I am new to TensorFlow and deep learning. I am trying to create a fully connected neural network for image processing. I am somewhat confused.
We have an image, say 28x28 pixels. This will have 784 inputs to the NN. For non-correlated inputs, this is fine, but image pixels are generally correlated. For instance, consider a picture of a cow's eye. How can a neural network understand this when we have all pixels lined up in an array for a fully-connected network. How does it determine the correlation?
Please research some tutorials on CNN (Convolutional Neural Network); here is a starting point for you. A fully connected layer of a NN surrenders all of the correlation information it might have had with the input. Structurally, it implements the principle that the inputs are statistically independent.
Alternately, a convolution layer depends upon the physical organization of the inputs (such as pixel adjacency), using that to find simple combinations (convolutions) of feature form one layer to another.
Bottom line: your NN doesn't find the correlation: the topology is wrong, and cannot do the job you want.
Also, please note that a layered network consisting of fully-connected neurons with linear weight combinations, is not deep learning. Deep learning has at least one hidden layer, a topology which fosters "understanding" of intermediate structures. A purely linear, fully-connected layering provides no such hidden layers. Even if you program hidden layers, the outputs remain a simple linear combination of the inputs.
Deep learning requires some other discrimination, such as convolutions, pooling, rectification, or other non-linear combinations.
Let's take it into peaces to understand the intuition behind NN learning to predict.
to predict a class of given image we have to find a correlation or direct link between once of it is input values to the class. we can think about finding one pixel can tell us this image belongs to this class. which is impossible so what we have to do is build up more complex function or let's call complex features. which will help us to find to generate a correlated data to the wanted class.
To make it simpler imagine you want to build AND function (p and q), OR function (p or q) in the both cases there is a direct link between the input and the output. in and function if there 0 in the input the output always zero. so what if we want to xor function (p xor q) there is no direct link between the input and the output. the answer is to build first layer of classifying AND and OR then by a second layer taking the result of the first layer we can build the function and classify the XOR function
(p xor q) = (p or q) and not (p and q)
By applying this method on Multi-layer NN you'll have the same result. but then you'll have to deal with huge amount of parameters. one solution to avoid this is to extract representative, variance and uncorrelated features between images and correlated with their class from the images and feed the to the Network. you can look for image features extraction on the web.
this is a small explanation for how to see the link between images and their classes and how NN work to classify them. you need to understand NN concept and then you can go to read about Deep-learning.
Related
Suppose we have a set of images and labels meant for a machine-learning classification task. The problem is that these images come with a relatively short retention policy. While one could train a model online (i.e. update it with new image data every day), I'm ideally interested in a solution that can somehow retain images for training and testing.
To this end, I'm interested if there are any known techniques, for example some kind of one-way hashing on images, which obfuscates the image, but still allows for deep learning techniques on it.
I'm not an expert on this but the way I'm thinking about it is as follows: we have a NxN image I (say 1024x1024) with pixel values in P:={0,1,...,255}^3, and a one-way hash map f(I):P^(NxN) -> S. Then, when we train a convolutional neural network on I, we first map the convolutional filters via f, to then train on a high-dimensional space S. I think there's no need for f to locally-sensitive, in that pixels near each other don't need to map to values in S near each other, as long as we know how to map the convolutional filters to S. Please note that it's imperative that f is not invertible, and that the resulting stored image in S is unrecognizable.
One option for f,S is to use a convolutional neural network on I to then extract the representation of I from it's fully connected layer. This is not ideal because there's a high chance that this network won't retain the finer features needed for the classification task. So I think this rules out a CNN or auto encoder for f.
I was reading this interesting article on convolutional neural networks. It showed this image, explaining that for every receptive field of 5x5 pixels/neurons, a value for a hidden value is calculated.
We can think of max-pooling as a way for the network to ask whether a given feature is found anywhere in a region of the image. It then throws away the exact positional information.
So max-pooling is applied.
With multiple convolutional layers, it looks something like this:
But my question is, this whole architecture could be build with perceptrons, right?
