Suppose we have two identical images, but one image is a little brighter than the other. Is it possible that an undercomplete autoencoder will produce the exact same set of encoding values for these two images.If this is true what is the mathematical proof this?
Also if that is the case, can we build an encoder that sensitive to this and produces a different encoding or the slightest change in the inputs. What I see instead is an autoencoder that is 'robust' to little perturbations in the inputs. I would like a mathematical explanation for this please.
Related
I have two complex datasets for which I intend to find a suitable function to fit them. The first dataset is presented as follows:
As you can see, although complicated, it seems that this dataset is a combination of rectangle functions. These data describe the relation of 'Amplitude' of complex numbers with time. The second picture looks like this:
And this relation actually describes the 'Phase' of the above complex numbers with time, it seems that they are also combinations of rectangle functions. At first, I want to use combinations of Fourier cosine and sine series to fit the amplitude and phase using
lsqcurvefit
in MATLAB, but it seems that the provided parameters fail to converge to the correct values. (I have tried a number of options, like adjusting FiniteDifferenceStepSize, FiniteDifferenceType, StepTolerance and so on). Despite many failures, I saw someone said we could use Normal cumulative distribution function (CDF) to fit a step function, and I thought that it might be possible if we use the combinations of parameterized CDF and
y = erfc(x)
to achieve successful fitting. So, could anyone provide any solutions or ways to fit the above two relations? Giving some valuable ideas will also be very helpful to me.
PS: For now I don't care any hidden physics inside these data, and all I want to do is to find a mathematical way to fit the above two relations in MATLAB.
Thanks!
I have a question regarding the choice of the training and the test set for a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) and a Hopfield network.
For example, assume that we got 100 patterns of the digits 0-9 given in a bitmap format. 10 of them are perfect digits while the other 90 are distorted. Which of these patterns will be used for the training set and which for the test set? The goal is to classify the digits.
I suppose for the Hopfield network the perfect digits will be used as the training set, but what about the MLP? One approach I thought of was to take for example 70 of the distorted digits and use them as the training set along with the corresponding perfect digits as their intended targets. Is this approach correct?
Disclaimer: I have not worked with Hopfield Networks before, so I trust you in your statements about it, but it should not be of that great relevance for the answer, anyways.
I am also assuming that you want to classify the digits, which is something you don't explicitly state in your question.
As for a proper split: Aside from the fact that that little training data is generally not a feasible amount to get decent results for a MLP (even for a simple task such as digit classification), it is unlikely that you will be able to "pre-label" your training data in terms of quality in most real-world scenarios. You should therefore always assume that the data you are processing is inherently noisy. A good example for this is also the fact that data augmentation is frequently used to enrich your training corpus. Since data augmentation can consist of such simple changes as
added noise
minor rotations
horizontal/vertical flipping (the latter only makes so much sense for digits, though)
can improve your accuracy, it goes to show that visual quality and quantity for training are two very different things. Of course, it is not per se true that quantity alone will solve your problem (although research indicates that it is at least a good idea to use very much data)
Further, what you judge to be a good representation might be very much different from the network's perspective (although for labeling digits it might be rather easy to tell). A decent strategy is therefore to simply perform a random sampling for your training/test split.
Something I like to do when preprocessing a dataset is, when done splitting, to check whether every class is somewhat evenly represented in the splits, so you won't overfit.
Similarly, I would argue that having clean/high quality images of digits in both your test and training set might make the most sense, since you want to both be able to recognize a high quality number, as well as a sloppily written digit, and then test whether you can actually recognize it (with your test set).
Background
I've been studying Neural Networks, specifically the implmentation provided by this incredible online book. In the example network provided, we're shown how to create a neural network that classifies the MNIST training data to perform Optical Character Recognition (OCR).
The network is configured so that the input stimuli represents a discrete range of thresholded pixel data from a 24x24 image; at the output, we have ten signal paths which represent each of the different solutions for the input images; these are used classify a handwritten digit from zero to nine. In this implementation, a handwritten '3' would drive a strong signal down the third output path.
Now, I've seen that Neural Networks can be applied to far more 'unpredictable' output solutions; for example, take the team who taught a network to recognize the hair on a human:
Question
Surely in the application above, we couldn't use a fixed output array length because the number of points that would qualify within an image would vary just so wildly between different samples. Can anyone recommend what kind of pattern would have been used to accomplish this?
Assumption
In the interest of completeness, I'm going to propose that the team could have employed a kind of 'line following robot' for the classification task. So for an input image, a network could be trained by using a small range of discrete commands (LEFT, RIGHT, UP, DOWN) for a fixed period t and train the network to control the robot like an Etch-a-Sketch.
Alternatively, we could implement a network which would map pixels one-to-one, and define whether individual pixels contributed to hair; but this wouldn't be compatible with different image resolutions.
So, do either of these solutions sound plausable? If so, are these basic implementations of a known generic solution for this kind of problem? What approach would you use?
I've recently been delving into artificial neural networks again, both evolved and trained. I had a question regarding what methods, if any, to solve for inputs that would result in a target output set. Is there a name for this? Everything I try to look for leads me to backpropagation which isn't necessarily what I need. In my search, the closest thing I've come to expressing my question is
Is it possible to run a neural network in reverse?
