I've been trying to come up with an interest point detection algorithm and this is what I came up with:
You go through the X and the Y axises 3n pixels at a time creating 3n x 3n squares.
For the the n x n square in the middle of the 3n x 3n square (let's call it square Z), the R, G, and B values are averaged and rounded to preset values to limit the number of colors, and that is the color that square will be treated as.
The same is done for the 8 surrounding n x n squares.
After that, the color of square Z is compared to the surrounding squares, if it matches x out of the 8 surrounding squares where x <= 3 or x => 5 then that is an interest point (a corner is detected).
And so on till all the image is covered.
The bigger n is, the faster the image will be scanned and the the less accurate the detection is, and vice versa.
This, supposedly, detects "literal corners", that is corners you can actually SEE on the image.
What do you think of this algorithm? Is it efficient? Can it be used on a live video stream (say from the camera) on a hand-held device?
I'm sorry to say that I don't think this is likely to be very good. Your algorithm looks a bit like a simplistic version of Moravec's algorithm, which is itself one of the simplest corner detection algorithms. The hardcoded limits you test against effectively make your edge test a stepped function, unlike an approach such as summed square differences. This will almost certainly give you discontinuities in your detection function (corners that don't match when they should have), for some values.
You also have the same problem as Moravec, namely that if the edge lies at an angle to the direction of neighbours being considered, then it won't be detected.
Developing algorithms is fun, and if this isn't a business-critical project, then by all means, carry on tinkering and experimenting (and don't be put off by my comments!). But the fact is, for almost any practical problem, a better algorithm for the task you want to solve almost certainly already exists. The real challenge is identifying how you can best model your problem in such a way that you can solve it using an existing, well-understood approach, designed by experts.
In particular, robust identification and analysis of edge-cases and worst-case runtimes is a tricky business; unless you are a professional algorist, you are likely to find the going difficult. But I certainly encourage you to discover this for yourself by trying. nlucaroni mentions some excellent questions to use as starting points for your analysis.
Why not try it and see if it works the way you expect? It sounds like it should. How does the performance compare with other methods? What is the complexity of the algorithm? Is it efficient compared to others? Where can it be improved? What kind of false-positives and false negatives are expected? Are they within reason based on the data I plan to use this on? What threshold should be used to compare surrounding squares? ....
this is stuff you should be doing, not us.
I would suggest you look at the SIFT algorithm. Its the defacto standard for points of interest in an image. Unfortunately, its also patented, because its so good.
If you are interested in a real time version of SIFT you can get it to run on a GPU, but its highly experimental at this point. Note if you are developing a commercial application you'd have to first purchase a license for using SIFT or get approval from David Lowe.
Related
I am reading the book "Introduction to linear algebra" by Gilbert Strang. The section is called "Orthonormal Bases and Gram-Schmidt". The author several times emphasised the fact that with orthonormal basis it's very easy and fast to calculate Least Squares solution, since Qᵀ*Q = I, where Q is a design matrix with orthonormal basis. So your equation becomes x̂ = Qᵀb.
And I got the impression that it's a good idea to every time calculate QR decomposition before applying Least Squares. But later I figured out time complexity for QR decomposition and it turned out to be that calculating QR decomposition and after that applying Least Squares is more expensive than regular x̂ = inv(AᵀA)Aᵀb.
Is that right that there is no point in using QR decomposition to speed up Least Squares? Or maybe I got something wrong?
So the only purpose of QR decomposition regarding Least Squares is numerical stability?
There are many ways to do least squares; typically these vary in applicability, accuracy and speed.
Perhaps the Rolls-Royce method is to use SVD. This can be used to solve under-determined (fewer obs than states) and singular systems (where A'*A is not invertible) and is very accurate. It is also the slowest.
QR can only be used to solve non-singular systems (that is we must have A'*A invertible, ie A must be of full rank), and though perhaps not as accurate as SVD is also a good deal faster.
The normal equations ie
compute P = A'*A
solve P*x = A'*b
is the fastest (perhaps by a large margin if P can be computed efficiently, for example if A is sparse) but is also the least accurate. This too can only be used to solve non singular systems.
Inaccuracy should not be taken lightly nor dismissed as some academic fanciness. If you happen to know that the problems ypu will be solving are nicely behaved, then it might well be fine to use an inaccurate method. But otherwise the inaccurate routine might well fail (ie say there is no solution when there is, or worse come up with a totally bogus answer).
