Converting the euclidean distance to manhattan distance - scala

The below calculation is given in spark mlib library to find the euclidean distance
private[mllib] def fastSquaredDistance(
v1: Vector,
norm1: Double,
v2: Vector,
norm2: Double,
precision: Double = 1e-6): Double = {
val n = v1.size
require(v2.size == n)
require(norm1 >= 0.0 && norm2 >= 0.0)
val sumSquaredNorm = norm1 * norm1 + norm2 * norm2
val normDiff = norm1 - norm2
var sqDist = 0.0
val precisionBound1 = 2.0 * EPSILON * sumSquaredNorm / (normDiff * normDiff + EPSILON)
if (precisionBound1 < precision) {
sqDist = sumSquaredNorm - 2.0 * dot(v1, v2)
} else if (v1.isInstanceOf[SparseVector] || v2.isInstanceOf[SparseVector]) {
val dotValue = dot(v1, v2)
sqDist = math.max(sumSquaredNorm - 2.0 * dotValue, 0.0)
val precisionBound2 = EPSILON * (sumSquaredNorm + 2.0 * math.abs(dotValue)) /
(sqDist + EPSILON)
if (precisionBound2 > precision) {
sqDist = Vectors.sqdist(v1, v2)
}
} else {
sqDist = Vectors.sqdist(v1, v2)
}
sqDist
}
I am very new to machine learning .My question is about how to find manhattan distance by modifying the above code.

Without any additional context, I'd suggest just implementing the L1 distance in the obvious naive fashion:
d_manhatten(u,v) = sum( abs(u[i] - v[i]), i) // Pseudocode
Now, I haven't looked at your code much, but it looks like much of it is (1) concerned about precision (which is less of a problem for L1, compared to L2, since there is no square) and (2) uses the L2 norms as inputs (which, to my knowledge, are not useful in computing the L1 anyway). So modifying the current method may not be so useful.
Also, I hear a lot that premature optimization is the root of all evil, so try the simplest thing first, and if it is unacceptable, then try obfuscating optimizing :)

Related

efficient, but still precise, multiple of exponent

I need to compute efficiently an array of something like f(i,a) = exp(-0.5 * (i-1) * i * a) for all i in (0..n), with n up to 20.000 and a a positive value very close to 0.
To avoid computing exp n times, I used an incremental approach such as (writing in scala):
def fInc(n: Int, a: Double)
val expA = Math.exp(-a)
var u = 1.0
var v = 1.0
var i = 1
while(i < n){
u *= expA
v *= u // in practice I store that value in an array, for all i
i += 1
}
}
// reference by calling exp directly
def fRef(n: Int, a: Double) = Math.exp(-0.5 * (i-1) * i * a)
This is mathematically correct, but then the difference with direct exp computation is too big. Here are some results:
n a v Math.exp diff
1000 1E-6 0.6068340008761639 0.6068340008714599 4.704014955336788E-12
1000 1E-9 0.9995006247427483 0.9995006247293567 1.3391510123028638E-11
1000 1E-12 0.9999995005111699 0.9999995005001248 1.1045164782785832E-11
1000 1E-15 0.9999999995008992 0.9999999995005 3.992361996552063E-13
10000 1E-6 1.938417748402E-22 1.938417746809E-22 1.5929953847004499E-31
10000 1E-9 0.9512341819777599 0.9512341806597269 1.3180330160622589E-9
10000 1E-12 0.9999500073554776 0.9999500062497292 1.1057483817467073E-9
10000 1E-15 0.9999999500449599 0.9999999500050013 3.995859199079632E-11
As you can see, for some values,the difference goes up to 1e-9, while I can accept maybe 1e-13
So question:
Is there a way to get a better approximate with an algorithm that is still much more efficient than calling exp on all i?
Notes:
I use apache FastMath exp, which gives almost the same results as standard java exp.
The actual algorith is more complex, with other such incremental exp (not quadratic though)
Here is the best solution I found:
The error being incremented (kind of) linearly with each multiplication by the "unitary exp(a)". We can think of the error as a function similar to err(i) ~= i*i*err0 for some err0. The point is that the error of v is quadratic w.r.t i.
The best I found is:
reset the v to the correct value at some chosen frequency (each k iteration)
improve the correctness of u each k iteration, using incremental exp computation
.
val k = 100
val expA = Math.exp(-a)
val expAk = Math.exp(-k*a)
var u = 1.0
var uk = 1.0
var v = 1.0
var i = 1
while(i < n){
if(i%k==0){
uk *= expAk
u = uk
v = Math.exp(- 0.5*(i+1)*i * a)
} else{
u *= expA
v *= u
}
i += 1
}
This method require n / k + 2 call to exp, not quite satifying but the best I have for now. It can probably be improved by choosing the best frequency parameter k.

