Related
I have this project I'm working on. A part of the project involves multiple test runs during which screenshots of an application window are taken. Now, we have to ensure that screenshots taken between consecutive runs match (barring some allowable changes). These changes could be things like filenames, dates, different logos, etc. within the application window that we're taking a screenshot of.
I had the bright idea to automate the process of doing this checking. Essentially my idea was this. If I could somehow mathematically quantify the difference between a screenshot from the N-1th run and the Nth run, I could create a binary labelled dataset that mapped feature vectors of some sort to a label (0 for pass or 1 for fail if the images do not adequately match up). The reason for all of this was so that my labelled data would help make the model understand what scale of changes are acceptable, because there are so many kinds that are acceptable.
Now lets say I have access to lots of data that I have meticulously labelled, in the thousands. So far I have tried using SIFT in opencv using keypoint matching to determine a similarity score between images. But this isn't an intelligent, learning process. Is there some way I could take some information from SIFT and use it as my x-value in my dataset?
Here are my questions:
what would that be the information I need as my x-value? It needs to be something that represents the difference between two images. So maybe the difference between feature vectors from SIFT? What do I do when those vectors are of slightly different dimensions?
Am I on the right track with thinking about using SIFT? Should I look elsewhere and if so where?
Thanks for your time!
The approach that is being suggested in the question goes like this -
Find SIFT features of two consecutive images.
Use those to somehow quantify the similarity between two images (sounds reasonable)
Use this metric to first classify the images into similar and non-similar.
Use this dataset to train a NN do to the same job.
I am not completely convinced if this is a good approach. Let's say that you created the initial classifier with SIFT features. You are then using this data to train a NN. But this data will definitely have a lot of wrong labels. Because if it didn't have a lot of wrong labels, what's stopping you from using your original SIFT based classifier as your final solution?
So if your SIFT based classification is good, why even train a NN? On the other hand, if it's bad, you are giving a lot of wrong labeled data to the NN for training. I think the latter is a probably a bad idea. I say probably because there is a possibility that maybe the wrong labels just encourage the NN to generalize better, but that would require a lot of data, I imagine.
Another way to look at this is, let's say that your initial classifier is 90% accurate. That's probably the upper limit of the performance for the NN that you are looking at when talking about training it with this data.
You said that the issue that you have with your first approach is that 'it's not a an intelligent, learning process'. I think it's the wrong approach to think that the former approach is always inferior to the latter. SIFT is a powerful tool that can solve a lot of problems without all the 'black-boxness' of an NN. If this problem can be solved with sufficient accuracy using SIFT, I think going after a learning based approach is not the way to go, because again, a learning based approach isn't necessarily superior.
However, if the SIFT approach isn't giving you good enough results, definitely start thinking of NN stuff, but at that point, using the "bad" method to label the data is probably a bad idea.
Also in relation, I think you could potentially be underestimating the amount of data that is needed for this. You mentioned data in the thousands, but that's honestly, not a lot. You would need a lot more, I think.
One way I would think about instead doing this -
Do SIFT keyponits detection for a sample reference image.
Manually filter out keypoints that does not belong to the things in the image that are invariant. That is, just take keypoints at the locations in the image that is guaranteed (or very likely) to be always present.
When you get a new image, compute the keypoints and do matching with the reference image.
Set some threshold of the ratio of good matches to the total number of matches.
Depending on your application, this might give you good enough results.
If not, and if you really want your solution to be NN based, I would say you need to manually label the dataset as opposed to using SIFT.
Deep learning has been a revolution recently and its success is related with the huge amount of data that we can currently manage and the generalization of the GPUs.
So here is the problem I'm facing. I know that deep neural nets have the best performance, there is no doubt about it. However, they have a good performance when the number of training examples is huge. If the number of training examples is low it is better to use a SVM or decision trees.
But what is huge? what is low? In this paper of face recognition (FaceNet by Google) they show the performance vs the flops (which can be related with the number of training examples)
They used between 100M and 200M training examples, which is huge.
My question is:
Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
My question is: Is there any method to predict in advance the number of training examples I need to have a good performance in deep learning??? The reason I ask this is because it is a waste of time to manually classify a dataset if the performance is not going to be good.
The short answer is no. You do not have this kind of knowledge, furthermore you will never have. These kind of problems are impossible to solve, ever.
What you can have are just some general heuristics/empirical knowledge, which will say if it is probable that DL will not work well (as it is possible to predict fail of the method, while nearly impossible to predict the success), nothing more. In current research, DL rarely works well for datasets smaller than hundreads thousands/milions of samples (I do not count MNIST because everything works well on MNIST). Furthermore, DL is heavily studied actually in just two types of problems - NLP and image processing, thus you cannot really extraplate it to any other kind of problems (no free lunch theorem).
Update
Just to make it a bit more clear. What you are asking about is to predit whether given estimator (or set of estimators) will yield a good results given a particular training set. In fact you even restrict just to the size.
