I need to classify pairs of image and indicate whether they're the same of not. I use several descriptors as SIFT LBP and more.
I want now to use LIBSVM to do the training and test.
how can I use teh svmTrain.
should I save only the distance between 2 descriptors and then just have 1 1:SIftDelta, 2:LBPDelta
is this the correct way or is there any better approach?
thanks
I'm not sure this is the right forum for this question, as it deals more with "high level" notions of learning, rather the specific implementation of it in Matlab.
Having said that, it seems like you are trying to combine multiple cues for learning, which is not a trivial task.
I can propose two methods for you:
Direct method - just concatenate all your descriptors into a single, very long, one and do the learning in this high dimensional space.
Do the learning in two stages (consequently, you'll have to partition your training data into two):
At the first stage, learn K classifiers, each using a different descriptor (assuming you wish to use K different descriptors).
Then, at the second stage, (using the reminder of your training data), you classify each example using the K classifiers you have: this will give you a new K-dimensional feature vector for each sample (you can put the classification result, or use the distance from the separating hyper plane to populate the k-th entry in the new descriptor). Now you can train a second classifier on the new K-dimension vectors. This second classifier gives you the final output of your multi-descriptor system.
-Enjoy!
Related
I am a student and working on my first simple machine learning project. The project is about classifying articles into fake and true. I want to use SVM as classification algorithm and two different types of features:
TF-IDF
Lexical Features like the count of exclamation marks and numbers
I have figured out how to use the lexical features and TF-IDF as a features separately. However, I have not managed to figure out, how to combine them.
Is it possible, to train and test two separate learning algorithms (one with TF-IDF and the other one with lexical features) and later combine the results?
For example, can I calculate Accuracy, Precision and Recall for both separately and then take the average?
One way of combining two models is called model stacking. The idea behind it is, that you take the predictions of both models and feed them into a third model (called meta-model) which is then trained to make predictions given the output of the first two models. There is also another version of model stacking where you aditionally feed the original features into the meta-model.
However, in your case another way to combine both approaches would be to simply feed both the TF-IDF and the lexical features into one model and see how that performs.
For example, can I calculate Accuracy, Precision and Recall for both separately and then take the average?
This would unfortunately not work, because there is no combined model making those predictions for which your calculated metrics would be true.
Self organizing maps are more suited for clustering(dimension reduction) rather than classification. But SOM's are used in Linear vector quantization for fine tuning. But LVQ is a supervised leaning method. So to use SOM's in LVQ, LVQ should be provided with a labelled training data set. But since SOM's only do clustering and not classification and thus cannot have labelled data how can SOM be used as an input for LVQ?
Does LVQ fine tune the clusters in SOM?
Before using in LVQ should SOM be put through another classification algorithm so that it can classify the inputs so that these labelled inputs maybe used in LVQ?
It must be clear that supervised differs from unsupervised because in the first the target values are known.
Therefore, the output of supervised models is a prediction.
Instead, the output of unsupervised models is a label for which we don't know the meaning yet. For this purpose, after clustering, it is necessary to do the profiling of each one of those new label.
Having said so, you could label the dataset using an unsupervised learning technique such as SOM. Then, you should profile each class in order to be sure to understand the meaning of each class.
At this point, you can pursue two different path depending on what is your final objective:
1. use this new variable as a way for dimensionality reduction
2. use this new dataset featured with the additional variable representing the class as a labelled data that you will try to predict using the LVQ
Hope this can be useful!
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 :-)
My task is to classify time-series data with use of MATLAB and any neural-network framework.
Describing task more specifically:
Is is a problem from computer-vision field. Is is a scene boundary detection task.
Source data are 4 arrays of neighbouring frame histogram correlations from the videoflow.
Based on this data, we have to classify this timeseries with 2 classes:
"scene break"
"no scene break"
So network input is 4 double values for each source data entry, and output is one binary value. I am going to show example of src data below:
0.997894,0.999413,0.982098,0.992164
0.998964,0.999986,0.999127,0.982068
0.993807,0.998823,0.994008,0.994299
0.225917,0.000000,0.407494,0.400424
0.881150,0.999427,0.949031,0.994918
Problem is that pattern-recogition tools from Matlab Neural Toolbox (like patternnet) threat source data like independant entrues. But I have strong belief that results will be precise only if net take decision based on the history of previous correlations.
But I also did not manage to get valid response from reccurent nets which serve time series analysis (like delaynet and narxnet).
narxnet and delaynet return lousy result and it looks like these types of networks not supposed to solve classification tasks. I am not insert any code here while it is allmost totally autogenerated with use of Matlab Neural Toolbox GUI.
I would apprecite any help. Especially, some advice which tool fits better for accomplishing my task.
I am not sure how difficult to classify this problem.
Given your sample, 4 input and 1 output feed-forward neural network is sufficient.
If you insist on using historical inputs, you simply pre-process your input d, such that
Your new input D(t) (a vector at time t) is composed of d(t) is a 1x4 vector at time t; d(t-1) is 1x4 vector at time t-1;... and d(t-k) is a 1x4 vector at time t-k.
If t-k <0, just treat it as '0'.
So you have a 1x(4(k+1)) vector as input, and 1 output.
Similar as Dan mentioned, you need to find a good k.
Speaking of the weights, I think additional pre-processing like windowing method on the input is not necessary, since neural network would be trained to assign weights to each input dimension.
It sounds a bit messy, since the neural network would consider each input dimension independently. That means you lose the information as four neighboring correlations.
One possible solution is the pre-processing extracts the neighborhood features, e.g. using mean and std as two features representative for the originals.
I am trying to differentiate two populations. Each population is an NxM matrix in which N is fixed between the two and M is variable in length (N=column specific attributes of each run, M=run number). I have looked at PCA and K-means for differentiating the two, but I was curious of the best practice.
To my knowledge, in K-means, there is no initial 'calibration' in which the clusters are chosen such that known bimodal populations can be differentiated. It simply minimizes the distance and assigns the data to an arbitrary number of populations. I would like to tell the clustering algorithm that I want the best fit in which the two populations are separated. I can then use the fit I get from the initial clustering on future datasets. Any help, example code, or reading material would be appreciated.
-R
K-means and PCA are typically used in unsupervised learning problems, i.e. problems where you have a single batch of data and want to find some easier way to describe it. In principle, you could run K-means (with K=2) on your data, and then evaluate the degree to which your two classes of data match up with the data clusters found by this algorithm (note: you may want multiple starts).
It sounds to like you have a supervised learning problem: you have a training data set which has already been partitioned into two classes. In this case k-nearest neighbors (as mentioned by #amas) is probably the approach most like k-means; however Support Vector Machines can also be an attractive approach.
I frequently refer to The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition (Springer Series in Statistics) by Trevor Hastie (Author), Robert Tibshirani (Author), Jerome Friedman (Author).
It really depends on the data. But just to let you know K-means does get stuck at local minima so if you wanna use it try running it from different random starting points. PCA's might also be useful how ever like any other spectral clustering method you have much less control over the clustering procedure. I recommend that you cluster the data using k-means with multiple random starting points and c how it works then you can predict and learn for each the new samples with K-NN (I don't know if it is useful for your case).
Check Lazy learners and K-NN for prediction.