Scala for the Impatient, chapter 2, exercise on recursive pow function

I am reading Scala for the Impatient, Chapter 2 and there is an exercise question I don't understanding what exactly does it want:
Write a function that computes x^n, where n is an integer. Use the
following recursive definition:
X^n = y * y if n is even and positive, where y = x^(n/2)
X^n = x * x^(n-1) if n is odd and positive
x^0 = 1
x^n = 1 / x^-n if n is negative
If the question want x^n, I could just use the pow method defined in scala.math:
def pow(x: Double, y: Double): Double
The question is asking to (re)implement a recursive pow function on integers:
def pow(x: Int, y: Int): Int = ...
You need write a smarter implementation than the naive O(n) algorithm:
def slowPow(x: Int, y: Int): Int =
if (y == 0) 1 else x * slowPow(x, y - 1)
Try to use the given recursive definition instead...
To answer your question directly, I don't think you can dodge the question using the one from scala.math. As you noted it only works on Doubles. Also is neither recursive nor implemented in Scala.
def pow(x: Double, n: Int): Double = {
if (n == 0) 1
else if (n < 0) 1 / (x - n)
else if (n % 2 == 1) x * pow(x, n - 1)
else {
val y = pow(x, n / 2)
y * y
}
}
pow(2, 0) == 1
pow(2, -2) == 0.25
pow(2, 4) == 16
pow(2, 5) == 32

