I'm working on a model to identify bodies of water in satellite imagery. I've modified this example a bit to use a set of ~600 images I've labeled, and it's working quite well for true positives - it produces an accurate mask for imagery tiles with water in it. However, it produces some false-positives as well, generating masks for tiles that have no water in them whatsoever - tiles containing fields, buildings or parking lots, for instance. I'm not sure how to provide this sort of negative feedback to the model - adding false-positive images to the training set with an empty mask is having no effect, and I tried a training set made up of only false-positives, which just produces random noise, making me think that empty masks have no effect on this particular network.
I also tried training a binary classification network from a couple of examples I found to classify tiles as water/notwater. It doesn't seem to be working with a good enough accuracy to use a first-pass filter, with about 5k images per class. I used OSM label-maker for this, and the image sets aren't perfect - there are some water tiles in the non-water set and vice-versa, but even the training set isn't getting good accuracy (~.85 at best).
Is there a way to provide negative feedback to the binary image segmentation model? Should I use a larger training set? I'm kinda stuck here without an ability to provide negative feedback, and would appreciate any pointers on how to handle this.
Thanks!
Related
I am implementing a keypoint detection algorithm to recognize biomedical landmarks on images. I only have one type of landmark to detect. But in a single image, 1-10 of these landmarks can be present. I'm wondering what's the best way to organize the ground truth to maximize learning.
I considered creating 10 landmark coordinates per image and associate them with flags that are either 0 (not present) or 1 (present). But this doesn't seem ideal. Since the multiple landmarks in a single picture are actually the same type of biomedical element, the neural network shouldn't be trying to learn them as separate entities.
Any suggestions?
One landmark that can appear everywhere sounds like a typical CNN problem. Your CNN filters should learn which features make up the landmark, but they don't care where it appears. That would be the responsibility of the next layers. Hence, for training the CNN layers you can use a monochrome image as the target: 1 is "landmark at this pixel", 0 if not.
The next layers are basically processing the CNN-detected features. To train those, your ground truth should be basically the desired outcome. Do you just need a binary output (count>0)? A somewhat accurate estimate of the count? Coordinates? Orientation? NN's don't care that much what they learn, so just give it in training what it should produce in inference.
I'm looking for U-net implementation for landmark detection task, where the architecture is intended to be similar to the figure above. For reference please see this: An Attention-Guided Deep Regression Model for Landmark Detection in Cephalograms
From the figure, we can see the input dimension is 572x572 but the output dimension is 388x388. My question is, how do we visualize and correctly understand the cropped output? From what I know, we ideally expect the output size is the same as input size (which is 572x572) so we can apply the mask to the original image to carry out segmentation. However, from some tutorial like (this one), the author recreate the model from scratch then use "same padding" to overcome my question, but I would prefer not to use same padding to achieve same output size.
I couldn't use same padding because I choose to use pretrained ResNet34 as my encoder backbone, from PyTorch pretrained ResNet34 implementation they didn't use same padding on the encoder part, which means the result is exactly similar as what you see in the figure above (intermediate feature maps are cropped before being copied). If I would to continue building the decoder this way, the output will have smaller size compared to input image.
The question being, if I want to use the output segmentation maps, should I pad its outside until its dimension match the input, or I just resize the map? I'm worrying the first one will lost information about the boundary of image and also the latter will dilate the landmarks predictions. Is there a best practice about this?
The reason I must use a pretrained network is because my dataset is small (only 100 images), so I want to make sure the encoder can generate good enough feature maps from the experiences gained from ImageNet.
After some thinking and testing of my program, I found that PyTorch's pretrained ResNet34 didn't loose the size of image because of convolution, instead its implementation is indeed using same padding. An illustration is
Input(3,512,512)-> Layer1(64,128,128) -> Layer2(128,64,64) -> Layer3(256,32,32)
-> Layer4(512,16,16)
so we can use deconvolution (or ConvTranspose2d in PyTorch) to bring the dimension back to 128, then dilate the result 4 times bigger to get the segmentation mask (or landmarks heatmaps).
I'm working on a deep learning project and have encountered a problem. The images that I'm using are very large and extremely detailed. They also contain a huge amount of necessary visual information, so it's hard to downgrade the resolution. I've gotten around this by slicing my images into 'tiles,' with resolution 512 x 512. There are several thousand tiles for each image.
Here's the problem—the annotations are binary and the images are heterogenous. Thus, an annotation can be applied to a tile of the image that has no impact on the actual classification. How can I lessen the impact of tiles that are 'improperly' labeled.
One thought is to cluster the tiles with something like a t-SNE plot and compare the ratio of the binary annotations for different regions (or 'classes'). I could then assign weights to images based on where it's located and then use that as an extra layer in my training. Very new to all of this, so wouldn't be surprised if that's an awful idea! Just thought I'd take a stab.
For background, I'm using transfer learning on Inception v3.
I am trying to train my model which classifies images.
The problem I have is, they have different sizes. how should i format my images/or model architecture ?
You didn't say what architecture you're talking about. Since you said you want to classify images, I'm assuming it's a partly convolutional, partly fully connected network like AlexNet, GoogLeNet, etc. In general, the answer to your question depends on the network type you are working with.
If, for example, your network only contains convolutional units - that is to say, does not contain fully connected layers - it can be invariant to the input image's size. Such a network could process the input images and in turn return another image ("convolutional all the way"); you would have to make sure that the output matches what you expect, since you have to determine the loss in some way, of course.
If you are using fully connected units though, you're up for trouble: Here you have a fixed number of learned weights your network has to work with, so varying inputs would require a varying number of weights - and that's not possible.
If that is your problem, here's some things you can do:
Don't care about squashing the images. A network might learn to make sense of the content anyway; does scale and perspective mean anything to the content anyway?
Center-crop the images to a specific size. If you fear you're losing data, do multiple crops and use these to augment your input data, so that the original image will be split into N different images of correct size.
Pad the images with a solid color to a squared size, then resize.
Do a combination of that.
The padding option might introduce an additional error source to the network's prediction, as the network might (read: likely will) be biased to images that contain such a padded border.
If you need some ideas, have a look at the Images section of the TensorFlow documentation, there's pieces like resize_image_with_crop_or_pad that take away the bigger work.
As for just don't caring about squashing, here's a piece of the preprocessing pipeline of the famous Inception network:
# This resizing operation may distort the images because the aspect
# ratio is not respected. We select a resize method in a round robin
# fashion based on the thread number.
# Note that ResizeMethod contains 4 enumerated resizing methods.
# We select only 1 case for fast_mode bilinear.
num_resize_cases = 1 if fast_mode else 4
distorted_image = apply_with_random_selector(
distorted_image,
lambda x, method: tf.image.resize_images(x, [height, width], method=method),
num_cases=num_resize_cases)
They're totally aware of it and do it anyway.
Depending on how far you want or need to go, there actually is a paper here called Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolution Networks for Visual Recognition that handles inputs of arbitrary sizes by processing them in a very special way.
Try making a spatial pyramid pooling layer. Then put it after your last convolution layer so that the FC layers always get constant dimensional vectors as input . During training , train the images from the entire dataset using a particular image size for one epoch . Then for the next epoch , switch to a different image size and continue training .
I know that Cesium offers several different interpolation methods, including linear (or bilinear in 2D), Hermite, and Lagrange. One can use these methods to resample sets of points and/or create curves that approximate sampled points, etc.
However, the question I have is what method does Cesium use internally when it is rendering a 3D scene and the user is zooming/panning all over the place? This is not a case where the programmer has access to the raster, etc, so one can't just get in the middle of it all and call the interpolation functions directly. Cesium is doing its own thing as quickly as it can in response to user control.
My hunch is that the default is bilinear, but I don't know that nor can I find any documentation that explicitly says what is used. Further, is there a way I can force Cesium to use a specific resampling method during these activities, such as Lagrange resampling? That, in fact, is what I need to do: force Cesium to employ Lagrange resampling during scene rendering. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
EDIT: Here's a more detailed description of the problem…
Suppose I use Cesium to set up a 3-D model of the Earth including a greyscale image chip at its proper location on the model Earth's surface, and then I display the results in a Cesium window. If the view point is far enough from the Earth's surface, then the number of pixels displayed in the image chip part of the window will be fewer than the actual number of pixels that are available in the image chip source. Some downsampling will occur. Likewise, if the user zooms in repeatedly, there will come a point at which there are more pixels displayed across the image chip than the actual number of pixels in the image chip source. Some upsampling will occur. In general, every time Cesium draws a frame that includes a pixel data source there is resampling happening. It could be nearest neighbor (doubt it), linear (probably), cubic, Lagrange, Hermite, or any one of a number of different resampling techniques. At my company, we are using Cesium as part of a large government program which requires the use of Lagrange resampling to ensure image quality. (The NGA has deemed that best for its programs and analyst tools, and they have made it a compliance requirement. So we have no choice.)
So here's the problem: while the user is interacting with the model, for instance zooming in, the drawing process is not in the programmer's control. The resampling is either happening in the Cesium layer itself (hopefully) or in even still lower layers (for instance, the WebGL functions that Cesium may be relying on). So I have no clue which technique is used for this resampling. Worse, if that technique is not Lagrange, then I don't have any clue how to change it.
So the question(s) would be this: is Cesium doing the resampling explicitly? If so, then what technique is it using? If not, then what drawing packages and functions are Cesium relying on to render an image file onto the map? (I can try to dig down and determine what techniques those layers may be using, and/or have available.)
UPDATE: Wow, my original answer was a total misunderstanding of your question, so I've rewritten from scratch.
With the new edits, it's clear your question is about how images are resampled for the screen while rendering. These
images are texturemaps, in WebGL, and the process of getting them to the screen quickly is implemented in hardware,
on the graphics card itself. Software on the CPU is not performant enough to map individual pixels to the screen
one at a time, which is why we have hardware-accelerated 3D cards.
Now for the bad news: This hardware supports nearest neighbor, linear, and mapmapping. That's it. 3D graphics
cards do not use any fancier interpolation, as it needs to be done in a fraction of a second to keep frame rate as high as possible.
Mapmapping is described well by #gman in his article WebGL 3D Textures. It's
a long article but search for the word "mipmap" and skip ahead to his description of that. Basically a single image is reduced
into smaller images prior to rendering, so an appropriately-sized starting point can be chosen at render time. But there will
always be a final mapping to the screen, and as you can see, the choices are NEAREST or LINEAR.
Quoting #gman's article here:
You can choose what WebGL does by setting the texture filtering for each texture. There are 6 modes
NEAREST = choose 1 pixel from the biggest mip
LINEAR = choose 4 pixels from the biggest mip and blend them
NEAREST_MIPMAP_NEAREST = choose the best mip, then pick one pixel from that mip
LINEAR_MIPMAP_NEAREST = choose the best mip, then blend 4 pixels from that mip
NEAREST_MIPMAP_LINEAR = choose the best 2 mips, choose 1 pixel from each, blend them
LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR = choose the best 2 mips. choose 4 pixels from each, blend them
I guess the best news I can give you is that Cesium uses the best of those, LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR to
do its own rendering. If you have a strict requirement for more time-consuming imagery interpolation, that means you
have a requirement to not use a realtime 3D hardware-accelerated graphics card, as there is no way to do Lagrange image interpolation during a realtime render.