I am working with a classification algorithm that requires the size of the feature vector of all samples in training and testing to be the same.
I am also to use the SIFT feature extractor. This is causing problems as the feature vector of every image is coming up as a different sized matrix. I know that SIFT detects variable keypoints in each image, but is there a way to ensure that the size of the SIFT features is consistent so that I do not get a dimension mismatch error.
I have tried rootSIFT as a workaround:
[~, features] = vl_sift(single(images{i}));
double_features = double(features);
root_it = sqrt( double_features/sum(double_features) ); %root-sift
feats{i} = root_it;
This gives me a consistent 128 x 1 vector for every image, but it is not working for me as the size of each vector is now very small and I am getting a lot of NaN in my classification result.
Is there any way to solve this?
Using SIFT there are 2 steps you need to perform in general.
Extract SIFT features. These points (first output argument of
size NPx2 (x,y) of your function) are scale invariant, and should in
theory be present in each different image of the same object. This
is not completely true. Often points are unique to each frame
(image). These points are described by 128 descriptors each (second
argument of your function).
Match points. Each time you compute features of a different image the amount of points computed is different! Lots of them should be the same point as in the previous image, but lots of them WON'T. You will have new points and old points may not be present any more. This is why you should perform a feature matching step, to link those points in different images. usually this is made by knn matching or RANSAC. You can Google how to perform this task and you'll have tons of examples.
After the second step, you should have a fixed amount of points for the whole set of images (considering they are images of the same object). The amount of points will be significantly smaller than in each single image (sometimes 30~ times less amount of points). Then do whatever you want with them!
Hint for matching: http://www.vlfeat.org/matlab/vl_ubcmatch.html
UPDATE:
You seem to be trying to train some kind of OCR. You would need to probably match SIFT features independently for each character.
How to use vl_ubcmatch:
[~, features1] = vl_sift(I1);
[~, features2] = vl_sift(I2);
matches=vl_ubcmatch(features1,features2)
You can apply a dense SIFT to the image. This way you have more control over from where you get the feature descriptors. I haven't used vlfeat, but looking at the documentation I see there's a function to extract dense SIFT features called vl_dsift. With vl_sift, I see there's a way to bypass the detector and extract the descriptors from points of your choice using the 'frames' option. Either way it seems you can get a fixed number of descriptors.
If you are using images of the same size, dense SIFT or the frames option is okay. There's a another approach you can take and it's called the bag-of-features model (similar to bag-of-words model) in which you cluster the features that you extracted from images to generate codewords and feed them into a classifier.
Related
I have a 115*8000 data where 115 is the number of features. When I use pca function of matlab like this
[coeff,score,latent,tsquared,explained,mu] = pca(data);
on my data. I get some values. I read on here that how can I reduce my data but one thing confuses me. The explained data shows how much a feature weighs on calculation but do features get reorganized in this proces or features are exactly in same order as I give it to function?
Also I give 115 features but explained shows 114. Why does it happen?
The data is not "reorganized" in PCA, is transformed to a new space. When you crop the PCA space, that is your data, but you are not going to be able to visualize/understand it there, you need to convert it back to "normal" space, using eigenvectors and such.
explained gives you 114 because you now what is the answer with 115! 100% of the data can be explained with the whole data!
Read about it further in this answer: Significance of 99% of variance covered by the first component in PCA
PCA does not "choose" some of your features and remove the rest.
So you should not still be thinking about the original features after running PCA.
It is well-explained here on Wikipedia. You are converting your samples from the space defined by your original features to a space where features are linearly uncorrelated and called "principal components". Note: these components are no longer the original features.
An example of this in 2D could be: you have a vector z=(2,3) defined in your Euclidean space. It needs 2 features (the x and the y). If we change the space and define it using the coordinate vectors v=(2,3) and w an orthogonal vector to v, then z=(1,0) i.e. z=1.v+0.w and can now be represented with only 1 feature (the first coordinate!).
The link that you shared explains exactly (in the selected answer) how you can go about using the outputs of the pca function to reduce your dimensionality.
