I am developing a neural framework for instance segmentation.
At the moment I have quite reasonable outcome (probability map) as follows:
Input image:
Corresponding probability map:
As you may noticed, the outcome has blurred boundaries while I asked the model to highlight DOG location.
My aim is to generate instance borders using:
1: input image information.
2: associated probability map information.
I'm thinking of Graph cut Optimization and Max-Flow/Min-Cut algorithm to extract instance boundaries.
But I wanted to know if you have a more recent exciting suggestion for me?
thanks,
Related
I'm trying to get a better understanding of neural networks by trying to programm a Convolution Neural Network by myself.
So far, I'm going to make it pretty simple by not using max-pooling and using simple ReLu-activation. I'm aware of the disadvantages of this setup, but the point is not making the best image detector in the world.
Now, I'm stuck understanding the details of the error calculation, propagating it back and how it interplays with the used activation-function for calculating the new weights.
I read this document (A Beginner's Guide To Understand CNN), but it doesn't help me understand much. The formula for calculating the error already confuses me.
This sum-function doesn't have defined start- and ending points, so i basically can't read it. Maybe you can simply provide me with the correct one?
After that, the author assumes a variable L that is just "that value" (i assume he means E_total?) and gives an example for how to define the new weight:
where W is the weights of a particular layer.
This confuses me, as i always stood under the impression the activation-function (ReLu in my case) played a role in how to calculate the new weight. Also, this seems to imply i simply use the error for all layers. Doesn't the error value i propagate back into the next layer somehow depends on what i calculated in the previous one?
Maybe all of this is just uncomplete and you can point me into the direction that helps me best for my case.
Thanks in advance.
You do not backpropagate errors, but gradients. The activation function plays a role in caculating the new weight, depending on whether or not the weight in question is before or after said activation, and whether or not it is connected. If a weight w is after your non-linearity layer f, then the gradient dL/dw wont depend on f. But if w is before f, then, if they are connected, then dL/dw will depend on f. For example, suppose w is the weight vector of a fully connected layer, and assume that f directly follows this layer. Then,
dL/dw=(dL/df)*df/dw //notations might change according to the shape
//of the tensors/matrices/vectors you chose, but
//this is just the chain rule
As for your cost function, it is correct. Many people write these formulas in this non-formal style so that you get the idea, but that you can adapt it to your own tensor shapes. By the way, this sort of MSE function is better suited to continous label spaces. You might want to use softmax or an svm loss for image classification (I'll come back to that). Anyway, as you requested a correct form for this function, here is an example. Imagine you have a neural network that predicts a vector field of some kind (like surface normals). Assume that it takes a 2d pixel x_i and predicts a 3d vector v_i for that pixel. Now, in your training data, x_i will already have a ground truth 3d vector (i.e label), that we'll call y_i. Then, your cost function will be (the index i runs on all data samples):
sum_i{(y_i-v_i)^t (y_i-vi)}=sum_i{||y_i-v_i||^2}
But as I said, this cost function works if the labels form a continuous space (here , R^3). This is also called a regression problem.
Here's an example if you are interested in (image) classification. I'll explain it with a softmax loss, the intuition for other losses is more or less similar. Assume we have n classes, and imagine that in your training set, for each data point x_i, you have a label c_i that indicates the correct class. Now, your neural network should produce scores for each possible label, that we'll note s_1,..,s_n. Let's note the score of the correct class of a training sample x_i as s_{c_i}. Now, if we use a softmax function, the intuition is to transform the scores into a probability distribution, and maximise the probability of the correct classes. That is , we maximse the function
sum_i { exp(s_{c_i}) / sum_j(exp(s_j))}
where i runs over all training samples, and j=1,..n on all class labels.
Finally, I don't think the guide you are reading is a good starting point. I recommend this excellent course instead (essentially the Andrew Karpathy parts at least).
I want to use pre-trained model for the face identification. I try to use Siamese architecture which requires a few number of images. Could you give me any trained model which I can change for the Siamese architecture? How can I change the network model which I can put two images to find their similarities (I do not want to create image based on the tutorial here)? I only want to use the system for real time application. Do you have any recommendations?
I suppose you can use this model, described in Xiang Wu, Ran He, Zhenan Sun, Tieniu Tan A Light CNN for Deep Face Representation with Noisy Labels (arXiv 2015) as a a strating point for your experiments.