Simplex noise displaying incorrectly with BufferedImage

I finally got a working tile-able version of Simplex noise working after much work, but I can't seem to get it to record and display correctly when using a BufferedImage. Whenever I try to create an image, it ends up with bands or rings of black and white, instead of a smooth change of shades, which is what I'm expecting. I'm guessing there's something simple I'm not doing, but for the life of me, I can't find it.
This is my code (quite a bit of which is from Stefan Gustavson's Simplex noise implementation):
import java.awt.image.BufferedImage
import javax.imageio.ImageIO
import java.io.File
import scala.util.Random
object ImageTest {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val image = generate(1024, 1024, 1)
ImageIO.write(image, "png", new File("heightmap.png"))
}
def generate(width: Int, height: Int, octaves: Int) = {
val map = new BufferedImage(width, height, BufferedImage.TYPE_USHORT_GRAY)
val pi2 = Math.PI * 2
for ( x <- 0 until width;
y <- 0 until height) {
var total = 0.0
for (oct <- 1 to octaves) {
val scale = (1 - 1/Math.pow(2, oct))
val s = x / width.toDouble
val t = y / height.toDouble
val dx = 1-scale
val dy = 1-scale
val nx = scale + Math.cos(s*pi2) * dx
val ny = scale + Math.cos(t*pi2) * dy
val nz = scale + Math.sin(s*pi2) * dx
val nw = scale + Math.sin(t*pi2) * dy
total += (((noise(nx,ny,nz,nw)+1)/2)) * Math.pow(0.5, oct)
}
map.setRGB(x,y, (total * 0xffffff).toInt)
}
map
}
// Simplex 4D noise generator
// returns -1.0 <-> 1.0
def noise(x: Double, y: Double, z: Double, w: Double) = {
// Skew the (x,y,z,w) space to determine which cell of 24 simplices we're in
val s = (x + y + z + w) * F4; // Factor for 4D skewing
val i = Math.floor(x+s).toInt
val j = Math.floor(y+s).toInt
val k = Math.floor(z+s).toInt
val l = Math.floor(w+s).toInt
val t = (i+j+k+l) * G4 // Factor for 4D unskewing
val xBase = x - (i-t) // Unskew the cell space and set the x, y, z, w
val yBase = y - (j-t) //distances from the cell origin
val zBase = z - (k-t)
val wBase = w - (l-t)
// For the 4D case, the simplex is a 4D shape I won't even try to describe.
// To find out which of the 24 possible simplices we're in, we need to
// determine the magnitude ordering of x0, y0, z0 and w0.
// Six pair-wise comparisons are performed between each possible pair
// of the four coordinates, and the results are used to rank the numbers.
var rankx = 0
var ranky = 0
var rankz = 0
var rankw = 0
if(xBase > yBase) rankx+=1 else ranky+=1
if(xBase > zBase) rankx+=1 else rankz+=1
if(xBase > wBase) rankx+=1 else rankw+=1
if(yBase > zBase) ranky+=1 else rankz+=1
if(yBase > wBase) ranky+=1 else rankw+=1
if(zBase > wBase) rankz+=1 else rankw+=1
// simplex[c] is a 4-vector with the numbers 0, 1, 2 and 3 in some order.
// Many values of c will never occur, since e.g. x>y>z>w makes x<z, y<w and x<w
// impossible. Only the 24 indices which have non-zero entries make any sense.
// We use a thresholding to set the coordinates in turn from the largest magnitude.
// Rank 3 denotes the largest coordinate.
val i1 = if (rankx >= 3) 1 else 0
val j1 = if (ranky >= 3) 1 else 0
val k1 = if (rankz >= 3) 1 else 0
val l1 = if (rankw >= 3) 1 else 0
// Rank 2 denotes the second largest coordinate.
val i2 = if (rankx >= 2) 1 else 0
val j2 = if (ranky >= 2) 1 else 0
val k2 = if (rankz >= 2) 1 else 0
val l2 = if (rankw >= 2) 1 else 0
// Rank 1 denotes the second smallest coordinate.
val i3 = if (rankx >= 1) 1 else 0
val j3 = if (ranky >= 1) 1 else 0
val k3 = if (rankz >= 1) 1 else 0
val l3 = if (rankw >= 1) 1 else 0
// The fifth corner has all coordinate offsets = 1, so no need to compute that.
val xList = Array(xBase, xBase-i1+G4, xBase-i2+2*G4, xBase-i3+3*G4, xBase-1+4*G4)