I'm a but confused that you seem to be suggesting forming and solving the normal equations after performing the QR decomposition. The usual way to use QR in least squares is, if A is nObs x nStates:
decompose A as A = Q*(R )
(0 )
transform b into b~ = Q'*b
(here R is upper triangular)
solve R * x = b# for x,
(here b# is the first nStates entries of b~)
Recently I began to study deconvolution algorithms and met the following acquisition model:
where f is the original (latent) image, g is the input (observed) image, h is the point spread function (degradation kernel), n is a random additive noise and * is the convolution operator.
If we know g and h, then we can recover f using Richardson-Lucy algorithm:
where , (W,H) is the size of rectangular support of h and multiplication and division are pointwise. Simple enough to code in C++, so I did just so. It turned out that approximates to f while i is less then some m and then it starts rapidly decay. So the algorithm just needed to be stopped at this m - the most satisfactory iteration.
If the point spread function g is also unknown then the problem is said to be blind, and the modification of Richardson-Lucy algorithm can be applied:
For initial guess for f we can take g, as before, and for initial guess for h we can take trivial PSF, or any simple form that would look similar to observed image degradation. This algorithm also works quit fine on the simulated data.
Now I consider the multiframe blind deconvolution problem with the following acquisition model:
Is there a way to develop Richardson-Lucy algorithm for solving the problem in this formulation? If no, is there any other iterative procedure for recovering f, that wouldn't be much more complicated than the previous ones?
According to your acquisition model, latent image (f) remains same while the observed images are different due to different psf and noise models. One way to look at it, is a motion-blur problem where a sharp and noise-free image(f) is corrupted by the motion blur kernel. As this is an ill-posed problem, in most of the literature it's solved iteratively by estimating the blur kernel and the latent image. The way you solve this depends entirely on your objective function.
For example in some papers IRLS is used to estimate the blur kernel. You can find a lot of literature on this.
If you want to use Richardson Lucy Blind deconvolution, then use it on just one frame.
One strategy can be in each iteration while recovering f, assign different weights for contribution from each g(observed images). You can incorporate different weights in the objective function or calculate them according to the estimated blur kernel.
Is there a way to develop Richardson-Lucy algorithm for solving the problem in this formulation?
I'm not a specialist in this area, but I don't think that such way to construct an algorithm exists, at least not straightforwardly. Here is my argument for this. The first problem you described (when the psf is known) is already ill-posed due to the random nature of the noise and loss of information about convolution near image edges. The second problem on your list — single-channel blind deconvolution — is the extention of the previous one. In this case in addition it's underdetermined, so the ill-posedness expands, and so it's natural that the method to solve this problem is developed from the method for solving the first problem. Now when we consider the multichannel blind deconvolution formulation, we add a bunch of additional information to our previous model and so the problem goes from underdetermined to overdetermined. This is the whole other kind of ill-posedness and hence different approaches to solution are required.
is there any other iterative procedure for recovering f, that wouldn't be much more complicated than the previous ones?
I can recommend the algorithm introduced by Šroubek and Milanfar in [1]. I'm not sure whether it's much more complicated on your opinion or not so much, but it's by far one of the most recent and robust. The formulation of the problem is precisely the same as you wrote. The algorithm takes as input K>1 number of images, the upper bound of the psf size L, and four tuning parameters: alpha, beta, gamma, delta. To specify gamma, for example, you will need to estimate the variance of the noise on your input images and take the largest variance var, then gamma = 1/var. The algorithm solves the following optimization problem using alternating minimization:
where F is the data fidelity term and Q and R are regularizers of the image and blurs, respectively.
For detailed analysis of the algorithm see [1], for a collection of different deconvolution formulation and their solutions see [2]. Hope it helps.
Referenses:
Filip Šroubek, Peyman Milanfar. —- Robust Multichannel Blind Deconvolution via Fast Alternating Minimization.
-— IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 21, NO. 4, APRIL 2012
Patrizio Campisi, Karen Egiazarian. —- Blind Image Deconvolution: Theory and Applications
I'm dealing with a war game. I have a list of my bases B(x,y) from which I can send attacks on the enemy (they have bases between my own bases). Each base B can attack at a range R (the same radius for all bases). How can I find my bases to be able to attack as many enemy bases as possible, but use a minimum number of my bases?