As for the Siamese network, what you are trying to earn is a mapping from a face image into some high dimensional vector space, in which distances between points reflects (dis)similarity between faces.
To do so, you only need one network that gets a face as an input and produce a high-dim vector as an output.
However, to train this single network using the Siamese approach, you are going to duplicate it: creating two instances of the same net (you need to explicitly link the weights of the two copies). During training you are going to provide pairs of faces to the nets: one to each copy, then the single loss layer on top of the two copies can compare the high-dimensional vectors representing the two faces and compute a loss according to a "same/not same" label associated with this pair.
Hence, you only need the duplication for the training. In test time ('deploy') you are going to have a single net providing you with a semantically meaningful high dimensional representation of faces.
For a more advance Siamese architecture and loss see this thread.
On the other hand, you might want to consider the approach described in Oren Tadmor, Yonatan Wexler, Tal Rosenwein, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Amnon Shashua Learning a Metric Embedding for Face Recognition using the Multibatch Method (arXiv 2016). This approach is more efficient and easy to implement than pair-wise losses over image pairs.
GOOD MORNING COLLEAGUES!
I am very into train a new model from my own data set of faces!
I have found no information about this topic, then I hope my information could help people and I can get some answers as well.
I will try to explain the steps I have needed to do to train my own model and later on some questions...
I have download the Latent code from: http://cs.brown.edu/~pff/latent-release4/
I have download the PASCAL VOC 2008 code (devkit) from: http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk/pascal/VOC/voc2008/index.html
I have emulate the structure of files/folders of the VOC PASCAL but in my own data set:
Annotations. I have created a .xml where I have defined a object, face, (in each image I only have one face). I didn't define difficulties or poses...
JPEGImages where I have stored all the images
ImageSets where I have defined three files:
test.txt, where I wrote the file name of my positive samples
train.txt, where I wrote the file name of my negative samples
trainval.txt, where I wrote the file name of my positive samples (exactly the same file than test.txt).
I have change some things in globals.m and VOCinit.m (to tell the algorithm the path and the location of some files...)
Then I run the training with the command: pascal('face', 1);
Following these steps I have achieved that the training run completely and doesn't fail and I get my own model BUT I have some doubts...
Can you see anything weird in my explanation? Could it work?
Must the files test.txt/trainval.txt be equal? Why... What does it mean?
Do I have to choose the number of parts I want in the model INSIDE the function?
Please, you imagine I have two kind of samples (frontal faces and side faces) and I want to detect both... How can I address this issue? I thought I have to train a model with two components... but How can I tell to the training code which are frontal or side samples?? In the annotations with the label pose?? (I don't think so...) Are there other way to handle this purpose?
Thank you for your time!!
I hope you can solve my doubts :)
I think test.txt should contain samples (images) that will be used to estimate how good the system is after learning the faces. However, trainval.txt is used during the learning stage (training) to fine-tune the parameters of the model; it is an essential part of supervised learning.
Also, it is very hard to have one single SVM to classify faces that are both frontal and sideways. Here is my suggestion:
Train one SVM to detect if the input image is a frontal face or a sideways face. Call this something like SVM-0.
Train another SVM for frontal faces. This SVM will classify all your individuals. Note, however, that SVM is usually a binary classifier, so make sure you choose the right SVM, one that as a multiclass architecture. Call this SVM-F.
Tran a final SVM for sideways faces. Again, use a multiclass SVM. Call it SVM-S.
Present the input image to SVM-0 and if it detects it is a frontal face, present the input again to SVM-F; otherwise, give the input to SVM-S.
In my experience, you should expect very low performance in SVM-S. It is a hard problem to solve. But frontal faces is not a big deal, unless you are working with faces that vary in pose, illumination, and expression (PIE). Face recognition is affected greatly with PIE variations in the images.
I recommend you this website, it contains very good information and tutorials for starters, with or without experience.
I am working on an application that should determine if input image contain a stamp imprint and return its location. For RGB images I am using color segmentation and doing verification (with various shape factors), for grayscale image I thought that SIFT + verification would do the job, but using SIFT would only find those stamps(on input image) that I got in my database.
In ideal case it works really well, as shown on image bellow.