val yList = Array(yBase, yBase-j1+G4, yBase-j2+2*G4, yBase-j3+3*G4, yBase-1+4*G4)
val zList = Array(zBase, zBase-k1+G4, zBase-k2+2*G4, zBase-k3+3*G4, zBase-1+4*G4)
val wList = Array(wBase, wBase-l1+G4, wBase-l2+2*G4, wBase-l3+3*G4, wBase-1+4*G4)
// Work out the hashed gradient indices of the five simplex corners
val ii = if (i < 0) 256 + (i % 255) else i % 255
val jj = if (j < 0) 256 + (j % 255) else j % 255
val kk = if (k < 0) 256 + (k % 255) else k % 255
val ll = if (l < 0) 256 + (l % 255) else l % 255
val gradIndices = Array(
perm(ii+perm(jj+perm(kk+perm(ll)))) % 32,
perm(ii+i1+perm(jj+j1+perm(kk+k1+perm(ll+l1)))) % 32,
perm(ii+i2+perm(jj+j2+perm(kk+k2+perm(ll+l2)))) % 32,
perm(ii+i3+perm(jj+j3+perm(kk+k3+perm(ll+l3)))) % 32,
perm(ii+1+perm(jj+1+perm(kk+1+perm(ll+1)))) % 32)
// Calculate the contribution from the five corners
var total = 0.0
for (dim <- 0 until 5) {
val (x,y,z,w) = (xList(dim), yList(dim), zList(dim), wList(dim))
var t = 0.5 - x*x - y*y - z*z - w*w
total += {
if (t < 0) 0.0
else {
t *= t
val g = grad4(gradIndices(dim))
t * t * ((g.x*x)+(g.y*y)+(g.z*z)+(g.w*w))
}
}
}
// Sum up and scale the result to cover the range [-1,1]
27.0 * total
}
case class Grad(x: Double, y: Double, z: Double, w: Double = 0.0)
private lazy val grad4 = Array(
Grad(0,1,1,1), Grad(0,1,1,-1), Grad(0,1,-1,1), Grad(0,1,-1,-1),
Grad(0,-1,1,1),Grad(0,-1,1,-1),Grad(0,-1,-1,1),Grad(0,-1,-1,-1),
Grad(1,0,1,1), Grad(1,0,1,-1), Grad(1,0,-1,1), Grad(1,0,-1,-1),
Grad(-1,0,1,1),Grad(-1,0,1,-1),Grad(-1,0,-1,1),Grad(-1,0,-1,-1),
Grad(1,1,0,1), Grad(1,1,0,-1), Grad(1,-1,0,1), Grad(1,-1,0,-1),
Grad(-1,1,0,1),Grad(-1,1,0,-1),Grad(-1,-1,0,1),Grad(-1,-1,0,-1),
Grad(1,1,1,0), Grad(1,1,-1,0), Grad(1,-1,1,0), Grad(1,-1,-1,0),
Grad(-1,1,1,0),Grad(-1,1,-1,0),Grad(-1,-1,1,0),Grad(-1,-1,-1,0))
private lazy val perm = new Array[Short](512)
for(i <- 0 until perm.length)
perm(i) = Random.nextInt(256).toShort
private lazy val F4 = (Math.sqrt(5.0) - 1.0) / 4.0
private lazy val G4 = (5.0 - Math.sqrt(5.0)) / 20.0
}
I've checked the output values of the noise function I'm using, which as of yet hasn't returned anything outside of (-1, 1) exclusive. And for a single octave, the value I'm supplying to the image (total) has not gone outside of (0,1) exclusive, either.
The only thing I can see that would be a problem is either the BufferedImage type is set incorrectly, or I'm multiplying total by the wrong hex value when setting the values in the image.
I've looked through the Javadocs on BufferedImage for information about the types and the values they accept, though nothing I've found seems to be out of place in my code (though, I am fairly new to using BufferedImage in general). And I've tried changing the hex value, but neither seems to change anything. The only thing I've found that has any affect is if I divide the (total * 0xffffff).toInt value by 256, which seems to darken the bands a bit and a slight gradient appears over the areas it should, but if I increase the division too much, the image just becomes black. So as of right now I'm stuck on what could be the issue.
(total * 0xffffff).toInt doesn't seem to make sense. You are creating an ARGB value from a grayscale float with a single multiplication?
I think you want something like this:
val i = (total * 0xFF).toInt
val rgb = 0xFF000000 | (i << 16) | (i << 8) | i
That gives me a smooth random texture, although with very low contrast—with 1 octave, your total seems to vary approx from 0.2 to 0.3, so you may need to adjust the scale a bit.
I'm not sure though how you can get 16-bit grayscale resolution. Perhaps you need to set the raster data directly instead of using setRGB (which forces you down to 8 bits). The comments below this question suggest that you use the raster directly.

