.So it gives a normal graph.
Example below:
Another example:
In above image, you can see that our actual data(in green) is spread b/w 1 to 6, standardised data(in red) is spread around -1 to 3 whereas normalised data(in blue) is spread around 0 to 1.
Normally many algorithm required you to first standardise/normalise data before passing as parameter. Like in PCA, where we do dimension reduction by plotting our 3D data into 1D(say).Here we required standardisation.
But in Image processing, it is required to normalise pixels before processing.
But during normalisation, we lose outliers(extreme datapoints-either too low or too high) which is slight disadvantage.
So it depends on our preference what we chose but standardisation is most recommended as it gives a normal curve.
None of the mentioned transformations shall matter for linear regression as these are all affine transformations.
Found coefficients would change but explained variance will ultimately remain the same. So, from linear regression perspective, Outliers remain as outliers (leverage points).
And these transformations also will not change the distribution. Shape of the distribution remains the same.
lot of people use Normalisation and Standardisation interchangeably. The purpose remains the same is to bring features into the same scale. The approach is to subtract each value from min value or mean and divide by max value minus min value or SD respectively. The difference you can observe that when using min value u will get all value + ve and mean value u will get bot + ve and -ve values. This is also one of the factors to decide which approach to use.
I'm new to neural networks and trying to get the hang of it by solving the following task:
Given a semi circle which defines an area above the x-axis, I would like to teach an ANN to output the length of a vector pointing to any position within that area. In addition, I would also like to know the angle between it and the x-axis.
I thought of this as a classical example of supervised learning and used Backpropagation to train a feed-forward network. The network is built by two Input-, two Output-, and variable amount of Hidden-neurons organised in a variable amount of hidden layers.
My training data is a random and unsorted sample of points within that area and the respective desired values. The coordinates of the points serve as the input of the net while I use the calculated values to minimise the error.
However, even after thousands of training iterations and empirical changes of the networks topology, I am unable to produce results with an error below ~0.2 (Radius: 20.0, Topology: 2/4/2).
Are there any obvious pitfalls I'm failing to see or does the chosen approach just not fit the task? Which other network types and/or learning techniques could be used to complete the task?
I wouldn't use variable amounts of hidden layers, I would use just one.
Then, I wouldn't use two output neurons, I would use two separate ANNs, one for each of the values you're after. This should do better, since your outputs aren't clearly related in my opinion.
Then, I would experiment with number of hidden neurons between 2 and 10 and different activation functions (logistic and tanh, maybe ReLUs).
After that, do you scale your data? It might be worth scaling both your inputs and outputs. Sigmoid units return small numbers, so it is good if you can adapt your outputs to be small as well (in [-1 , 1] or [0, 1]). For example, if want your angles in degrees, divide all of your targets by 360 before training the ANN on them. Then when the ANN returns a result, multiply it by 360 and see if that helps.
Finally, there are a number of ways to train your neural network. Gradient descent is the classic, but probably not the best. Better methods are conjugate gradient, BFGS etc. See here for optimizers if you're using python - even if not, they might give you an idea of what to search for in your language.
Here is the problem we are trying to solve:
Goal is to classify pixels of a colored image into 3 different classes.
We have a set of manually classified data for training purposes
Pixels almost do not correlate to each other (each have individual behaviour) - so most likely classification is on each individual pixel and based on it's individual features.
3 classes approximately can be mapped to colors of RED, YELLOW and BLACK color families.
We need to have the system semi-automatic, i.e. 3 parameters to control the probability of the presence of 3 outcomes (for final well-tuning)
Having this in mind:
Which classification technique will you choose?
What pixel features will you use for classification (RGB, Ycc, HSV, etc) ?
What modification functions will you choose for well-tuning between three outcomes.
My first try was based on
Naive bayes classifier
HSV (also tried RGB and Ycc)
(failed to find a proper functions for well-tuning)
Any suggestion?
Thanks
For each pixel in the image try using the histogram of colors the n x n window around that pixel as its features. For general-purpose color matching under varied lighting conditions, I have had good luck with using two-dimensional histograms of hue and saturation with a relatively small number of bins along each dimension. Depending upon your lighting consistency it might make sense for you to directly use the RGB values.
As for the classifier, the manual-tuning requirement is most easily expressed using class weights: parameters that specify the relative costs of false negatives versus false positives. I have only used this functionality with SVMs, but I'm sure you can find implementations of other classifiers that support a similar concept.