Which told me that there, indeed, would be many solutions for networks that had varying numbers of nodes for the layers and they would not be trivial to solve for. I had the idea of just marching toward an ideal set of inputs using the weights that have been established during learning. Does anyone else have experience doing something like this?
In order to elaborate:
Say you have a network with 401 input nodes which represents a 20x20 grayscale image and a bias, two hidden layers consisting of 100+25 nodes, as well as 6 output nodes representing a classification (symbols, roman numerals, etc).
After training a neural network so that it can classify with an acceptable error, I would like to run the network backwards. This would mean I would input a classification in the output that I would like to see, and the network would imagine a set of inputs that would result in the expected output. So for the roman numeral example, this could mean that I would request it to run the net in reverse for the symbol 'X' and it would generate an image that would resemble what the net thought an 'X' looked like. In this way, I could get a good idea of the features it learned to separate the classifications. I feel as it would be very beneficial in understanding how ANNs function and learn in the grand scheme of things.
For a simple feed-forward fully connected NN, it is possible to project hidden unit activation into pixel space by taking inverse of activation function (for example Logit for sigmoid units), dividing it by sum of incoming weights and then multiplying that value by weight of each pixel. That will give visualization of average pattern, recognized by this hidden unit. Summing up these patterns for each hidden unit will result in average pattern, that corresponds to this particular set of hidden unit activities.Same procedure can be in principle be applied to to project output activations into hidden unit activity patterns.
This is indeed useful for analyzing what features NN learned in image recognition. For more complex methods you can take a look at this paper (besides everything it contains examples of patterns that NN can learn).
You can not exactly run NN in reverse, because it does not remember all information from source image - only patterns that it learned to detect. So network cannot "imagine a set inputs". However, it possible to sample probability distribution (taking weight as probability of activation of each pixel) and produce a set of patterns that can be recognized by particular neuron.
I know that you can, and I am working on a solution now. I have some code on my github here for imagining the inputs of a neural network that classifies the handwritten digits of the MNIST dataset, but I don't think it is entirely correct. Right now, I simply take a trained network and my desired output and multiply backwards by the learned weights at each layer until I have a value for inputs. This is skipping over the activation function and may have some other errors, but I am getting pretty reasonable images out of it. For example, this is the result of the trained network imagining a 3: number 3
Yes, you can run a probabilistic NN in reverse to get it to 'imagine' inputs that would match an output it's been trained to categorise.
I highly recommend Geoffrey Hinton's coursera course on NN's here:
https://www.coursera.org/course/neuralnets
He demonstrates in his introductory video a NN imagining various "2"s that it would recognise having been trained to identify the numerals 0 through 9. It's very impressive!
I think it's basically doing exactly what you're looking to do.
Gruff
I have applied Two different Image Enhancement Algorithm on a particular Image and got two resultant image , Now i want to compare the quality of those two image in order to find the effectiveness of those two Algorithms and find the more appropriate one based on the comparison of Feature vectors of those two images.So what Suitable Feature Vectors should i compare in this Case?
Iam asking in context of comparing the texture features of the images and which feature vector will be more suitable.
I need Mathematical support for verifying the effectiveness of any one algorithm based on the evaluation of Images for example using Constrast and Variance.So are there any more approaches do that?
A better approach would be to do some Noise/Signal ratio by comparing image spectra ?
Slayton is right, you need a metric and a way to measure against it, which can be an academic project in itself. However, i could think of one approach straightaway, not sure if it makes sense to your specific task at hand:
Metric:
The sum of abs( colour difference ) across all pixels. The lower, the more similar the images are.
Method:
For each pixel, get the absolute colour difference (or distance, to be precise) in LAB space between original and processed image and sum that up. Don't ruin your day trying to understand the full wikipedia article and coding that, this has been done before. Try re-using the methods getDistanceLabFrom(Color color) or getDistanceRgbFrom(Color color) from this PHP implementation. It worked like a charm for me when i needed a way to match a color of pixels in a jpg picture - which basically is the same principle.
The theory behind it (as far as my limited understanding goes): It's doing a mathematical abstraction of rgb or (better) lab colour space as a three dimensional room, and then calculate the distance, that's why it works well - and hardly worked for me when looking at a color code from a one-dimensionional perspective.
The usual way is to start with a reference image (a good one), then add some noise on it (in a controlled way).
Then, your algorithm should remove as much as possible from the added noise. The results are easy to compare with a signal-to-noise ration (see wikipedia).
Now, the approach is easy to apply on simple noise models, but if you aim to improve more complex appearance issues, you must devise a way to apply the noise, which is not easy.
Another, quite common way to do it is the one recommended by slayton: take all your colleagues to appreciate the output of your algorithm, then average their impressions.
If you have only the 2 images and no reference (higest quality) image, then you can see my rude solution/bash script there: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/75995/how-do-i-compare-two-similar-images-sharpness/117823#117823
It gets the 2 filenames and outputs the higher quality filename. It assumes the content of the images is identical (same source image).
It can be fooled though.