[Work Log] Training, Reversed Curves, and Theoretical Rate Variance

August 07, 2013
Project Tulips
Subproject Data Association v2
Working path projects/​tulips/​trunk/​src/​matlab/​data_association_2
Unless otherwise noted, all filesystem paths are relative to the "Working path" named above.

Visualized results after capping likelihood variance. As expected, degree of spreading stops growing as perturb_rate_variance continues to grow.



Long term goals


Visualizing curve-direction revealed a bizarre artifact: most curves start somewhere in the middle of the reconstructed curve!


Found issue - wasn't sorting by index when reconstructing.

Breaking Change

Modified tr_curves_ml to not include the background curve ml into the computation. Recall that the normal ML computation code doesn't actually return ML, but a ratio of the foreground curve ML and the background curve ML. This indicates how much the model improves over the "null model".

Since the background curve ml is constant during training, this shouldn't affect results. However, if you want to confirm the correctness of tr_curves_ml against the reference implementation in curve_ml5.m, you'll need to manually divide by a constant. See the documentation for tr_curves_ml for more details.

Reversing Curves

Investigating the effect of reversing curves.

Visually determined which curves were reversed. See modified version of test/tmp_visualize_test.

Hacked train/tr_construct_matrices.m with hard-coded list of curves to flip. Re-ran training for IND-Perturb model.

Hypothesis: we should see larger values for perturb_rate_variance and/or perturb_smoothing_variance, and smaller values for perturb_position_variance.


        smoothing_variance: 0.0020
            noise_variance: 0.0720
         position_variance: 1.3414e+04
             rate_variance: 0.2378
perturb_smoothing_variance: 3.3860e-41
     perturb_rate_variance: 1.5332e-06
 perturb_position_variance: 0.4662

Final ML: -95.736042

Compare against old results:

        smoothing_variance: 0.0019
            noise_variance: 0.0718
         position_variance: 1.6706e+04
             rate_variance: 0.2135
perturb_smoothing_variance: 3.3860e-41
     perturb_rate_variance: 1.4942e-06
 perturb_position_variance: 0.4886

Final ML: -97.463243

Summary of changes:

        smoothing_variance: +2.09%
            noise_variance: 0.17%
         position_variance: -19.7%
             rate_variance: +11.3%
perturb_smoothing_variance: 0 
     perturb_rate_variance: +2.61%
 perturb_position_variance: -4.59%

As expected, global position variance dropped; perturb rate grew while perturb position variance decreased.

Unexpected increase in rate_variance; expected it to stay constant. Possibly due to random fluctuations; both old and new values (0.214 and 0.238, respectively) are near the theoretical optimum (0.23, see next section).

Also unexpected small increase in global smoothing variance (expected to be constant); also possibly due to random fluctuations.

Literally no change to perturb smoothing variance. I'm starting to suspect something weird is going on with this value...

Theoretical Rate Variance

Was curious what the rate variance should be, assuming the rate vectors are drawn from a uniform distribution over the unit sphere.

Determined empirically that rate variance should be somewhere between 0.220 and 0.235. Code below.

% generate 10,000 3-vectors with distribution over direction
dir = rand(3,10000);
% normalize to lie on unit sphere
dir = bsxfun(@times, dir, 1./sum(dir.^2));
% Get the emperical covariance of the vectors
Sigma = cov(dir')

        ans =

            0.2105    0.0556    0.0580
            0.0556    0.2297    0.0680
            0.0580    0.0680    0.3735
% take the average of the diagonals

        ans =


This strongly suggests that the global rate variances we've seen in training are consistent with the theoretical value. Great!

Visualizing Curve Motion

Attempting to visualize perturbations between views.

First attempt: tweak test/test_visualize_test to only display points from a particular view. Doesn't work great, because only part of the plant is visible in each view, and those parts differ between views.

Next attempt: tweak curve_max_posterior.m to define a canonical index set for the curve, and then reconstruct for each view.

More tomorrow...


Training Background model

Posted by Kyle Simek
blog comments powered by Disqus