How can I find a matching between two independent sets of features extracted from two images of the same scene captured by two different cameras?

I need to find matching between two independent sets of features extracted from two images of the same scene captured by two different cameras.
I'm using the HumanEvaI data set, so I have the calibration matrices of the cameras (in this particular case BW1 and BW2).
I can not use method like simple correlation, SIFT or SURF to solve the problem because the cameras are quite far away from each other and also rotated. So the differences between the images are big and there is occlusion as well.
I have been focused in finding an Homography between the captured images based on ground truth points matching that I have been able to build due to the calibration information I already have.
Once I have this homography I will use a perfect matching (Hungarian algorithm) to find the best correspondence. The importance of the homography here is that is the way I have to calculate the distance between the points.
So far everything seems fine, my problem is that I haven't been able to find a good homography . I have tried RANSAC method, gold standard method with sampson distance (this is a nonlinear optimization approach) and mainly everything from a book called 'Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision' Second Edition by Richard Hartley.
I have implemented everything in matlab so far.
Is there another way to do this? I'm I in the right path? If so what could I have been doing wrong?
You can try these two methods:
A new point matching algorithm for non-rigid registration (uses Thin-plate Spline) - relatively slower.
Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift (faster and more accurate I feel).
As far as 2nd method is concerned, I feel that it gives very good registration result in presence of outliers, it is fast and is able to recover complex transformations. But the 1st method is also a well-known method in registration field and you may try that as well.
Try understanding the core of the algorithm and then move on to the codes available online.
Thin plate spline here - Download the TPS-RPM demo.
Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift here
You might find my solution interesting. It is a pure numpy implementation of the Coherent Point Drift algorithm.
Here is an example:
from functools import partial
from scipy.io import loadmat
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import time
class RigidRegistration(object):
def __init__(self, X, Y, R=None, t=None, s=None, sigma2=None, maxIterations=100, tolerance=0.001, w=0):
if X.shape[1] != Y.shape[1]:
raise 'Both point clouds must have the same number of dimensions!'
self.X = X
self.Y = Y
(self.N, self.D) = self.X.shape
(self.M, _) = self.Y.shape
self.R = np.eye(self.D) if R is None else R
self.t = np.atleast_2d(np.zeros((1, self.D))) if t is None else t
self.s = 1 if s is None else s
self.sigma2 = sigma2
self.iteration = 0
self.maxIterations = maxIterations
self.tolerance = tolerance
self.w = w
self.q = 0
self.err = 0
def register(self, callback):
self.initialize()
while self.iteration < self.maxIterations and self.err > self.tolerance:
self.iterate()
callback(X=self.X, Y=self.Y)
return self.Y, self.s, self.R, self.t
def iterate(self):
self.EStep()
self.MStep()
self.iteration = self.iteration + 1
def MStep(self):
self.updateTransform()
self.transformPointCloud()
self.updateVariance()
def updateTransform(self):
muX = np.divide(np.sum(np.dot(self.P, self.X), axis=0), self.Np)
muY = np.divide(np.sum(np.dot(np.transpose(self.P), self.Y), axis=0), self.Np)
self.XX = self.X - np.tile(muX, (self.N, 1))
YY = self.Y - np.tile(muY, (self.M, 1))
self.A = np.dot(np.transpose(self.XX), np.transpose(self.P))
self.A = np.dot(self.A, YY)
U, _, V = np.linalg.svd(self.A, full_matrices=True)
C = np.ones((self.D, ))
C[self.D-1] = np.linalg.det(np.dot(U, V))
self.R = np.dot(np.dot(U, np.diag(C)), V)
self.YPY = np.dot(np.transpose(self.P1), np.sum(np.multiply(YY, YY), axis=1))
self.s = np.trace(np.dot(np.transpose(self.A), self.R)) / self.YPY
self.t = np.transpose(muX) - self.s * np.dot(self.R, np.transpose(muY))
def transformPointCloud(self, Y=None):
if not Y:
self.Y = self.s * np.dot(self.Y, np.transpose(self.R)) + np.tile(np.transpose(self.t), (self.M, 1))
return
else:
return self.s * np.dot(Y, np.transpose(self.R)) + np.tile(np.transpose(self.t), (self.M, 1))
def updateVariance(self):
qprev = self.q
trAR = np.trace(np.dot(self.A, np.transpose(self.R)))
xPx = np.dot(np.transpose(self.Pt1), np.sum(np.multiply(self.XX, self.XX), axis =1))
self.q = (xPx - 2 * self.s * trAR + self.s * self.s * self.YPY) / (2 * self.sigma2) + self.D * self.Np/2 * np.log(self.sigma2)
self.err = np.abs(self.q - qprev)
self.sigma2 = (xPx - self.s * trAR) / (self.Np * self.D)
if self.sigma2 <= 0:
self.sigma2 = self.tolerance / 10
def initialize(self):
self.Y = self.s * np.dot(self.Y, np.transpose(self.R)) + np.repeat(self.t, self.M, axis=0)
if not self.sigma2:
XX = np.reshape(self.X, (1, self.N, self.D))
YY = np.reshape(self.Y, (self.M, 1, self.D))
XX = np.tile(XX, (self.M, 1, 1))
YY = np.tile(YY, (1, self.N, 1))
diff = XX - YY
err = np.multiply(diff, diff)
self.sigma2 = np.sum(err) / (self.D * self.M * self.N)
self.err = self.tolerance + 1
self.q = -self.err - self.N * self.D/2 * np.log(self.sigma2)
def EStep(self):
P = np.zeros((self.M, self.N))
for i in range(0, self.M):
diff = self.X - np.tile(self.Y[i, :], (self.N, 1))
diff = np.multiply(diff, diff)
P[i, :] = P[i, :] + np.sum(diff, axis=1)
c = (2 * np.pi * self.sigma2) ** (self.D / 2)
c = c * self.w / (1 - self.w)
c = c * self.M / self.N
P = np.exp(-P / (2 * self.sigma2))
den = np.sum(P, axis=0)
den = np.tile(den, (self.M, 1))
den[den==0] = np.finfo(float).eps
self.P = np.divide(P, den)
self.Pt1 = np.sum(self.P, axis=0)
self.P1 = np.sum(self.P, axis=1)
self.Np = np.sum(self.P1)
def visualize(X, Y, ax):
plt.cla()
ax.scatter(X[:,0] , X[:,1], color='red')
ax.scatter(Y[:,0] , Y[:,1], color='blue')
plt.draw()
plt.pause(0.001)
def main():
fish = loadmat('./data/fish.mat')
X = fish['X'] # number-of-points x number-of-dimensions array of fixed points
Y = fish['Y'] # number-of-points x number-of-dimensions array of moving points
fig = plt.figure()
fig.add_axes([0, 0, 1, 1])
callback = partial(visualize, ax=fig.axes[0])
reg = RigidRegistration(X, Y)
reg.register(callback)
plt.show()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Another method I think you might find useful is described here.
This approach tries to fit local models to group of points. Its global optimization method allows it to outperform RANSAC when several distinct local models exists.
I also believe they have code available.

