1 / 74

01/18 Lab meeting

01/18 Lab meeting. Fabio Cuzzolin. UCLA Vision Lab Department of Computer Science University of California at Los Angeles. Los Angeles, January 18 2005. PhD student, University of Padova, Department of Computer Science ( NAVLAB laboratory) with Ruggero Frezza

orpah
Télécharger la présentation

01/18 Lab meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 01/18 Lab meeting Fabio Cuzzolin UCLA Vision Lab Department of Computer Science University of California at Los Angeles Los Angeles, January 18 2005

  2. PhD student, University of Padova, Department of Computer Science (NAVLAB laboratory) with Ruggero Frezza • Visiting student, ESSRL, Washington University in St. Louis • Visiting student, UCLA, Los Angeles (VisionLab) • Post-doc in Padova, Control and Systems Theory group • Young researcher, Image and Sound Processing Group, Politecnico di Milano • Post-doc, UCLA Vision Lab … past and present

  3. Computer vision Discrete mathematics • linear independence on lattices Belief functions and imprecise probabilities • geometric approach • algebraic analysis • combinatorial analysis … the research • object and body tracking • data association • gesture and action recognition research

  4. 1 Upper and lower probabilities

  5. Past work • Geometric approach to belief functions (ISIPTA’01, SMC-C-05) • Algebra of families of frames (RSS’00, ISIPTA’01, AMAI’03) • Geometry of Dempster’s rule (FSKD’02, SMC-B-04) • Geometry of upper probabilities (ISIPTA’03, SMC-B-05) • Simplicial complexes of fuzzy sets (IPMU’04)

  6. The theory of belief functions

  7. Uncertainty descriptions • A number of theories have been proposed to extend or replace classical probability: possibilities, fuzzy sets, random sets, monotone capacities, etc. • theory of evidence (A. Dempster, G. Shafer) • belief functions • Dempster’s rule • families of frames

  8. Motivations

  9. belieffunctions • 3. superadditivity Axioms and superadditivity • probabilities • additivity: if then

  10. Example of b.f.

  11. belief functions s: 2Θ->[0,1] Belief functions A B1 • ..where m is a mass function on 2Θs.t. B2

  12. AiÇBj=A Ai • intersection of focal elements Bj Dempster’s rule • b.f. are combined through Dempster’s rule

  13. a1 a3 • s1: • m({a1})=0.7, m({a1 ,a2})=0.3 a2 a4 • s2: • m()=0.1, m({a2 ,a3 ,a4})=0.9 • s1  s2 : • m({a1})=0.19, m({a2})=0.73 • m({a1 ,a2})=0.08 Example of combination

  14. Bayes vs Dempster • Belief functions generalize the Bayesian formalism as: • 1- discrete probabilities are a special class of belief functions • 2 - Bayes’ rule is a special case of Dempster’s rule • 3 - a multi-domain representation of the evidence is contemplated

  15. algebraic analysis geometric analysis combinatorial analysis probabilistic analysis categorial? My research Theory of evidence

  16. Algebra of frames

  17. .0 .1 .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .00 .01 .10 .11 0.00 0.09 0.49 0.90 0.99 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Family of frames • example: a function yÎ [0,1] is quantized in three different ways • refining • Common refinement 1

  18. Lattice structure 1F maximal coarsening QÅW Q W minimal refinement QÄW • order relation: existence of a refining • F is a locally Birkhoff (semimodular with finite length) lattice bounded below

  19. Geometric approach to upper and lower probabilisties

  20. Belief space • the space of all the belief functions on a given frame • each subset A  A-th coordinate s(A) in an Euclidean space • it has the shape of a simplex

  21. Geometry of Dempster’s rule • constant mass loci • foci of conditional subspaces • Dempster’s rule can be studied in the geometric setup too

  22. the space of plausibilities isalso a simplex Geometry of upper probs

  23. Belief and probabilities • study of the geometric interplay of belief and probability

  24. Consistent probabilities • Each belief function is associated with a set of consistent probabilities, forming a simplex in the probabilistic subspace • the vertices of the simplex are the probabilities assigning the mass of each focal element of s to one of its points • the center of mass of P(s) coincides with Smets’ pignistic function

  25. possibility measures are a class of belief functions Possibilities in a geometric setup • they have the geometry of a simplicial complex

  26. Combinatorial analysis

  27. Total belief theorem • generalization of the total probability theorem • a-priori constraint • conditional constraint

  28. method: replacing columns through Existence • candidate solution: linear system nn where the columns of A are the focal elements of stot • problem: choosing n columns among m s.t. x has positive components

  29. Solution graphs • all the candidate solutions form a graph • Edges = linear transformations

  30. New goals... algebraic analysis geometric analysis Theory of evidence combinatorial analysis probabilistic analysis ?

  31. Approximations • problem: finding an approximation of s • compositional criterion • the approximation behaves like s when combined through Dempster • probabilistic and fuzzy approximations

  32. 1,…, n are indipendent if Indipendence and conflict • s1,…, sn are not always combinable • any s1,…, sn are combinable  are defined on independent frames

  33. pseudo Gram-Schmidt • new set of b.f. surely combinable Pseudo Gram-Schmidt • Vector spaces and frames are both semimodular lattices -> admit independence

  34. Canonical decomposition • unique decomposition of s into simple b.f. • convex geometry can be used to find it

  35. m-1m past and present target association old estimates Am-1 past targets - model associations m-1m Kalman filters  rigid motion constraints Am-1 new estimates Am-1 () Am current targets – model association Am  = Am-1 m-1m Tracking of rigid bodies • data association of points belonging to a rigid body • rigid motion constraints can be written as conditional belief functions  total belief needed

  36. Total belief problem and combinatorics • general proof, number of solutions, symmetries of the graph • relation with positive linear systems • homology of solution graphs • matroidal interpretation

  37. 2 Computer vision

  38. Vision problems • HMM and size functions for gesture recognition (BMVC’97) • object tracking and pose estimation (MTNS’98,SPIE’99, MTNS’00, PAMI’04) • composition of HMMs (ASILOMAR’02) • data association with shape info (CDC’02, CDC’04, PAMI’05) • volumetric action recognition (ICIP’04,MMSP’04)

  39. Size functions for gesture recognition

  40. Size functions for gesture recognition • Combination of HMMs (for dynamics) and size functions (for pose representation)

  41. Size functions • “Topological” representation of contours

  42. Measuring functions • Functions defined on the contour of the shape of interest real image family of lines measuring function

  43. Feature vectors • a family of measuring functions is chosen • … the szfc are computed, and their means form the feature vector

  44. Hidden Markov models • Finite-state model of gestures as sequences of a small number of poses

  45. Four-state HMM • Gesture dynamics -> transition matrix A • Object poses -> state-output matrix C

  46. EM algorithm • feature matrices: collection of feature vectors along time • two instances of the same gesture A,C EM • learning the model’s parameters through EM

  47. Compositional behavior of Hidden Markov models

  48. Composition of HMMs • Compositional behavior of HMMS: the model of the action of interest is embedded in the overall model • Example: “fly” gesture in clutter

  49. State clustering • Effect of clustering on HMM topology • “Cluttered” model for the two overlapping motions • Reduced model for the “fly” gesture extracted through clustering

  50. Kullback-Leibler comparison • We used the K-L distance to measure the similarity between models extracted from clutter and in absence of clutter

More Related