I have extracted features from many images of isolated characters (such as gradient, neighbouring pixel weight and geometric properties. How can I use HMMs as a classifier trained on this data? All literature I read about HMM refers to states and state transitions but I can't connect it to features and class labeling. The example on JAHMM's home page doesn't relate to my problem.
I need to use HMM not because it will work better than other approaches for this problem but because of constraints on project topic.
There was an answer to this question for online recognition but I want the same for offline and in a little more detail
EDIT: I partitioned each character into a grid with fixed number of squares. Now I am planning to perform feature extraction on each grid block and thus obtain a sequence of features for each sample by moving from left to right and top to bottom.
Would this represent an adequate "sequence" for an HMM i.e. would an HMM be able to guess the temporal variation of the data, even though the character is not drawn from left to right and top to bottom? If not suggest an alternate way.
Should I feed a lot of features or start with a few? how do I know if the HMM is underforming or if the features are bad? I am using JAHMM.
Extracting stroke features is difficult and cant be logically combined with grid features? (since HMM expects a sequence generated by some random process)
I've usually seen neural networks used for this sort of recognition task, i.e. here, here here, and here. Since a simple google search turns up so many hits for neural networks in OCR, I'll assume you are set in using HMMs (a project limitation, correct?) Regardless, these links can offer some insight into gridding the image and obtaining image features.
Your approach for turning a grid into a sequence of observations is reasonable. In this case, be sure you do not confuse observations and states. The features you extract from one block should be collected into one observation, i.e. a feature vector. (In comparison to speech recognition, your block's feature vector is analogous to the feature vector associated with a speech phoneme.) You don't really have much information regarding the underlying states. This is the hidden aspect of HMMs, and the training process should inform the model how likely one feature vector is to follow another for a character (i.e. transition probabilities).
Since this is an off-line process, don't be concerned with the temporal aspects of how characters are actually drawn. For the purposes of your task, you've imposed a temporal order on the sequence of observations with your the left-to-right, top-to-bottom block sequence. This should work fine.
As for HMM performance: choose a reasonable vector of salient features. In speech recog, the dimensionality of a feature vector can be high (>10). (This is also where the cited literature can assist.) Set aside a percentage of the training data so that you can properly test the model. First, train the model, and then evaluate the model on the training dataset. How well does classify your characters? If it does poorly, re-evaluate the feature vector. If it does well on the test data, test the generality of the classifier by running it on the reserved test data.
As for the number of states, I would start with something heuristically derived number. Assuming your character images are scaled and normalized, perhaps something like 40%(?) of the blocks are occupied? This is a crude guess on my part since a source image was not provided. For an 8x8 grid, this would imply that 25 blocks are occupied. We could then start with 25 states - but that's probably naive: empty blocks can convey information (meaning the number of states might increase), but some features sets may be observed in similar states (meaning the number of states might decrease.) If it were me, I would probably pick something like 20 states. Having said that: be careful not to confuse features and states. Your feature vector is a representation of things observed in a particular state. If the tests described above show your model is performing poorly, tweak the number of states up or down and try again.
Good luck.
Related
I have been reading the Deep Learning book by Ian Goodfellow and it mentions in Section 6.5.7 that
The main memory cost of the algorithm is that we need to store the input to the nonlinearity of the hidden layer.
I understand that backprop stores the gradients in a similar fashion to dynamic programming so not to recompute them. But I am confused as to why it stores the input as well?
Backpropagation is a special case of reverse mode automatic differentiation (AD).
In contrast to the forward mode, the reverse mode has the major advantage that you can compute the derivative of an output w.r.t. all inputs of a computation in one pass.
However, the downside is that you need to store all intermediate results of the algorithm you want to differentiate in a suitable data structure (like a graph or a Wengert tape) for as long as you are computing its Jacobian with reverse mode AD, because you're basically "working your way backwards" through the algorithm.
Forward mode AD does not have this disadvantage, but you need to repeat its calculation for every input, so it only makes sense if your algorithm has a lot more output variables than input variables.
I have found the keras-rl/examples/cem_cartpole.py example and I would like to understand, but I don't find documentation.
What does the line
memory = EpisodeParameterMemory(limit=1000, window_length=1)
do? What is the limit and what is the window_length? Which effect does increasing either / both parameters have?
EpisodeParameterMemory is a special class that is used for CEM. In essence it stores the parameters of a policy network that were used for an entire episode (hence the name).
Regarding your questions: The limit parameter simply specifies how many entries the memory can hold. After exceeding this limit, older entries will be replaced by newer ones.
The second parameter is not used in this specific type of memory (CEM is somewhat of an edge case in Keras-RL and mostly there as a simple baseline). Typically, however, the window_length parameter controls how many observations are concatenated to form a "state". This may be necessary if the environment is not fully observable (think of it as transforming a POMDP into an MDP, or at least approximately). DQN on Atari uses this since a single frame is clearly not enough to infer the velocity of a ball with a FF network, for example.
Generally, I recommend reading the relevant paper (again, CEM is somewhat of an exception). It should then become relatively clear what each parameter means. I agree that Keras-RL desperately needs documentation but I don't have time to work on it right now, unfortunately. Contributions to improve the situation are of course always welcome ;).
A little late to the party, but I feel like the answer doesn't really answer the question.
I found this description online (https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/reinforcement_q_learning.html#replay-memory):
We’ll be using experience replay
memory for training our DQN. It stores the transitions that the agent
observes, allowing us to reuse this data later. By sampling from it
randomly, the transitions that build up a batch are decorrelated. It
has been shown that this greatly stabilizes and improves the DQN
training procedure.
Basically you observe and save all of your state transitions so that you can train your network on them later on (instead of having to make observations from the environment all the time).
I've been thinking that adding noise to an image can prevent overfitting and also "increase" the dataset by adding variations to it. I'm only trying to add some random 1s to images that has shape (256,256,3) which uses uint8 to represent its color. I don't think that can affect the visualization at all (I showed both images with matplotlib and they seems almost the same) and has only ~0.01 mean difference in the sum of their values.
But it doesn't look to have its advances. After training for a long time it's still not as good as the one doesn't use noises.
Has anyone tried to use noise for image classification tasks like this? Is it eventually better?
I wouldn't go to add noise to your data. Some papers employ input deformations during training to increase robutness and convergence speed of models. However, these deformations are statistically inefficient (not just on image but any kind of data).
You can read Intriguing properties of Neural Networks from Szegedy et al. for more details (and refer to references 9 & 13 for papers that uses deformations).
If you want to avoid overfitting, you might be interested to read about regularization instead.
Yes you may add noise to extend your dataset and avoid overfitting your training set but make sure it is random otherwise your network will take this noise as something it should learn (and that's not something you want). I wouldn't use this method first to do that, I would first rotate and/or flip my samples.
However, your network should perform better or, at least, as well as your previous network.
First thing I would check is : How do you measure your performances ? What were your performances before and after ? And did you change anything else ?
There are a couple of works that deal with this problem. Because you make the training set harder the training error will be lower, however your generalization might be better. It has been shown that adding noise can have stability effects for training Generative Adversarial Networks (Adversarial Training).
For classification tasks it is not that cut and dry. Not many works have actually dealt with this topic. The closest one is to my best knowledge is this one from google (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6572.pdf), where they show the limitation of using training without noise. They do report a regularization effect, but not actual better results than using other methods.
I'm enrolled in Coursera ML class and I just started learning about neural networks.
One thing that truly mystifies me is how recognizing something so “human”, like a handwritten digit, becomes easy once you find the good weights for linear combinations.
It is even crazier when you understand that something seemingly abstract (like a car) can be recognized just by finding some really good parameters for linear combinations, and combining them, and feeding them to each other.
Combinations of linear combinations are much more expressible than I once thought.
This lead me to wonder if it is possible to visualize NN's decision process, at least in simple cases.
For example, if my input is 20x20 greyscale image (i.e. total 400 features) and the output is one of 10 classes corresponding to recognized digits, I would love to see some kind of visual explanation of which cascades of linear combinations led the NN to its conclusion.
I naïvely imagine that this may be implemented as visual cue over the image being recognized, maybe a temperature map showing “pixels that affected the decision the most”, or anything that helps to understand how neural network worked in a particular case.
Is there some neural network demo that does just that?
This is not a direct answer to your question. I would suggest you take a look at convolutional neural networks (CNN). In CNNs you can almost see the concept that is learned. You should read this publication:
Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio and P. Haffner: Gradient-Based Learning Applied to Document Recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278-2324, November 1998
CNNs are often called "trainable feature extractors". In fact, CNNs implement 2D filters with trainable coefficients. This is why the activation of the first layers are usually shown as 2D images (see Fig. 13). In this paper the authors use another trick to make the networks even more transparant: the last layer is a radial basis function layer (with gaussian functions), i. e. the distance to an (adjustable) prototype for each class is calculated. You can really see the learned concepts by looking at the parameters of the last layer (see Fig. 3).
However, CNNs are artificial neural networks. But the layers are not fully connected and some neurons share the same weights.
Maybe it doesn't answer the question directly but I found this interesting piece in this Andrew Ng, Jeff Dean, Quoc Le, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Rajat Monga, Matthieu Devin,
Kai Chen and
Greg Corrado paper (emphasis mine):
In this section, we will present two visualization techniques to verify if the optimal stimulus of the neuron is indeed a face. The first method is visualizing the most responsive stimuli in the test set. Since the test set is large, this method can reliably detect near optimal stimuli of the tested neuron. The second approach is to perform numerical optimization to find the optimal stimulus
...
These visualization methods have complementary strengths and weaknesses. For instance, visualizing the most responsive stimuli may suffer from fitting to noise. On the other hand, the numerical optimization approach can be susceptible to local minima. Results, shown [below], confirm that the tested neuron indeed learns the concept of faces.
In other words, they take a neuron that is best-performing at recognizing faces and
select images from the dataset that it cause it to output highest confidence;
mathematically find an image (not in dataset) that would get highest condifence.
It's fun to see that it actually “captures” features of the human face.
The learning is unsupervised, i.e. input data didn't say whether an image is a face or not.
Interestingly, here are generated “optimal input” images for cat heads and human bodies:
I don't have much experience in machine learning, pattern recognition, data mining, etc. and in their underlying theory and systems.
I would like to develop an artificial model of the time it takes a human to make a move in a given Sudoku puzzle.
So what I'm looking for as an output from the machine learning process is a model that can give predictions on how long does it take for a target human to make a move in a given Sudoku situation.
Same input doesn't always map to same outcome. It takes different times for the human to make a move with the same situation, but my hypothesis is that there's a tendency in the resulting probability distribution. (My educated guess is that it is ~normal.)
I have ideas about the factors that influence the distribution (like #empty slots) but would preferably leave it to the system to figure these patterns out. Please notice, that I'm not interested in the patterns, just the model.
I can generate sample and test data easily by running sudoku puzzles and measuring the times it takes to make the moves.
What kind of learning algorithm would you suggest to use for this?
I was thinking NNs, but I'm not sure if they can have the desired property of giving weighted random outcomes for the same input.
If I understand this correctly you have an input vector of length 81, which contains 1 if the square is filled in and 0 otherwise. You want to learn a function which returns a probability distribution which models the response time of a human to that board position.
My first response would be that this is a regression problem and you should try straightforward linear regression. This will not provide you with a distribution of response times, but a single 'best-guess' response time.
I'm not clear on why you want to model a distribution of response times. However, if you really want to do want to output a distribution then it sounds like you want to look at Bayesian methods. I'm not really an expert on Bayesian inference, so I can't help you much further here.
However, I don't really think your approach is going to work because I agree with your intuition about features such as the number of empty slots being important. There are also other obvious features, such as the number of empty slots per row/column that are likely to be important. Explicitly putting these features in your representation will probably be much more successful than expecting that the learning algorithm will infer something similar on its own.
The monte carlo method seems like it would work well here but would require a stack of solutions the size of the moon to really do it. And it wouldn't give you the time per person, just the time on average.
My understanding of it, tenuous as it is, is that you have a database with a board position and the time it took a human to make the next move. At the very least you have a starting point for most moves. Even if it's not in the database you could start to calculate how long it would take to make a move based on some algorithm. Though I know you had specified you wanted machine learning to do this it might be worth segmenting the problem into something a little smaller then building on it.
If you have some guesstimate as to what influences the function (# of empty cell, etc), try to train a classifier on a vector of features, and not on the 81 cells vector (0/1 or 0..9, doesn't really matter for my argument).
I think that your claim:
we wouldn't have to necessary know the underlying patterns, the "trained patterns" in a learning system automatically encodes these sometimes quite delicate and subtle patterns inside them -- that's one of their great power
is wrong. you do have to give the network the right domain. for example, when trying to detect object in an image, working in the pixel domain is pointless. you'll only get results if you first run some feature detection to detect edges, corners, etc.
Theoretically, with enough non-linearity (in NN - enough layers in the network) it can detect such things, but in practice, I have never seen that work, without giving the classifier the right features to work with.
I was thinking NNs, but I'm not sure if they can have the desired property of giving weighted random outcomes for the same input.
You're just trying to learn a function from 2^81 or 10^81 (or a much smaller feature space as I suggest) to R (response time between 0 and Inf) or some discretization of that. So NN and other classifiers can do that.