(As noted by Ander you do not care about the last components since these are the weakest anyway and you want to drop them)
I am trying to classify human activities in videos(six classes and almost 100 videos per class, 6*100=600 videos). I am using 3D SIFT(both xy and t scale=1) from UCF.
for f= 1:20
f
offset = 0;
c=strcat('running',num2str(f),'.mat');
load(c)
pix=video3Dm;
% Generate descriptors at locations given by subs matrix
for i=1:100
reRun = 1;
while reRun == 1
loc = subs(i+offset,:);
fprintf(1,'Calculating keypoint at location (%d, %d, %d)\n',loc);
% Create a 3DSIFT descriptor at the given location
[keys{i} reRun] = Create_Descriptor(pix,1,1,loc(1),loc(2),loc(3));
if reRun == 1
offset = offset + 1;
end
end
end
fprintf(1,'\nFinished...\n%d points thrown out do to poor descriptive ability.\n',offset);
for t1=1:20
des(t1+((f-1)*100),:)=keys{1,t1}.ivec;
end
f
end
My approach is to first get 50 descriptors(of 640 dimension) for one video, and then perform bag of words with all descriptors(on 50*600= 30000 descriptors). After performing Kmeans(with 1000 k value)
idx1000=kmeans(double(total_des),1000);
I am getting 30k of length index vector. Then I am creating histogram signature of each video based on their index values in clusters. Then perform svmtrain(sum in matlab) on signetures(dim-600*1000).
Some potential problems-
1-I am generating random 300 points in 3D to calculate 50 descriptors on any 50 points from those points 300 points.
2- xy, and time scale values, by default they are "1".
3-Cluster numbers, I am not sure that k=1000 is enough for 30000x640 data.
4-svmtrain, I am using this matlab library.
NOTE: Everything is on MATLAB.
Your basic setup seems correct especially given that you are getting 85-95% accuracy. Now, it's just a matter of tuning your procedure. Unfortunately, there is no way to do this other than testing a variety of parameters examining the results and repeating. I going to break this answer into two parts. Advice about bag of words features, and advice about SVM classifiers.
Tuning Bag of Words Features
You are using 50 3D SIFT Features per video from randomly selected points with a vocabulary of 1000 visual words. As you've already mentioned, the size of the vocabulary is one parameter you can adjust. So is the number of descriptors per video.
Let's say that each video is 60 frames long, (at 30 fps only 2 sec, but let's assume you are sampling at 1fps for a 1 minute video). That means you are capturing less than one descriptor per frame. That seems very low to me even with 3D descriptors especially if the locations are randomly chosen.
I would manually examine the points for which you are generating features. Do they appear be well distributed in both space and time? Are you capturing too much background? Ask yourself, would I be able to distinguish between actions given these features?
If you find that many of the selected points are uninformative, increasing the number of points may help. The kmeans clustering can make a few groups for uninformative outliers, and more points means you hopefully capture a few more informative points. You can also try other methods for selecting points. For example, you could use corner points.
You can also manually examine the points that are clustered together. What sorts of structures do the groups have in common? Are the clusters too mixed? That's usually a sign that you need a larger vocabulary.
Tuning SVMs
Using the Matlab SVM implementation or the Libsvm implementation should not make a difference. They are both the same method and have similar tuning options.
First off, you should really be using cross-validation to tune the SVM to avoid overfitting on your test set.
The most powerful parameter for the SVM is the kernel choice. In Matlab, there are five built in kernel options, and you can also define your own. The kernels also have parameters of their own. For example, the gaussian kernel has a scaling factor, sigma. Typically, you start off with a simple kernel and compare to more complex kernels. For example, start with linear, then test quadratic, cubic and gaussian. To compare, you can simply look at your mean cross-validation accuracy.
At this point, the last option is to look at individual instances that are misclassified and try to identify reasons that they may be more difficult than others. Are there commonalities such as occlusion? Also look directly at the visual words that were selected for these instances. You may find something you overlooked when you were tuning your features.
Good luck!
I was reading this particular paper http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/publications/2011/Chatfield11/chatfield11.pdf and I find the Fisher Vector with GMM vocabulary approach very interesting and I would like to test it myself.
However, it is totally unclear (to me) how do they apply PCA dimensionality reduction on the data. I mean, do they calculate Feature Space and once it is calculated they perform PCA on it? Or do they just perform PCA on every image after SIFT is calculated and then they create feature space?
Is this supposed to be done for both training test sets? To me it's an 'obviously yes' answer, however it is not clear.
I was thinking of creating the feature space from training set and then run PCA on it. Then, I could use that PCA coefficient from training set to reduce each image's sift descriptor that is going to be encoded into Fisher Vector for later classification, whether it is a test or a train image.