The simpliest proof (based on your simplification) is as follows: for any N (sample size) I can construct N-mode (or N^2 to make it even more obvious) distribution which no estimator can reasonably estimate (including deep neural network) and I can construct trivial data with just one label (thus perfect model requires just one sample). End of proof (there are two different answers for the same N).
Now let us assume that we do have access to the training samples (without labels for now) and not just sample size. Now we are given X (training samples) of size N. Again I can construct N-mode labeling yielding impossible to estimate distribution (by anything) and trivial labeling (just a single label!). Again - two different answers for the exact same input.
Ok, so maybe given training samples and labels we can predict what will behave well? Now we cannot manipulate samples nor labels to show that there are no such function. So we have to get back to statistics and what we are trying to answer. We are asking about expected value of loss function over whole probability distribution which generated our training samples. So now again, the whole "clue" is to see, that I can manipulate the underlying distributions (construct many different ones, many of which impossible to model well by deep neural network) and still expect that my training samples come from them. This is what statisticians call the problem of having non-representible sample from a pdf. In particular, in ML, we often relate to this problem with curse of dimensionality. In simple words - in order to estimate the probability well we need enormous number of samples. Silverman shown that even if you know that your data is just a normal distribution and you ask "what is value in 0?" You need exponentialy many samples (as compared to space dimensionality). In practise our distributions are multi-modal, complex and unknown thus this amount is even higher. We are quite safe to say that given number of samples we could ever gather we cannot ever estimate reasonably well distributions with more than 10 dimensions. Consequently - whatever we do to minimize the expected error we are just using heuristics, which connect the empirical error (fitting to the data) with some kind of regularization (removing overfitting, usually by putting some prior assumptions on distributions families). To sum up we cannot construct a method able to distinguish if our model will behave good, because this would require deciding which "complexity" distribution generated our samples. There will be some simple cases when we can do it - and probably they will say something like "oh! this data is so simple even knn will work well!". You cannot have generic tool, for DNN or any other (complex) model though (to be strict - we can have such predictor for very simple models, because they simply are so limited that we can easily check if your data follows this extreme simplicity or not).
Consequently, this boils down nearly to the same question - to actually building a model... thus you will need to try and validate your approach (thus - train DNN to answer if DNN works well). You can use cross validation, bootstraping or anything else here, but all essentialy do the same - build multiple models of your desired type and validate it.
To sum up
I do not claim we will not have a good heuristics, heuristic drive many parts of ML quite well. I only answer if there is a method able to answer your question - and there is no such thing and cannot exist. There can be many rules of thumb, which for some problems (classes of problems) will work well. And we already do have such:
for NLP/2d images you should have ~100,000 samples at least to work with DNN
having lots of unlabeled instances can partially substitute the above number (thus you can have like 30,000 labeled ones + 70,000 unlabeled) with pretty reasonable results
Furthermore this does not mean that given this size of data DNN will be better than kernelized SVM or even linear model. This is exactly what I was refering to earlier - you can easily construct counterexamples of distributions where SVM will work the same or even better despite number of samples. The same applies for any other technique.
Yet still, even if you are just interested if DNN will work well (and not better than others) these are just empirical, trivial heuristics, which are based on at most 10 (!) types of problems. This could be very harmfull to treat these as rules or methods. This are just rough, first intuitions gained through extremely unstructured, random research that happened in last decade.
Ok, so I am lost now... when should I use DL? And the answer is exteremly simple:
Use deep learning only if:
You already tested "shallow" techniques and they do not work well
You have large amounts of data
You have huge computational resources
You have experience with neural networks (this are very tricky and ungreatful models, really)
You have great amount of time to spare, even if you will just get a few % better results as an effect.
While trying to come up with appropriate features for a supervised learning problem I had the following idea and wondered if it makes sense and if so, how to algorithmically formulate it.
In an image I want to classify two regions, i.e. two "types" of pixels. Say I have some bounded structure, let's take a circle, and I know I can limit my search space to this circle. Within that circle I want to find a segmenting contour, i.e. a contour that separates my pixels into an inner class A and an outer class B.
I want to implement the following model:
I know that pixels close to the bounding circle are more likely to be in the outer class B.
Of course, I can use the distance from the bounding circle as a feature, then the algorithm would learn the average distance of the inner contour from the bounding circle.
But: I wonder if I can exploit my model assumption in a smarter way. One heuristic idea would be to weigh other features by this distance, so to say, if a pixel further away from the bounding circle wants to belong to the outer class B, it has to have strongly convincing other features.
This leads to a general question:
How can one exploit joint information of features, that were prior individually learned by the algorithm?
And to a specific question:
In my outlined setup, does my heuristic idea make sense? At what point of the algorithm should this information be used? What would be recommended literature or what would be buzzwords if I wanted to search for similar ideas in the literature?
This leads to a general question:
How can one exploit joint information of features, that were prior individually learned by the algorithm?