I've reduced the problem to finding the minimum number of bases (and their coordinates) required to cover the largest area possible. I wonder if there is a better way than looking at all the possible combinations and because the number of bases could reach thousands.
Example: If the attack radius is 10 and I have five bases in a square and its center: (0,0), (10,0), (10,10), (0,10), (5,5) then the answer is that only the first four would be needed because all the area covered by the one in the center is already covered by the others.
Note 1 The solution must be single-threaded.
Note 2 The solution doesn't have to be perfect if that means a big gain in speed. The number of bases reaches thousands and this needs to use as little time as possible. I would consider running time greater than 100 ms for 10,000 bases in Python on a modern computer unacceptable, so I was thinking maybe I could start by eliminating the obvious, like if there are multiple bases within R/10 distance of each other, simply eliminate all except for one (whichever).
If I understand you correctly, the enemy bases and your bases are given as well as the (constant) attack radius. I.e. if you select one of your bases, you know exactly which of the enemy bases get attacked due to the selection.
The first step would be to eliminate those enemy cities from the problem which can not be attacked by any of your bases. Then, selecting all of your bases guarantees attacking all attackable enemy bases, so there is solution that attacks as many enemy bases as possible.
Under all those solutions you are looking for the one that uses the minimum number of your bases. This problem is equivalent to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_cover_problem, which is unfortunately NP-hard. You can apply all known solution methods such as Integer Linear Programming or the already mentioned greedy algorithm / metaheuristics.
If your problem instance is large and runtime is the primary concern, greedy is probably the way to go. For example you could always add that particular base of yours to the selection which adds the highest number of enemy bases that can be attacked which were previously not under attack by your already selected bases.
Hum the solution depends on your needs. If you need real time answer, maybe a greedy algorithm could provide good solution.
Other solution could be using meta-heuristic with constraint time(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaheuristic). I probably would use genetic algorithm to search a solution for this problem under a limited time.
If interested I can provide a toy example of implementation in Python.
EDIT :
When you have to provide solution quickly a greedy algorithm is often better. But in your case I doubt. Particularity of many greedy algorithm is that you need to start from scratch each time you try to compute a new result.
Speaking again of genetic algorithm, you could for example each time you have to take a decision restart the search process from its last result. In fact you could probably let him turning has a subprocess and each 100ms take the better solution computed during the last loop.
If not too greedy in computing resource, this solution would provide better results than greedy one on the long run as the solution will probably need to be adapted to the changes of the situation but many element will stay unchanged. Just be aware that initializing a meta-search with the solution of a greedy algorithm is anyway a good idea!
I have an n-by-n symmtric matrix F of non-negative integers: F[i,j] is a measure of how close the guys i and j are. I want to locate n points in the plane representing the n guys in such a way that
two guys which are close are represented by points which are close and,
ideally, two guys which are not that close and which are not even connected by a chain of close friendships are represented by points which are far away.
Is there a standard algorithm to do this?
What you're describing is generically referred to as multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) or Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCA--but be aware that there are other techniques also known as PCA).
There are quite a few well-known algorithms for carrying out MDS. That's mostly because the classical methods are pretty slow--O(N2). Most others are attempts at reducing the run-time while minimizing loss of accuracy.
At least in my experience, Landmark multidimensional scaling (LMDS) maintains pretty close to the accuracy of full MDS, but reduces run-time substantially. The basic idea here is to compute MDS on sub-groups of the points, the compute a way to fit the pieces together.
If you really want maximum speed, and don't care a whole lot about accuracy, you could consider the FastMap algorithm.
For what it's worth: what I've generally found most useful is to reduce the raw data to around 17-21 degrees of freedom using LMDS, then (if you want to display the results) reduce from there to 3 or 2 dimensions using FastMap. I haven't used the full MDS much, but if you're working with few enough points for it to be practical, it's generally the preferred solution.
Here are a few relevant links:
MDS
LMDS
FastMap
There was a post on here recently which posed the following question:
You have a two-dimensional plane of (X, Y) coordinates. A bunch of random points are chosen. You need to select the largest possible set of chosen points, such that no two points share an X coordinate and no two points share a Y coordinate.
This is all the information that was provided.
There were two possible solutions presented.
One suggested using a maximum flow algorithm, such that each selected point maps to a path linking (source → X → Y → sink). This runs in O(V3) time, where V is the number of vertices selected.