EDIT 1;
Simplistic example:
[coef , reduced_feat_space]= pca(Feat_Space','NumComponents', 80);
and then (for both test and train images)
reduced_test_img = test_img * coef; (And then choose the first 80 dimensions of the reduced_test_img)
What do you think? Cheers
It looks to me like they do SIFT first and then do PCA. the article states in section 2.1 "The local descriptors are fixed in all experiments to be SIFT descriptors..."
also in the introduction section "the following three steps:(i) extraction
of local image features (e.g., SIFT descriptors), (ii) encoding of the local features in an image descriptor (e.g., a histogram of the quantized local features), and (iii) classification ... Recently several authors have focused on improving the second component" so it looks to me that the dimensionality reduction occurs after SIFT and the paper is simply talking about a few different methods of doing this, and the performance of each
I would also guess (as you did) that you would have to run it on both sets of images. Otherwise your would be using two different metrics to classify the images it really is like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing a reduced dimensional representation to the full one (even for the same exact image) will show some variation. In fact that is the whole premise of PCA, you are giving up some smaller features (usually) for computational efficiency. The real question with PCA or any dimensionality reduction algorithm is how much information can I give up and still reliably classify/segment different data sets
And as a last point, you would have to treat both images the same way, because your end goal is to use the Fisher Feature Vector for classification as either test or training. Now imagine you decided training images dont get PCA and test images do. Now I give you some image X, what would you do with it? How could you treat one set of images differently from another BEFORE you've classified them? Using the same technique on both sets means you'd process my image X then decide where to put it.
Anyway, I hope that helped and wasn't to rant-like. Good Luck :-)
first of all this is my first question here, so I hope I can explain it in a clear way.
My goal is to detect different classes of traffic signs in images. For that purpose I have trained binary SVMs following these steps:
First I got a database of cropped traffic signs like the one in the link. I considered different classes (prohibition, danger, etc), and negative images. All of them were scaled to 40x40 pixels.
http://i.imgur.com/Hm9YyZT.jpg
I trained linear-SVM models for each class (1-vs-all), using HOG as feature. Each image is described with a 1728-dimensional feature. (I append the three feature vectors for all three image planes). I did crossvalidation to set parameter C, and tested on previously unseen 40x40 images, and I got very accurate results (F1 score over 0.9 for all classes). I used libsvm for training and testing.
Now I'd want to detect signs in full road images, sliding a window in different image scales. The problem I'm facing is that I couldn't find any function that can do it for me (as DetectMultiScale in OpenCV), and my solution is very slow and rudimentary (I'm just doing a triple for loop, and for each scale I crop consecutive and overlapping 40x40 images, obtain HOG features and apply svmpredict for each one).
Can someone give me a clue to find a faster way to do it? I thought too about getting the HOG feature vector of the whole input image, and then reorder that vector to a matrix where each row will have the features corresponding to each 40x40 window, but I couldn't find a straightforward way of doing it.
Thanks,
I would suggest using SURF feature detection, however I don't know if this would also be too slow your needs.
See : http://morf.lv/modules.php?name=tutorials&lasit=2 for more information on how to implement and weather it is a viable solution for you.
I don't clearly understand how imresize works, especially when we are downscaling an image (say from 4x4 to 2x2). When we're upscaling it's easier to understand. I mean we've to just find intermediate points by either seeing which known point is closer (method = 'nearest') or use linear averaging of 4 closest known points (method = 'bilinear') and so on. We do not need any filter for this right?
And my main doubt is when we downscale. I understand from signal processing classes that to avoid aliasing a smoothening low pass filter must be applied before we decimate intermediate values. But which filter is MATLAB using? They just say methods and I don't understand how we can use 'bilinear' or 'bicubic' as a kernel.
Thank you for reading.
The documentation for the function seems to be incomplete. Open the imresize.m (edit imresize) and take a look at the contributions-function.
There you can see, that matlab is not using a 2x2 neibourhood when using the bilinear or bicubic-method and downscaling. The kernel size is increased to avoid aliasing.
Some explanations about the Math behind imresize. To simplify, I will explain the 1D case only. When a scale <1 is used, the window size is increased. This means, the resulting value is no longer the weighted average of the 2 (2x2 for images) Neighbours. Instead a larger window size of w (wxw) is used.
Start with the standard method:
The Image shows the common case, two known grid values averaged to a new one with the weights 1/5 and 4/5. Instead of the well known definition, the weights could also be defined drawing a triangle with the base w=2:
Now increasing the base of the triangle, we get the weights for a larger window size. A base of w=6 is drawn:
The new triangle defines the weight over 6 points.