How to solve a linear system of matrices in scala breeze?

How to solve a linear system of matrices in scala breeze? ie, I have Ax = b, where A is a matrix (usually positive definite), and x and b are vectors.
I can see that there is a cholesky decomposition available, but I couldn't seem to find a solver? (if it was matlab I could do x = b \ A. If it was scipy I could do x = A.solve(b) )
Apparently, it is quite simple in fact, and built into scala-breeze as an operator:
x = A \ b
It doesnt use Cholesky, it uses LU decomposition, which is I think about half as fast, but they are both O(n^3), so comparable.
Well, I wrote my own solver in the end. I'm not sure if this is the optimal way to do it, but it doesn't seem unreasonable? :
// Copyright Hugh Perkins 2012
// You can use this under the terms of the Apache Public License 2.0
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
package root
import breeze.linalg._
object Solver {
// solve Ax = b, for x, where A = choleskyMatrix * choleskyMatrix.t
// choleskyMatrix should be lower triangular
def solve( choleskyMatrix: DenseMatrix[Double], b: DenseVector[Double] ) : DenseVector[Double] = {
val C = choleskyMatrix
val size = C.rows
if( C.rows != C.cols ) {
// throw exception or something
}
if( b.length != size ) {
// throw exception or something
}
// first we solve C * y = b
// (then we will solve C.t * x = y)
val y = DenseVector.zeros[Double](size)
// now we just work our way down from the top of the lower triangular matrix
for( i <- 0 until size ) {
var sum = 0.
for( j <- 0 until i ) {
sum += C(i,j) * y(j)
}
y(i) = ( b(i) - sum ) / C(i,i)
}
// now calculate x
val x = DenseVector.zeros[Double](size)
val Ct = C.t
// work up from bottom this time
for( i <- size -1 to 0 by -1 ) {
var sum = 0.
for( j <- i + 1 until size ) {
sum += Ct(i,j) * x(j)
}
x(i) = ( y(i) - sum ) / Ct(i,i)
}
x
}
}