Another (mine) suggested using the Hungarian algorithm. Create an n×n matrix of 1s, then set every chosen (x, y) coordinate to 0. The Hungarian algorithm will give you the lowest cost for this matrix, and the answer is the number of coordinates selected which equal 0. This runs in O(n3) time, where n is the greater of the number of rows or the number of columns.
My reasoning is that, for the vast majority of cases, the Hungarian algorithm is going to be faster; V is equal to n in the case where there's one chosen point for each row or column, and substantially greater for any case where there's more than that: given a 50×50 matrix with half the coordinates chosen, V is 1,250 and n is 50.
The counterargument is that there are some cases, like a 109×109 matrix with only two points selected, where V is 2 and n is 1,000,000,000. For this case, it takes the Hungarian algorithm a ridiculously long time to run, while the maximum flow algorithm is blinding fast.
Here is the question: Given that the problem doesn't provide any information regarding the size of the matrix or the probability that a given point is chosen (so you can't know for sure) how do you decide which algorithm, in general, is a better choice for the problem?
You can't, it's an imponderable.
You can only define which is better "in general" by defining what inputs you will see "in general". So for example you could whip up a probability model of the inputs, so that the expected value of V is a function of n, and choose the one with the best expected runtime under that model. But there may be arbitrary choices made in the construction of your model, so that different models give different answers. One model might choose co-ordinates at random, another model might look at the actual use-case for some program you're thinking of writing, and look at the distribution of inputs it will encounter.
You can alternatively talk about which has the best worst case (across all possible inputs with given constraints), which has the virtue of being easy to define, and the flaw that it's not guaranteed to tell you anything about the performance of your actual program. So for instance HeapSort is faster than QuickSort in the worst case, but slower in the average case. Which is faster? Depends whether you care about average case or worst case. If you don't care which case, you're not allowed to care which "is faster".
This is analogous to trying to answer the question "what is the probability that the next person you see will have an above (mean) average number of legs?".
We might implicitly assume that the next person you meet will be selected at random with uniform distribution from the human population (and hence the answer is "slightly less than one", since the mean is less than the mode average, and the vast majority of people are at the mode).
Or we might assume that your next meeting with another person is randomly selected with uniform distribution from the set of all meetings between two people, in which case the answer is still "slightly less than one", but I reckon not the exact same value as the first - one-and-zero-legged people quite possibly congregate with "their own kind" very slightly more than their frequency within the population would suggest. Or possibly they congregate less, I really don't know, I just don't see why it should be exactly the same once you take into account Veterans' Associations and so on.
Or we might use knowledge about you - if you live with a one-legged person then the answer might be "very slightly above 0".
Which of the three answers is "correct" depends precisely on the context which you are forbidding us from talking about. So we can't talk about which is correct.
Given that you don't know what each pill does, do you take the red pill or the blue pill?
If there really is not enough information to decide, there is not enough information to decide. Any guess is as good as any other.
Maybe, in some cases, it is possible to divine extra information to base the decision on. I haven't studied your example in detail, but it seems like the Hungarian algorithm might have higher memory requirements. This might be a reason to go with the maximum flow algorithm.
You don't. I think you illustrated that clearly enough. I think the proper practical solution is to spawn off both implementations in different threads, and then take the response that comes back first. If you're more clever, you can heuristically route requests to implementations.
Many algorithms require huge amounts of memory beyond the physical maximum of a machine, and in these cases, the algorithmically more ineffecient in time but efficient in space algorithm is chosen.
Given that we have distributed parallel computing, I say you just let both horses run and let the results speak for themselves.
This is a valid question, but there's no "right" answer — they are incomparable, so there's no notion of "better".
If your interest is practical, then you need to analyze the kinds of inputs that are likely to arise in practice, as well as the practical running times (constants included) of the two algorithms.
If your interest is theoretical, where worst-case analysis is often the norm, then, in terms of the input size, the O(V3) algorithm is better: you know that V ≤ n2, but you cannot polynomially bound n in terms of V, as you showed yourself. Of course the theoretical best algorithm is a hybrid algorithm that runs both and stops when whichever one of them finishes first, thus its running time would be O(min(V3,n3)).
Theoretically, they are both the same, because you actually compare how the number of operations grows when the size of the problem is increased to infinity.
The way your problem is defined, it has 2 sizes - n and number of points, so this question has no answer.