currently I'm dealing with implementing a CBIR-System for object recognition (object classification in detail) and now since I have some working feature-detectors and -descriptors I try to find the best way for handling these features for the task of content based image retrieval.
As far as I know there are two main trends for this task, the discrete- and the continuous-approach. Where discrete stands for methods like bag-of-visual words and codebooks for building up inverted indices to apply methods referring text-retrieval, and continuous stands for methods like Best Bin First search with k-d trees and nearest neighbor classification.
So one main difference between those both approaches is, one works with an extra representation for features like visual-words and the other one works with the n-D features calculated from the descriptor.
My question is now, is there any comparison between the two method for CBIR which could help me in finding the best approach for my task?
The full answer to this question would be quite complex and long.
but generally, a continuous method can give you more accurate results, but it's slower as you can effectively build a search index, and you need to work with large descriptors.
you should consider a combination that uses discrete features (visual words) for initial results, and afterwards filter the result set using continuous methods.
Related
I work on palmprint recognition using feature2D with Open_CV library, and I use algorithms such as SIFT, SURF, ORB... to detect features and extract/match descriptors. My test include (1 vs 1) palmprint and also (1 vs Data Base) of palmprint.
Ones I get the result, I need to evaluate the algorithm, and for this I know that there are some rates or scores (like EER, rank-1 identification, recall and accuracy) which gives an estimation about how much this method was successful. Now I need to know if any of those rates are implemented in Open_CV, and how to use them. If they aren't, what are the different formulas used in the literary.
As far as I know there is little implemented in OpenCV. A common way is to store the results (e.g. in JSON) and process those with other programs such as Matlab or Python. This also allows you to change the evaluation without the need to recompute the algorithms.
There is no overall best method to show the results. It always depends on what you want to show. In my opinion ROC is the best way to express your output. It is also very widely used in research.
If you insist on doing it in C++, then you could use:
Roceasy or
DLIB
The problem is simple, just like the query_pair method in python scipy kdtree implmentation.
I want a c/c++ version of that. However, I find typically a kd-tree implementation only offer API of NN, k-NN, Range query.
I try to implement query_pair in c++ by using range query as the building blocks. However, in this way, I have to filter the result since each pair of point will be found twice. The performance is not good enough.
I want to know two thing:
is there any way specifically for efficient point pair query? even an approximate one is enough.
in some paper 'Reduced hair models', it said that k-NN is more efficient than fixed range search because of more efficient pruning. Why?
As per my search regarding the query, that I am posting here, I have got many links which propose solution but haven't mentioned exactly how this is to be done. I have explored, for example, the following links :
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
etc.
Therefore, I am presenting my understanding as to how the Naive Bayes formula with tf-idf can be used here and it is as follows:
Naive-Bayes formula :
P(word|class)=(word_count_in_class + 1)/(total_words_in_class+total_unique_words_in_all_classes(basically vocabulary of words in the entire training set))
tf-idf weighting can be employed in the above formula as:
word_count_in_class : sum of(tf-idf_weights of the word for all the documents belonging to that class) //basically replacing the counts with the tfidf weights of the same word calculated for every document within that class.
total_words_in_class : sum of (tf-idf weights of all the words belonging to that class)
total_unique_words_in_all_classes : as is.
This question has been posted multiple times on stack overflow but nothing substantial has been answered so far. I want to know that the way I am thinking about the problem is correct or not i.e. implementation that I have shown above. I need to know this as I am implementing the Naive Bayes myself without taking help of any Python library which comes with the built-in functions for both Naive Bayes and tf-idf. What I actually want is to improve the accuracy(currently 30%) of the model which was using Naive Bayes trained classifier. So, if there are better ways to achieve good accuracy, suggestions are welcome.
Please suggest me. I am new to this domain.
It would be better if you actually gave us the exact features and class you would like to use, or at least give an example. Since none of those have been concretely given, I'll just assume the following is your problem:
You have a number of documents, each of which has a number of words.
You would like to classify documents into categories.
Your feature vector consists of all possible words in all documents, and has values of number of counts in each document.
Your Solution
The tf idf you gave is the following:
word_count_in_class : sum of(tf-idf_weights of the word for all the documents belonging to that class) //basically replacing the counts with the tfidf weights of the same word calculated for every document within that class.
total_words_in_class : sum of (tf-idf weights of all the words belonging to that class)
Your approach sounds reasonable. The sum of all probabilities would sum to 1 independent of the tf-idf function, and the features would reflect tf-idf values. I would say this looks like a solid way to incorporate tf-idf into NB.
Another potential Solution
It took me a while to wrap my head around this problem. The main reason for this was having to worry about maintaining probability normalization. Using a Gaussian Naive Bayes would help ignore this issue entirely.
If you wanted to use this method:
Compute mean, variation of tf-idf values for each class.
Compute the prior using a gaussian distribution generated by the above mean and variation.
Proceed as normal (multiply to prior) and predict values.
Hard coding this shouldn't be too hard since numpy inherently has a gaussian function. I just prefer this type of generic solution for these type of problems.
Additional methods to increase
Apart from the above, you could also use the following techniques to increase accuracy:
Preprocessing:
Feature reduction (usually NMF, PCA, or LDA)
Additional features
Algorithm:
Naive bayes is fast, but inherently performs worse than other algorithms. It may be better to perform feature reduction, and then switch to a discriminative model such as SVM or Logistic Regression
Misc.
Bootstrapping, boosting, etc. Be careful not to overfit though...
Hopefully this was helpful. Leave a comment if anything was unclear
P(word|class)=(word_count_in_class+1)/(total_words_in_class+total_unique_words_in_all_classes
(basically vocabulary of words in the entire training set))
How would this sum up to 1? If using the above conditional probabilities, I assume the SUM is
P(word1|class)+P(word2|class)+...+P(wordn|class) =
(total_words_in_class + total_unique_words_in_class)/(total_words_in_class+total_unique_words_in_all_classes)
To correct this, I think the P(word|class) should be like
(word_count_in_class + 1)/(total_words_in_class+total_unique_words_in_classes(vocabulary of words in class))
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think there are two ways to do it:
Round down tf-idf as integers, then use the multinomial distribution for the conditional probabilities. See this paper https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/publications/2004/kibriya_et_al_cr.pdf.
Use Dirichlet distribution which is a continuous version of the multinomial distribution for the conditional probabilities.
I am not sure if Gaussian mixture will be better.
I'm doing a project exploring the use of genetic algorithms in architecture, where we use an evolutionary approach for creating Voronoi tessellation in 3d. This is done using ofxVoro++ for openFrameworks (c++).
Our chromosomes for the Genomes is a vector (list) of points in 3D. We have implemented single- and two-point crossover and a mutation, which randomises these points with a certain probability. In most examples I've seen, the genome is encoded binarily, which I presume would cause mutation and crossover to act differently.
So my question is this: Are there any other benefits to binary encoding (except speed) and how would you handle such an encoding/decoding in c++? Going from binary to a list of 3d-points.
Best regards,
Fred
I used different GA in logistic and finance problems. Very often I do not use binary representation.
The first example that I can give you is the TSP problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
Here I used standard representation: the chromosome is an array of integer, each value represents the city.
So, it depends on the type of problem that you are trying to solve, if you can find a way to implement the GA without a binary representation you do not need any adjustment.
Furthermore I prefer the natural representation because is more simple to understand, while debugging the code, if your GA is working as you want.
You can use real encoding also, but in this case is important what crossover and mutation you use. If your crossover is simply (p1+p2) / 2 or p1*a + p2*(1-a), you will not get good results.
A good crossover operator for real encoding was proposed by K. Deb in 1995. Here is the paper: http://www.complex-systems.com/pdf/09-2-2.pdf
Crossover and mutation are different operators. Crossover uses existing genetic. Mutation introduces new genetic material into the population. Without knowing much more info about your algorithm, randomizing points sounds like mutation. Mutation is typically performed a very low percent of the time (maybe 1%) where crossover can be rather high (50%).
So for your algorithm, I would not "modify" anything for crossover. Instead, for crossover, I would try to reposition material or simply take different portions of points from parents.
For mutation, it might make sense to add or subtract a small number to the points, thus modifying the points (mutation).
It is difficult to make suggestions without knowing more about your algorithm and chromosome representation.
I have a data set with about 700 000 entries, and each entry is a set of 3D coordinates with attributes such as name, timestamp, ID, and so on.
Right now I'm just reading the coordinates and render them as points in OpenGL. However I want to associate each point with its corresponding attributes and I want to be able to sort and pick them during runtime based on their attributes. How would I go about to achieve this in an efficient manner?
I know I can put I can put the data in a struct and use stl sort for sorting, but is that a good design choice or is there a more efficient/elegant way of handling the problem?
The way I tend to look at these design choices is to first use one of the standard library containers (btw, if you need to "just" do lookup you don't necessarily have to sort, but you need a container that allows lookup), then check if this an "efficient enough" solution for the problem.
You can usually come up with a custom solution that is more efficient and maybe more elegant but you tend to run into two issues with that:
1) You end up having to implement some type of a container, which will cost you time both in implementation and debugging compared to a well understood and tested container that is already out there. Most of the time you're better off trying to solve the problem at hand rather than make it bigger by adding more code.
2) If someone else will have to maintain your code at some point, chances are they are familiar with standard library components both from a design and implementation perspective, but they won't be familiar with your custom container, thus increasing the learning curve.
If you consider each attribute of your point class as a component of a vector, then your selection process is a region query. Your example of a string attribute being equal to something means that the region is actually a line in your data space. However, there won't be any sorting made on other attributes within that selection, you will have to implement it by yourself, but it should be relatively straightforward for octrees, which partition data in ordered regions.
As advocated in another answer, try existing standard solutions first. If you can find an of the shelf implementation of one of these data structures:
R-tree
KD tree
BSP
Octree, or more likely, a n dimensional version of the quadtree or octree principle (I will use the term octree herein to denote the general data structure)
then go for it. These are the data structures I recommend for spatial data management.
You could also use an embedded RDBMS capable of working with spatial data (they usually implement R-tree for spatial indexing), but it may not be interesting if your dataset isn't dynamic.
If your dataset falls within the 10000 entries range, then by today standards it isn't that large, so using simpler structures should suffice. In that perimeter, I would go first for a simple std::vector, and use std::sort and std::find to filter the data in smaller set and sort it afterward.
I would probably try an ordered set or map on the most queried attribute in a second attempt, then do some benchmarks to pick the more performing solution.
For a more efficient one dimensional indexing algorithm (in essence, that`s what sets and maps are), you might want to try B-trees: there's C++ implementation available from google.
My third attempt would go toward an OpenCL solution (although if you are doing heavy OpenGL rendering, you might prefer doing the work on the CPU instead, but that depends on your framerate needs).
If your dataset is much larger, as it seems to be, then consider one of the more complex solutions I listed initially.
At any rate, without more details about your dataset and how you plan to use it, it will be difficult to provide a good solution, so the only real advice we can give is: try everthing you can and benchmark.
If you're dealing with point clouds, take a look at PCL, it could save you a lot of time and effort without having to dig into the intricacies of spatial indexing yourself. It also includes visualisation.