Fig. 1.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/JHkUl.png
The problem occurs when input image contains a stamp that does not exist in database. First thing I did was checking if there would be any matching key points if I compare a similar stamp to the one on input image. In most cases there is no single matching key point and if there is some they rather refer to other parts of input image than a stamp, as shown in Fig. 2.:
Fig. 2.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/coA4l.png
I also tried to find a match between input and circle images as the stamps are circular, but circle image has very few key points, if any.
So I wonder if there is any different approach that will make SIFT a bit more useful in this exact case? I though about creating a matrix with all descriptors and key-points from my database and then looking for nearest euclidean distance between input image and matrix, but it probably wont work as there is a lot of matching key-points(unwanted) across the database (see Fig. 2.).
I'm working with Matlab and tried both VLFeat and D. Lowe SIFT implementations.
Edit:
So I found a way to force SIFT to compute descriptors for user defined points on an image. My test image contained a circle, then the descriptors were computed and matched against input images, including the one under Fig 1 and 2. This process was repeated for scales from 0 to 10. Unfortunately it didn't help too.
This is only a first hint and not a full answer to the SIFT questions.
My impression is that detecting a circle by matching it against an image of a circle via SIFT is not the best approach, especially if the circle you want to detect has some unknown texture inside.
The textbook algorithm for circle detection would be Hough transform, which is mostly used for line detection but does work for any kind of shape which can be described by a low number of parameters (colleagues tell me things get nasty above 3, but a circle just has X,Y and r). There are several implementations in file exchange, the link is just to one example. Hough circle detection requires you to put an upper bound on the radii you want to detect, but this seems ok for your application.
From the examples you provided it looks like you should get quite far if you can detect circles reliably.
Actually I do not think SIFT will be solving this problem. I've been playing around with SIFT for quite some time and my conclusion is that it's really great for identifying identical patterns but not for similar patterns.
Just have a look at the construction of the SIFT feature vector: The descriptor is composed of several histograms of gradients(!). If you have patterns in the database that have very similar blob like structures in the stamps, then you might have a chance. But if this does not hold, then I guess you will not be very lucky.
From my point of view you have kind of solved the problem of finding indentical objects (stamps) and now extend to finding similar objects. This sounds like the same but in my past research I found these problems just related but not too identical.
Do you have any runtime constraints in your application? There might be other approaches but in this case, more input about possible constraints might be useful.
Update regarding constraints:
So your next task might be to detect the unknown stamps, right?
This sounds like a classification task.
In your case I would first try to find a descriptor/representation (or SVM) that classifies images into stamp/no-stamp. In order to evaluate this, set up a data base with ground truth and a reasonable amount of "unknown" stamps and other images like random snapshots from the letters, NOT containing stamps. This will be your test set.
Then try some descriptors/representations to caluclate the distance/similarity between your images to classify your test set into the classes STAMP / NO-STAMP. When you have found a descriptor/distance measure (or SVM) that performs well in classifying, then you could perform a sliding window approach on a letter to find a stamp. The sliding window approach is certainly not a very fast method, but a very easy one.
At least when you have reached this point, you can tune the detection - for example based on interesting point detectors.. but one step after the other...
I'll be appreciated if you help me to create a feature vector of an simple object using keypoints. For now, I use ETH-80 dataset, objects have an almost blue background and pictures are took from different views. Like this:
After creating a feature vector, I want to train a neural network with this vector and use that neural network to recognize an input image of an object. I don't want make it complex, input images will be as simple as train images.
I asked similar questions before, some one suggested using average value of 20x20 neighborhood of keypoints. I tried it, It seems it's not working with ETH-80 images, because of different views of images. It's why I asked another question.
SURF or SIFT. Look for interest point detectors. A MATLAB SIFT implementation is freely available.
Update: Object Recognition from Local Scale-Invariant Features
SIFT and SURF features consist of two parts, the detector and the descriptor. The detector finds the point in some n-dimensional space (4D for SIFT), the descriptor is used to robustly describe the surroundings of said points. The latter is increasingly used for image categorization and identification in what is commonly known as the "bag of word" or "visual words" approach. In the most simple form, one can collect all data from all descriptors from all images and cluster them, for example using k-means. Every original image then has descriptors that contribute to a number of clusters. The centroids of these clusters, i.e. the visual words, can be used as a new descriptor for the image. The VLfeat website contains a nice demo of this approach, classifying the caltech 101 dataset:
http://www.vlfeat.org/applications/apps.html#apps.caltech-101