From 0a72029bcb1ec9046848a936fd22257a65d32edb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vasil Zlatanov Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:28:33 +0000 Subject: Ammend part 3 --- report/paper.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'report') diff --git a/report/paper.md b/report/paper.md index 0674557..5fb0443 100644 --- a/report/paper.md +++ b/report/paper.md @@ -95,10 +95,10 @@ Figure \ref{fig:km_cm} shows a confusion matrix for K-means+RF CLassifier with 2 # RF codebook -An alternative to codebook creation via K-means involves using an ensemble of totally random trees. We code each decriptor according to which leaf of each tree in the ensemble it is sorted. This effectively performs and unsupervised transformation of our dataset to a high-dimensional spare representation. The vocabulary size is determined by the number of leaves in each random tree multiplied by the ensemble size. From comparing execution times of K-means in figure \ref{fig:km_vocsize} and the RF codebook in \ref{fig:p3_voc} we observe considerable speed gains from utilising the RF codebook. This may be attributed to the reduce complexity of RF Codebook creation, +An alternative to codebook creation via K-means involves using an ensemble of totally random trees. We code each decriptor according to which leaf of each tree in the ensemble it is sorted. This effectively performs and unsupervised transformation of our descriptors to a high-dimensional sparse representation. The vocabulary size is determined by the number of leaves in each random tree multiplied by the ensemble size. From comparing execution times of K-means in figure \ref{fig:km_vocsize} and the RF codebook in \ref{fig:p3_voc} we observe considerable speed gains from utilising the RF codebook. This may be attributed to the reduce complexity of RF Codebook creation, which is $O(\sqrt{D} N \log K)$ compared to $O(DNK)$ for K-means. Codebook mapping given a created vocabulary is also quicker than K-means, $O(\log K)$ (assuming a balanced tree) vs $O(KD)$. -The effect of vocabulary size on classification accuracy can be observed both in figure \ref{fig:p3_voc}, in which we independently vary number of leaves and ensemble size, and figure \ref{fig:p3_colormap}, in which both parameters are varied simultaneously. It is possible to notice that these two parameters make classification accuracy plateau for *leaves>80* and *estimators>100*. The peaks at 82% shownin figure \ref{fig:p3_colormap} are just due to the seed. +The effect of vocabulary size on classification accuracy can be observed both in figure \ref{fig:p3_voc}, in which we independently vary number of leaves and ensemble size, and figure \ref{fig:p3_colormap}, in which both parameters are varied simultaneously. It is possible to notice that these two parameters make classification accuracy plateau for *leaves*$>80$ and *estimators*$>100$. The peaks of 82% accuracy visible on the heatmap in figure \ref{fig:p3_colormap} are highly dependent on the seed and indicate the range of *good* hyperparametres. \begin{figure}[H] \begin{center} -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf