I have written matlab codes for two different block matching algorithms, extensive search and three step search, but i am not sure how i can check whether i am getting the correct results. Is there any standard way to check these or any standard code which i can run and compare my result with.I read somewhere that JM software can be used but i didnt find any way to use it.
You can always use the results produced by your algorithms to create the next frame of video and then analyze its quality by either visually inspecting it (which is rather subjective, and we like to deal in numbers) or calculating the mean square error between the produced image and the one you're trying to estimate. Mean square error of the exhaustive (extensive) search should be lower than the one three-step gives you.
Well, did you try to plot it? I mean,after the block-matching you have a new image, right?.
A way to know if you result if true or not is to check the sum of the difference of 2 frames.
A - pre_frame
B - post_frame
C - Compensated frame
If abs(abs(A-B)) is lower than abs(abs(A-C))) that mean it could be true.
Next time, try to specify your algoritm. Also, put your code here to help you more.
Related
I know it sounds strange and that's a bad way to write a question,but let me show you this odd behavior.
as you can see this signal, r5, is nice and clean. exactly what I expected from my simulation.
now look at this:
this is EXACTLY the same simulation,the only difference is that the filter is now not connected. I tried for hours to find a reason,but it seems like a bug.
This is my file, you can test it yourself disconnecting the filter.
----edited.
Tried it with simulink 2014 and on friend's 2013,on two different computers...if Someone can test it on 2015 it would be great.
(attaching the filter to any other r,r1-r4 included ''fixes'' the noise (on ALL r1-r8),I tried putting it on other signals but the noise won't go away).
the expected result is exactly the smooth one, this file showed to be quite robust on other simulations (so I guess the math inside the blocks is good) and this case happens only with one of the two''link number'' (one input on the top left) set to 4,even if a small noise appears with one ''link number'' set to 3.
thanks in advance for any help.
It seems to me that the only thing the filter could affect is the time step used in the integration, assuming you are using a dynamic time step (which is the default). So, my guess is that (if this is not a bug) your system is numerically unstable/chaotic. It could also be related to noise, caused by differentiation. Differentiating noise over a smaller time step mostly makes things even worse.
Solvers such as ode23 and ode45 use a dynamic time step. ode23 compares a second and third order integration and selects the third one if the difference between the two is not too big. If the difference is too big, it does another calculation with a smaller timestep. ode45 does the same with a fourth and fifth order calculation, more accurate, but more sensitive. Instabilities can occur if a smaller time step makes things worse, which could occur if you differentiate noise.
To overcome the problem, try using a fixed time step, change your precision/solver, or better: avoid differentiation, use some type of state estimator to obtain derivatives or calculate analytically.
I want to compare a specific pattern (as on template image) and output "yes"/"no" according to the match. I don't require the method to be scale invariant. It just has to be translation invariant and rotation invariant (only till +/-2 degrees maximum)
Also, even if there's a slight mismatch between the template image and runtime image, the output should be "no".
So far, here are a couple of codes I have tried:
Template Matching by Alaa Eleyan. This detects even if the pattern has noise, which I don't want.
Simple template match. in matlab. This outputs a score of the match. The variation of scores of images with and without noise didn't seem to vary much.
Fast/Robust Template Matching by Dirk-Jan Kroon. This too detects the pattern even if it's noisy.
Template Matching using Correlation Coefficients by Yue Wu. It is similar to #3 but takes more time.
Many of them are not invariant to rotation. So at present, I match SURF features and calculate how much the runtime image has been rotated wrt template pattern. I then rotate it in the opposite direction so I need not apply an algorithm which is invariant to rotation (this is why I don't need rotation invariance).
In many cases even if there's no pattern present, it's still falsely detected. Here is a screenshot of output using #3:
Here is another such wrong output:
I have also worked on a couple of Algorithms based on SIFT/ASIFT Features earlier. They are very robust and obviously match patterns even if it's noisy. Hence, I am not using these in the present application.
I have attached an example Template image, and Yes and No images for your reference.
Please let me know an algorithm for this purpose. I thought it was a simple template match, but in many cases, it was falsely detected.
At present I think I can use #3 algorithm to at least detect the position of pattern in runtime image (as shown in 2nd screenshot above) and match this region. Is this possible? I can't use image subtraction because it's not exactly a pixel-to-pixel match. There may be very slight variations.
Any inputs will be appreciated.
Regards,
Meghana.
Edit: I tried using Zernike Moments by Amir Tahmasbi. Although I got two outputs for each image, A and phi, I am not sure if I can count on this output. The value for A seems to be very close for good ('yes') and bad ('no') images. I have the screen shot posted here, along with the two outputs for each image. For my issue, is there any other way to infer these two outputs of each image so I can categorise them as good/bad?
