I am newbie to Opencv. I am trying stereosgbm compute function in gpu. I did not find any cuda porting as of now from opencv.
I want to know the difference between semi-global matching and semi-global block matching. But i did not find any difference.
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks.
StereoSGBM is OpenCV's implementation of Hirschmüller's original SGM algorithm. The implementation is a bit different from the original algorithm design.
The original algorithm uses pixel-wise aggregation cost, while StereoSGBM allows matching blocks. If the block size is set to 1, it's the same as working on pixels.
Mutual information cost function is not implemented in StereoSGBM.
OpenCV's SGBM focuses on speed. Therefore, by default, StereoSGBM is single-pass (i.e. it calculates the matching cost in fewer directions). You can set mode=StereoSGBM::MODE_HH to calculate the cost in all 8 directions.
StereoSGBM also implements sub-pixel estimation proposed by Birchfield
et al.
I suggest reading OpenCV's documentation about StereoSGBM via this link https://docs.opencv.org/3.4.1/d2/d85/classcv_1_1StereoSGBM.html This document describes the main differences between OpenCV's implementation (SGBM) and original SGM.
If you are interested, E. Dall’Asta, R. Roncella's paper, A COMPARISON OF SEMI-GLOBAL AND LOCAL DENSE MATCHING ALGORITHMS FOR SURFACE RECONSTRUCTION, discussed the differences between OpenCV's SGBM implementation and Hirschmüller's SGM.
Hope this answer helps you.
Related
I'm wondering what tensor flow uses to perform row reduction. Specifically when I call tf.linalg.inv what algorithm runs? Tensorflow is open source so I figured that it would be easy enough to find but I find myself a little lost in the code base. If I could just get a pointer to the implementation of the aforementioned function that would be great. If there is a name for the Gauss Jordan elimination implementation they used that would be even better.
https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow
The op uses LU decomposition with partial pivoting to compute the inverses.
For more insighton tf.linalg.inv algorithm please refer to this link: https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/linalg/inv
-
If you wish to experiment with something similar please refer to this stackoverflow link here
I'm trying to implement multi-channelt lattice RLS, i.e. the recursive least squares algorithm which performs noise cancellation with multiple inputs, but a single 'desired output'.
I have the basic RLS algorithm working with multiple components, but it's too inefficient and memory intensive for my purpose.
Wikipedia has an excellent example of lattice RLS, which works great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_least_squares_filter
However, the sources it cites do not go into much detail on how to extend this to the multi-channel case, and re-doing the full derivation is a bit beyond me.
Does anyone know a good source which describes or implements this algorithm in the multi-channel case? Many thanks.
Use separate parallel adaptive filters...one for each noise reference and combine these outputs to subtract from your noisy signal. LMS usually works best but RLS is fine. Problems arise if any of the noise references are heavily correlated with the desired signal.
I am trying to find the equation I would need to use in order to implement a Least Squares Kernel classifier for a dataset with N samples of feature length d. I have the kernel equation k(x_i, x_j) and I need the equation to pug it into to get the length-d vector used to classify future data. No matter where I look/google, Although there are dozens of powerpoints and pdfs that seem to give me almost what I'm looking for, I can't find a resource which can give me a straight answer.
note: I am not looking for the programming-language tool that computes this for me such as lsqlin, but the mathematical formula.
Least Squares Kernel SVM (what I assume your actually asking about) is equivalent to Kernelized Ridge Regression. This is the simplest what to implement it, and the solution can be found here, assume you have the appropriate background.
For a university lecture I am looking for floating point algorithms with known asymptotic runtime, but potential for low-level (micro-)optimization. This means optimizations such as minimizing cache misses and register spillages, maximizing instruction level parallelism and taking advantage of SIMD (vector) instructions on new CPUs. The optimizations are going to be CPU-specific and will make use of applicable instruction set extensions.
The classic textbook example for this is matrix multiplication, where great speedups can be achieved by simply reordering the sequence of memory accesses (among other tricks). Another example is FFT. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to choose either of these.
Anyone have any ideas, or an algorithm/method that could use a boost?
I am only interested in algorithms where a per-thread speedup is conceivable. Parallelizing problems by multi-threading them is fine, but not the scope of this lecture.
Edit 1: I am taking the course, not teaching it. In the past years, there were quite a few projects that succeeded in surpassing the current best implementations in terms of performance.
Edit 2: This paper lists (from page 11 onwards) seven classes of important numerical methods and some associated algorithms that use them. At least some of the mentioned algorithms are candidates, it is however difficult to see which.
Edit 3: Thank you everyone for your great suggestions! We proposed to implement the exposure fusion algorithm (paper from 2007) and our proposal was accepted. The algorithm creates HDR-like images and consists mainly of small kernel convolutions followed by weighted multiresolution blending (on the Laplacian pyramid) of the source images. Interesting for us is the fact that the algorithm is already implemented in the widely used Enfuse tool, which is now at version 4.1. So we will be able to validate and compare our results with the original and also potentially contribute to the development of the tool itself. I will update this post in the future with the results if I can.
The simplest possible example:
accumulation of a sum. unrolling using multiple accumulators and vectorization allow a speedup of (ADD latency)*(SIMD vector width) on typical pipelined architectures (if the data is in cache; because there's no data reuse, it typically won't help if you're reading from memory), which can easily be an order of magnitude. Cute thing to note: this also decreases the average error of the result! The same techniques apply to any similar reduction operation.
A few classics from image/signal processing:
convolution with small kernels (especially small 2d convolves like a 3x3 or 5x5 kernel). In some sense this is cheating, because convolution is matrix multiplication, and is intimately related to the FFT, but in reality the nitty-gritty algorithmic techniques of high-performance small kernel convolutions are quite different from either.
erode and dilate.
what image people call a "gamma correction"; this is really evaluation of an exponential function (maybe with a piecewise linear segment near zero). Here you can take advantage of the fact that image data is often entirely in a nice bounded range like [0,1] and sub-ulp accuracy is rarely needed to use much cheaper function approximations (low-order piecewise minimax polynomials are common).
Stephen Canon's image processing examples would each make for instructive projects. Taking a different tack, though, you might look at certain amenable geometry problems:
Closest pair of points in moderately high dimension---say 50000 or so points in 16 or so dimensions. This may have too much in common with matrix multiplication for your purposes. (Take the dimension too much higher and dimensionality reduction silliness starts mattering; much lower and spatial data structures dominate. Brute force, or something simple using a brute-force kernel, is what I would want to use for this.)
Variation: For each point, find the closest neighbour.
Variation: Red points and blue points; find the closest red point to each blue point.
Welzl's smallest containing circle algorithm is fairly straightforward to implement, and the really costly step (check for points outside the current circle) is amenable to vectorisation. (I suspect you can kill it in two dimensions with just a little effort.)
Be warned that computational geometry stuff is usually more annoying to implement than it looks at first; don't just grab a random paper without understanding what degenerate cases exist and how careful your programming needs to be.
Have a look at other linear algebra problems, too. They're also hugely important. Dense Cholesky factorisation is a natural thing to look at here (much more so than LU factorisation) since you don't need to mess around with pivoting to make it work.
There is a free benchmark called c-ray.
It is a small ray-tracer for spheres designed to be a benchmark for floating-point performance.
A few random stackshots show that it spends nearly all its time in a function called ray_sphere that determines if a ray intersects a sphere and if so, where.
They also show some opportunities for larger speedup, such as:
It does a linear search through all the spheres in the scene to try to find the nearest intersection. That represents a possible area for speedup, by doing a quick test to see if a sphere is farther away than the best seen so far, before doing all the 3-d geometry math.
It does not try to exploit similarity from one pixel to the next. This could gain a huge speedup.
So if all you want to look at is chip-level performance, it could be a decent example.
However, it also shows how there can be much bigger opportunities.
I am writing a paper to test a new application that will demonstrate the benefits of parallelized computation (compared to the traditional serialized version of this application). I want to use the canonical examples for parallel computation in my paper.
My first example is the parallel computation of pi. I would ideally like an example where each iteration is very time consuming (because of the additional overhead associated with parallelizing); my first thought is a Bayesian simulation with MCMC and Gibbs sampling.
What other problems are typically discussed in this context? What are good examples of large embarassingly parallel problems?
just a few more -
Multiplying matrices
Inverting matrices
FFT
String matching
Rendering 3d scenes (via scan line conversion or ray tracing)
One example I've used in the past of an embarrassingly parallel problem is visualizing the mandelbrot set. Each pixel can be computed independently.
Conway's Life is interesting as well, in that each value of the "next" board can be computed independently, but will depend on the relevant bits of the "current" board being done already.
I would suggest that canonical examples of parallel computation and embarassingly parallel problems are, if not completely, then nearly, disjoint sets. To put it another way, people working in parallel computation aren't terribly excited about embarassingly parallel problems; we call them that because we'd be embarassed to be working on them.
I'd be looking, if I were you, at these (a not entirely original list):
linear algebra on large dense matrices, both direct and iterative approaches;
linear algebra on huge sparse matrices
branch and bound approaches to linear programming (and related) problems;
sequence matching for bioinformatics (outside my field, I may have mis-expressed this);
continuos optimisation.
I expect there are many more.
EDIT: You may be interested in this list of problems which have been selected for benchmarking the next generation of European (academic) supercomputers. It will give you some idea of where that niche is heading.
Molecular dynamics simluations allow you to change the size of the problem until your computer resources are exhausted (i.e. 256 particles vs. 256,000,000 particles). Its truly a "canonical" example if you run the MD simulations under NVT conditions ;-)
My favorite example is monte carlo simulation.
Word counting seems to be the canonical example for MapReduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce#Example
Finding collisions in hash functions using Paul C. van Oorschot and Michael J. Weiner's method (PDF) comes up often in various cryptographic settings.
I used the Mandelbrot set demo to explain to my mom what parallel programming is about : http://www.ateji.com/px/demo.html
All the examples you mentions are mostly heavy data-parallel codes. You'll probably want to mention also task-oriented codes, such as servers responding to many requests in parallel, and data-flow or stream programming examples (MapReduce is a good representative of this class).