We have Google Natural AI integrated into our product for Sentiment Analysis (https://cloud.google.com/natural-language). One of the customers complained that when they write "BAD" then it shows a positive sentiment.
On further investigation, we found that when google Sentiment Analysis Natural Language API is called with input as BAD or Bad (pls see its in all caps or first letter caps ), it identifies text as an entity (a location or consumer good) & sends back the result as Positive while when we write "bad" in all small case, it sends negative.
Has anyone faced a similar problem? How did you solve it?
One obvious way looks like converting text into a small case but that may break some other use cases (maybe where entities do not get analyzed due to a small case text). Another way which we are building is to use our own dictionary of words with sentiments before calling google APIs but that doesn't answer the said problem, which may occur with any other text.
Inputs will help us. Thank you!
The NLP API uses an underlying model that is neural in nature. The knowledge comes from training on real world text. It is normal to get different results for different capitalizations as they can relate to different uses of the same trigram, e.g. Mike (person), mike (microphone, slang), MIKE (military alphabet entry).
The second key aspect is that the model is tuned and meant to be used on larger pieces of text and not on single words, hence good results can not be expected in this case.
When I search for a keyword in the original language of an uploaded video, I get no results, whereas if I use the translated keyword in English, results are returned correctly. Here are the steps I used:
Logged into Azure Video Indexer.
Uploaded a video whose audio is in Arabic. Made sure the correct language, Arabic, is selected.
Waited until indexer completed the indexing.
Searched for a keyword in Arabic like 'حديث', but got no results.
Changed the filter by selecting a language from the dropdown (I chose Arabic, which then added a tag Language: ar-EG to the filter.
Yet again, the search returned no results.
When searched for the translated text: Talk, which is in English, the results were returned as expected.
I haven't tried to use the API instead of the Web UI, but I think I may have made a mistake somewhere.
Did anyone face a similar issue? Or is there anything I'm doing incorrectly?
Thanks
Video indexer team fix this issue.
You should see now the expected video when search Arabic keyword.
I am going to build a speech recognition program based on Hidden Markov Model. Unfortunately, I don't know how to get an input sound sequence, and, well, work with it. Can anyone tell me what is the general approach for reading values from a sound file format (i.e. .wav, .mp3, etc)and slicing a soundtrack into pieces in C++?
The general approach is to convert an input sound into the sequence of feature vectors (usually, MFCCs). This process is described in general in CMU Sphinx wiki, and described in details in HTK Book. You might also want to study the general-purpose openSMILE toolkit to see how it is done in C++.
I am trying to create C++ code that allows User Input in selecting a variety of fields, then it will calculate many different angles and show the users the results, as well as a graph.
However, it has been suggested to us by our lecturer that it may be a good idea to write the code to these calculations etc in C++, then input the results into Excel.
Does anyone have any idea how to do this? Literally looking for a way for the user to fill in the required values on C++ and then to be AUTOMATICALLY taken to the excel file to show the results in the table and graph format.
If this is not possible, is there a way to display the results in the table and graph format through C++?
Thanks very much in advance
Excel provides COM interface which you can use from your C++ application.
This can be done in the way described in this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216686
This link might also be useful:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/10886/How-to-use-Managed-C-to-Automate-Excel
I think the second link would be better for you as its more of a step by step guide which should help you to workout the answer.
Use COM Automation to automate excel.
The best way to do this is to use the vole library by Matthew Wilson at
http://vole.sourceforge.net/
Take a look at the examples. I do not think there is an example for excel, but there is one for microsoft word at http://www.codeproject.com/KB/COM/VOLE_word.aspx
I have used vole in the past, and it makes it a whole lot easier
Last night before going to bed, I browsed through the Scalar Data section of Learning Perl again and came across the following sentence:
the ability to have any character in a string means you can create, scan, and manipulate raw binary data as strings.
An idea immediately hit me that I could actually let Perl scan the pictures that I have stored on my hard disk to check if they contain the string Adobe. It seems by doing so, I can tell which of them have been photoshopped. So I tried to implement the idea and came up with the following code:
#!perl
use autodie;
use strict;
use warnings;
{
local $/="\n\n";
my $dir = 'f:/TestPix/';
my #pix = glob "$dir/*";
foreach my $file (#pix) {
open my $pic,'<', "$file";
while(<$pic>) {
if (/Adobe/) {
print "$file\n";
}
}
}
}
Excitingly, the code seems to be really working and it does the job of filtering out the pictures that have been photoshopped. But problem is many pictures are edited by other utilities. I think I'm kind of stuck there. Do we have some simple but universal method to tell if a digital picture has been edited or not, something like
if (!= /the origianl format/) {...}
Or do we simply have to add more conditions? like
if (/Adobe/|/ACDSee/|/some other picture editors/)
Any ideas on this? Or am I oversimplifying due to my miserably limited programming knowledge?