For every convolutional layer, one perceptron is needed, with layers:
input_size = 5x5;
hidden_size = 10; e.g.
output_size = 1;
Then for every receptive field in the original image, the 5x5 area is inputted into a perceptron to output the value of a neuron in the hidden layer. So basically doing this for every receptive field:
So the same perceptron is used 24x24 amount of times to construct the hidden layer, because:
is that we're going to use the same weights and bias for each of the 24×24 hidden neurons.
And this works for the hidden layer to the pooling layer as well, input_size = 2x2; output_size = 1;. And in the case of a max-pool layer, it's just a max() function on an array.
and then finally:
The final layer of connections in the network is a fully-connected
layer. That is, this layer connects every neuron from the max-pooled
layer to every one of the 10 output neurons.
which is a perceptron again.
So my final architecture looks like this:
-> 1 perceptron for every convolutional layer/feature map
-> run this perceptron for every receptive field to create feature map
-> 1 perceptron for every pooling layer
-> run this perceptron for every field in the feature map to create a pooling layer
-> finally input the values of the pooling layer in a regular ALL to ALL perceptron
Or am I overseeing something? Or is this already how they are programmed?
The answer very much depends on what exactly you call a Perceptron. Common options are:
Complete architecture. Then no, simply because it's by definition a different NN.
A model of a single neuron, specifically y = 1 if (w.x + b) > 0 else 0, where x is the input of the neuron, w and b are its trainable parameters and w.b denotes the dot product. Then yes, you can force a bunch of these perceptrons to share weights and call it a CNN. You'll find variants of this idea being used in binary neural networks.
A training algorithm, typically associated with the Perceptron architecture. This would make no sense to the question, because the learning algorithm is in principle orthogonal to the architecture. Though you cannot really use the Perceptron algorithm for anything with hidden layers, which would suggest no as the answer in this case.
Loss function associated with the original Perceptron. This notion of Peceptron is orthogonal to the problem at hand, you're loss function with a CNN is given by whatever you try to do with your whole model. You can eventually use it, but it is non-differentiable, so good luck :-)
A sidenote rant: You can see people refer to feed-forward, fully-connected NNs with hidden layers as "Multilayer Perceptrons" (MLPs). This is a misnomer, there are no Perceptrons in MLPs, see e.g. this discussion on Wikipedia -- unless you go explore some really weird ideas. It would make sense call these networks as Multilayer Linear Logistic Regression, because that's what they used to be composed of. Up till like 6 years ago.
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 was working on webots which is an environment used to model, program and simulate mobile robots. Basically i have a small robot with a VGA camera, and it looks for simple blue coloured patterns on white walls of a small lego maze and moves accordingly
The method I used here was
Obtain images of the patterns from webots and save it in a location
in PC.
Detect the blue pattern, form a square enclosing the pattern
with atleast 2 edges of the pattern being part of the boundary of the
square.
Resize it to 7x7 matrix(using nearest neighbour
interpolation algorithm)
The input to the network is nothing but the red pixel intensities of each of the 7x7 image(when i look at the blue pixel through a red filter it appears black so). The intensities of each pixel is extracted and the 7x7 matrix is then converted it to a 1D vector i.e 1x49 which is my input to the neural network. (I chose this characteristic as my input because it is 'relatively' less difficult to access this information using C and webots.)
I used MATLAB for this offline training method and I used a slower learning rate(0.06) to ensure parameter convergence and tested it on large and small datasets(1189 and 346 respectively). On all the numerous times I have tried, the network fails to classify the pattern.(it says the pattern belongs to all the 4 classes !!!! ) . There is nothing wrong with the program as I tested it out on the simpleclass_dataset in matlab and it works almost perfectly
Is it possible that the neural network fails to learn the function because of really poor data? (by poor data i mean that the datapoints corresponding to one sample of one class are very close to another sample belonging to a different class or something of that sort). Or can the neural network fail because of very poor feature descriptors?