It is not really clear what you are really asking here. What do you mean by "individually learned by the algorithm" and what would be "joiint information"? First of all, problem is too broad, there is no such tring as "generic supervised learning model", each of them works in at least slightly different way, most falling into three classes:
Building a regression model of some kind, to map input data to the output and then agregate results for classification (linear regression, artificial neural networks)
Building geometrical separation of data (like support vector machines, classification-soms' etc.)
Directly (more or less) estimating probability of given classes (like Naive Bayes, classification restricted boltzmann machines etc.)
in each of them, there is somehow encoded "joint information" regarding features - the classification function is their joint information. In some cases it is easy do interpret (linear regression) and in some it is almost impossible (deep boltzmann machines, generally all deep architectures).
And to a specific question:
In my outlined setup, does my heuristic idea make sense? At what point of the algorithm should this information be used? What would be recommended literature or what would be buzzwords if I wanted to search for similar ideas in the literature?
To my best knowledge this concept is quite doubtfull. Many models tends to learn and work better, if your data is uncorrelated, while you are trying to do the opposite - correlate everything with some particular feature. This leads to one main concern - why are you doing this? To force model to use mainly this feature?
If it is so important - maybe a supervised learning is not the good idea, maybe you can directly model your problem by appling set of simple rules based on this particular feature?
If you know the feature is important, but you are aware that in some cases other things matter, and you cannot model them, then your problem will be how much to weight your feature. Should it be just distance*other_feature? Why not sqrt(distance)*feature? What about log(distance)*feature? There are countless possibilities, and seek for the best weighting scheme may be much more costfull, then finding a better machine learning model, which can learn your data from its raw features.
If you only suspect the importance of the feature, the best possible option would be to... do not trust this belief. Numerous studies have shown, that machine learning models are better in selecting features then humans. In fact, this is the whole point of non-linear models.
In literature, problem they you are trying to solve is generally refered as incorporating expert knowledge into the learning process. There are thousands of examples, where there is some kind of knowledge that cannot be directly encoded in data representation, yet too valuable to omit it. You should research terms like "machine learning expert knowledge", and its possible synomyms.
There's a fair amount of work treating the kind of problem you're looking at (which is called segmentation) as an optimisation to be performed on a Markov Random Field, which can be solved by graph theoretic methods like GraphCut. Some examples are the work of Pushmeet Kohli at Microsoft Research (try this paper).
What you describe is, in that framework, a prior on node membership, where p(B) is inversely proportional to the distance from the edge (in addition to any other connectivity constraints you want to impose, there's normally a connectedness one, and there will certainly be a likelihood term for the pixel's intensity). The advantage of doing this is that if you can express everything as a probability model, you don't need to rely on heuristics and you can use standard mechanisms for performing inference.
The downside is you need a fairly strong mathematical background to attempt this; I don't know what the scale of the project you're proposing is, but if you want results quickly or you're lacking the necessary background this is going to be pretty daunting.
for my final thesis i am trying to build up an 3d face recognition system by combining color and depth information. the first step i did, is to realign the data-head to an given model-head using the iterative closest point algorithm. for the detection step i was thinking about using the libsvm. but i dont understand how to combine the depth and the color information to one feature vector? they are dependent information (each point consist of color (RGB), depth information and also scan quality).. what do you suggest to do? something like weighting?
edit:
last night i read an article about SURF/SIFT features i would like to use them! could it work? the concept would be the following: extracting this features out of the color image and the depth image (range image), using each feature as a single feature vector for the svm?
Concatenation is indeed a possibility. However, as you are working on 3d face recognition you should have some strategy as to how you go about it. Rotation and translation of faces will be hard to recognize using a "straightforward" approach.
You should decide whether you attempt to perform a detection of the face as a whole, or of sub-features. You could attempt to detect rotation by finding some core features (eyes, nose, etc).
Also, remember that SVMs are inherently binary (i.e. they separate between two classes). Depending on your exact application you will very likely have to employ some multi-class strategy (One-against-all or One-against-many).
I would recommend doing some literature research to see how others have attacked the problem (a google search will be a good start).
It sounds simple, but you can simply concatenate the two vectors into one. Many researchers do this.
What you arrived at is an important open problem. Yes, there are some ways to handle it, as mentioned here by Eamorr. For example you can concatenate and do PCA (or some non linear dimensionality reduction method). But it is kind of hard to defend the practicality of doing so, considering that PCA takes O(n^3) time in the number of features. This alone might be unreasonable for data in vision that may have thousands of features.
As mentioned by others, the easiest approach is to simply combine the two sets of features into one.
SVM is characterized by the normal to the maximum-margin hyperplane, where its components specify the weights/importance of the features, such that higher absolute values have a larger impact on the decision function. Thus SVM assigns weights to each feature all on its own.
In order for this to work, obviously you would have to normalize all the attributes to have the same scale (say transform all features to be in the range [-1,1] or [0,1])
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.