Thanks, as always, for any guidance.
Your best bet in Perl is probably ExifTool. This gives you access to whatever non-image information is embedded into the image. However, as other people said, it's possible to strip this information out, of course.
I'm not going to say there is absolutely no way to detect alterations in an image, but the problem is extremely difficult.
The only person I know of who claims to have an answer is Dr. Neal Krawetz, who claims that digitally altered parts of an image will have different compression error rates from the original portions. He claims that re-saving a JPEG at different quality levels will highlight these differences.
I have not found this to be the case, in my investigations, but perhaps you might have better results.
No. There is no functional distinction between a perfectly edited image, and one which was the way it is from the start - it's all just a bag of pixels in the end, after all, and any other metadata you can remove or forge all you want.
The name of the graphics program used to edit the image is not part of the image data itself but of something called meta data - which may be stored in the image file but, as others have noted, is neither required (so some programs may not store it, some may allow you an option of not storing it) nor reliable - if you forged an image, you might have forged the meta data as well.
So the answer to your question is "no, there's no way to universally tell if the pic was edited or not, although some image editing software may write its signature into the image file and it'll be left there by carelessness of the editing person.
If you're inclined to learn more about image processing in Perl, you could take a look at some of the excellent modules CPAN has to offer:
Image::Magick - read, manipulate and write of a large number of image file formats
GD - create colour drawings using a large number of graphics primitives, and emit the drawings in various formats.
GD::Graph - create charts
GD::Graph3d - create 3D Graphs with GD and GD::Graph
However, there are other utilities available for identifying various image formats. It's more of a question for Super User, but for various unix distros you can use file to identify many different types of files, and for MacOSX, Graphic Converter has never let me down. (It was even able to open the bizarre multi-file X-ray of my cat's shattered pelvis that I got on a disc from the vet.)
How would you know what the original format was? I'm pretty sure there's no guaranteed way to tell if an image has been modified.
I can just open the file (with my favourite programming language and filesystem API) and just write whatever I want into that file willy-nilly. As long as I don't screw something up with the file format, you'd never know it happened.
Heck, I could print the image out and then scan it back in; how would you tell it from an original?
As other's have stated, there is no way to know if the image was doctored. I'm guessing what you basically want to know is the difference between a realistic photograph and one that has been enhanced or modified.
There's always the option of running some extremely complex image recognition algorithm that would analyze every pixel in your image and do some very complicated stuff to determine if the image was doctored or not. This solution would probably involve AI which would examine millions of photos that are both doctored and those that are not and learn from them. However, this is more of a theoretical solution and isn't very practical... you would probably only see it in movies. It would be extremely complex to develop and probably take years. And even if you did get something like this to work, it probably still wouldn't be 100% correct all the time. I'm guessing AI technology still isn't at that level and could take a while until it is.
A not-commonly-known feature of exiftool allows you to recognize the originating software through an analysis of the JPEG quantization tables (not relying on image metadata). It recognizes tables written by many applications. Note that some cameras may use the same quantization tables as some applications, so this isn't a 100% solution, but it is worth looking into. Here is an example of exiftool run on two images, the first was edited by photoshop.
> exiftool -jpegdigest a.jpg b.jpg
======== a.jpg
JPEG Digest : Adobe Photoshop, Quality 10
======== b.jpg
JPEG Digest : Canon EOS 30D/40D/50D/300D, Normal
2 image files read
This will work even if the metadata has been removed.
There is existing software out there which uses various techniques (compression artifacting, comparison to signature profiles in a database of cameras, etc.) to analyze the actual image data for evidence of alteration. If you have access to such software and the software available to you provides an API for external access to these analysis functions, then there's a decent chance that a Perl module exists which will interface with that API and, if no such module exists, it could probably be created rather quickly.
In theory, it would also be possible to implement the image analysis code directly in native Perl, but I'm not aware of anyone having done so and I expect that you'd be better off writing something that low-level and processor-intensive in a fully-compiled language (e.g., C/C++) rather than in Perl.
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
is a tool that does the job almost good
If there has been any cloning , there is a variation in the pixel density..or concentration which sometimes shows up.. upon manual inspection
a Photoshop cloned area will have even pixel density(my meaning is variation of Pixels wrt a scanned image)