Can anyone suggest a simpler method to extract features from the image(I am now shifting to MATLAB as I am now only concerned with simulations in webots and not the real robot). What sort of features can I choose? The patterns are very simple (L,an inverted L and its reflected versions are the 4 patterns)
Neural networks CAN fail to learn a function; this is most often caused by employing a network topology which is too simple to model the necessary function. A classic example of this case is attempting to learn an XOR function using a perceptron classifier, although it can even happen in multilayer neural nets sometimes; especially for complex tasks like image recognition. See my previous answer for a rough guide on how to select neural network parameters (ignore the convolution stuff if you want, although I would highly recommened looking into convolutional neural networks if you are still having problems).
It is a possiblity that there is too little seperability between classes, although I doubt that this is the case given your current features. Is there a reason that your network needs to allow an image to be four classifications simultaneously? If not, then perhaps you could classify the input as the output with the highest activation instead of all those with high activations.
I have already extracted the features of a fingerprint database then a Neural Network should be applied to classify the images by gender. I haven't worked with NN yet and I know a bit.
What type of NN should be used? Is it Artificial Neural Network or Multi-layer perceptron?
If the image size is not the same among all, does it matter?
Maybe some code sample in this area could help.
A neural network is a function approximator. You can think of it as a high-tech cousin to piecewise linear fitting. If you want to fit the most complex phenomena ever with a single parameter - you are going to get the mean and should not be surprised if it isn't infinitely useful. To get a useful fit, you must couple the nature of the phenomena being modeled with the NN. If you are modeling a planar surface, then you are going to need more than one coefficient (typically 3 or 4 depending on your formulation).
One of the questions behind this question is "what is the basis of fingerprints". By basis I mean the heavily baggaged word from Linear Algebra and calculus that talks about vector spaces, span, and eigens. Once you know what the "basis" is then you can build a neural network to approximate the basis, and this neural network will give reasonable results.
So while I was looking for a paper on the basis, I found this:
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-experts-human-error-fingerprint-analysis.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-fingerprint-grading.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-forensic-scientists-recover-fingerprints-foods.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-method-artificial-fingerprints.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-chemist-contributes-method-recovering-fingerprints.html
And here you go, a good document of the basis of fingerprints:
http://math.arizona.edu/~anewell/publications/Fingerprint_Formation.pdf
Taking a very crude stab, you might try growing some variation on an narxnet (nonlinear autogregressive network with external inputs) link. I would grow it until it characterizes your set using some sort of doubling the capacity. I would look at convergence rates as a function of "size" so that the smaller networks inform how long convergence takes for the larger ones. That means it might take a very large network to make this work, but large networks are like the 787 - they cost a lot, take forever to build, and sometimes do not fly well.
If I were being clever, I would pay attention to the article by Kucken and formulate the inputs as some sort of a inverse modeling of a stress field.
Best of luck.
You can try a SOM/LVQ network for classification in MATLAB, and image sizes does matter you should try to normalize the images down to a standard size before doing the feature extraction. This will ensure that each feature vector gets assigned to an input neuron.
function scan(img)
files = dir('*.jpg');
hist = [];
for n = 1 : length(files)
filename = files(n).name;
file = imread(filename);
hist = [hist, imhist(rgb2gray(imresize(file,[ 50 50])))]; %#ok
end
som = selforgmap([10 10]);
som = train(som, hist);
t = som(hist); %extract class data
net = lvqnet(10);
net = train(net, hist, t);
like(img, hist, files, net)
end
Doesn't have code examples but this paper may be helpful: An Effective Fingerprint Verification Technique, Gogoi & Bhattacharyya
This paper presents an effective method for fingerprint verification based on a data mining technique called minutiae clustering and a graph-theoretic approach to analyze the process of fingerprint comparison to give a feature space representation of minutiae and to produce a lower bound on the number of detectably distinct fingerprints. The method also proving the invariance of each individual fingerprint by using both the topological behavior of the minutiae graph and also using a distance measure called Hausdorff distance.The method provides a graph based index generation mechanism of fingerprint biometric data. The self-organizing map neural network is also used for classifying the fingerprints.