This is for good image:
This is for three bad images:
I'm writing code, that executes MLE. At each step, I get gradient at one point and then move along it to another point. But I have problem with determination of magnitude of the move. How to determine the best magnitude for good convergence? Can you give me an advice how to avoid other pitfalls, such as presence of several maximums?
Regarding the presence of several maxima: this issue will occur when dealing with a function that is not convex. It can be partially solved by multi-start optimization, which essentially means that you run the simulation multiple times in order to find as many maxima as possible and then selecting the 'highest' maximum from among them. Note that this does not guarantee global optimality, as the global optimum might be hard to reach (i.e. the local optima have a larger domain of attraction).
Regarding the optimal step size for convergence: you might want to look at back-tracking linesearch. A short explanation of it can be found in the answer to this question
We might be able to give you more specific help if you could give us some code to look at, as jkalden already pointed out.
I used Matlab-fminsearch for a negativ max likelihood model for a binomial distributed function. I don't get any error notice, but the parameter which I want to estimate, take always the start value. Apparently, there is a mistake. I know that I ask a totally general question. But is it possible that anybody had the same mistake and know how to deal with it?
Thanks a lot,
#woodchips, thank you a lot. Step by step, I've tried to do what you advised me. First of all, I actually maximized (-log(likelihood)) and this is not the problem. I think I found out the problem but I still have some questions, if I don't bother you. I have a model(param) to maximize in paramstart=p1. This model is built for (-log(likelihood(F))) and my F is a vectorized function like F(t,Z,X,T,param,m2,m3,k,l). I have a data like (tdata,kdata,ldata),X,T are grids and Z is a function on this grid and (m1,m2,m3) are given parameters.When I want to see the value of F(tdata,Z,X,T,m1,m2,m3,kdata,ldata), I get a good output. But I think fminsearch accept that F(tdata,Z,X,T,p,m2,m3,kdata,ldata) like a constant and thatswhy I always have as estimated parameter the start value. I will be happy, if you have any advise to tweak that.
You have some options you can try to tweak. I'd start with algorithm.
When the function value practically doesn't change around your startpoint it's also problematic. Maybe switching to log-likelyhood helps.
I always use fminunc or fmincon. They allow also providing the Hessian (typically better than "estimated") or 'typical values' so the algorithm doesn't spend time in unfeasible regions.
It is virtually always true that you should NEVER maximize a likelihood function, but ALWAYS maximize the log of that function. Floating point issues will almost always corrupt the problem otherwise. That your optimization starts and stops at the same point is a good indicator this is the problem.
You may well need to dig a little deeper than the above, but even so, this next test is the test I recommend that all users of optimization tools do for every one of their problems, BEFORE they throw a function into an optimizer. Evaluate your objective for several points in the vicinity. Does it yield significantly different values? If not, then look to see why not. Are you creating a non-smooth objective to optimize, or a zero objective? I.e., zero to within the supplied tolerances?
If it does yield different values but still not converge, then make sure you know how to call the optimizer correctly. Yeah, right, like nobody has ever made this mistake before. This is actually a very common cause of failure of optimizers.
If it does yield good values that vary, and you ARE calling the optimizer correctly, then think if there are regions into which the optimizer is trying to diverge that yield garbage results. Is the objective generating complex or imaginary results?
I have a picture.1200*1175 pixel.I want to train a net(mlp or hopfield) to learn a specific part of it(201*111pixel) to save its weight to use in a new net(with the same previous feature)only without train it to find that specific part.now there are this questions :what kind of nets is useful;mlp or hopfield,if mlp;the number of hidden layers;the trainlm function is unuseful because "out of memory" error.I convert the picture to a binary image,is it useful?
What exactly do you need the solution to do? Find an object with an image (like "Where's Waldo"?). Will the target object always be the same size and orientation? Might it look different because of lighting changes?
If you just need to find a fixed pattern of pixels within a larger image, I suggest using a straightforward correlation measure, such as crosscorrelation to find it efficiently.
If you need to contend with any of the issues mentioned above, then there are two basic solutions: 1. Build a model using examples of the object in different poses, scalings, etc. so that the model will recognize any of them, or 2. Develop a way to normalize the patch of pixels being examined, to minimize the effect of those distortions (like Hu's invariant moments). If nothing else, yuo'll want to perform some sort of data reduction to get the number of inputs down. Technically, you could also try a model which is invariant to rotations, etc., but I don't know how well those work. I suspect that they are more tempermental than traditional approaches.
I found AdaBoost to be helpful in picking out only important bits of an image. That, and resizing the image to something very tiny (like 40x30) using a Gaussian filter will speed it up and put weight on more of an area of the photo rather than on a tiny insignificant pixel.