I have data. Based on the data (time, latitude, longitude, altitude) determine what are the typical routes that device makes during a full week.
After determining the baseline routes or typical area frequented by device we can start determining an anomaly based on the device traveling outside it’s frequent route/area.
Action: The process will then send an “alert” to the system is traveling outside it’s frequent area route
Please suggest which machine learning algorithm is useful. I am going to start clustering algorithm. Also tell me which python libraries is useful to use machine learning algorithm.
First of all, if you use Python, then use scikit-learn.
For this problem, there is multiple possibilities.
One way is indeed to use a clustering algorithm. For this purpose to get the anomaly too, you can use DBSCAN. It is an algorithm designed to get cluster and the outliers.
Another way would be (assuming you have for each device all their position) to use more funny way like a clustering algorithm on all the positions to get the important place, and after an LDA (latent dirichlet allocation) to get the main topics (here the words would be the index of the cluster, the document would be the list of position of each device and so the topics would be the main "routes").
Related
Let suppose that I have two measures from two difference sensors of the same variable. I'd like to know if there's a way to do an information fusion and obtain a unique measure that describes the best way possible the whole system (Both sensors).
I know Bar-Shalom - Campo sensor fusion model, but I'd like to know if there are any model that doesn't adopte the classical Gaussian assumption, so that the sensor fusion can deal with bad data/gross erros.
Thank you.
For sensor fusion, you can go for Kalman Filter. There are few tutorials and research papers available for extended kalman filter, used for sensor fusion.
It extremely depends on which sensor types you are trying to fuse. Some sensors noises can not be modeled using Gaussian RV. Even if the sensor noises are not well fit with Gaussian RV, Kalman filter and Gaussian assumption works well in most cases. You might inspect the GPS position estimate example. You could fuse the data of multiple satellites using nonlinear Kalman filter(UKF etc.) or least-squares.
i got a facebook-list of user-ids from following page:
Stanford Facebook-Data
If you look at the facebook_combined data, you can see that it is a list of user-connections (edges). So for instance user 0 has something to do with user 1,2,3 and so on.
Now my work is to find clusters in the dataset.
In the first step i used node.js to read the file and save the data in an array like this:
array=[[0,1],[0,2], ...]
In the second step i used a k-means plugin for node.js to cluster the data:
Cluster-Plugin
But i dont know if the result is right, because now i get clusters of edges and not clusters of users.
UPDATE:
I am trying out a markov implementation for node js. The Markov Plugin however needs an adjacency matrix to build clusters. I implemented an algorithm with java to save the matrix in a file.
Maybe you got any other suggestion how i could get clusters out of edges.
K-means assumes your input data issue an R^d vector space.
In fact, it requires the data to be this way, because it computes means as cluster centers, hence the name k-means.
So if you want to use k-means, then you need
One row per datapoint (not an edge list)
A fixed dimensionality data space where the mean is a useful center (usually, you should have continuous attributes, on binary data the mean does not make too much sense) and where least-squares is a meaningful optimization criterion (again, on binary data, least-squares does not have a strong theoretical support)
On your Faceboook data, you could try some embedding, but I'd have doubts about the trustworthiness.
I have the following problem at hand: I have a very long list of words, possibly names, surnames, etc. I need to cluster this word list, such that similar words, for example words with similar edit (Levenshtein) distance appears in the same cluster. For example "algorithm" and "alogrithm" should have high chances to appear in the same cluster.
I am well aware of the classical unsupervised clustering methods like k-means clustering, EM clustering in the Pattern Recognition literature. The problem here is that these methods work on points which reside in a vector space. I have words of strings at my hand here. It seems that, the question of how to represent strings in a numerical vector space and to calculate "means" of string clusters is not sufficiently answered, according to my survey efforts until now. A naive approach to attack this problem would be to combine k-Means clustering with Levenshtein distance, but the question still remains "How to represent "means" of strings?". There is a weight called as TF-IDF weigt, but it seems that it is mostly related to the area of "text document" clustering, not for the clustering of single words. It seems that there are some special string clustering algorithms existing, like the one at http://pike.psu.edu/cleandb06/papers/CameraReady_120.pdf
My search in this area is going on still, but I wanted to get ideas from here as well. What would you recommend in this case, is anyone aware of any methods for this kind of problem?
Don't look for clustering. This is misleading. Most algorithms will (more or less forcefully) break your data into a predefined number of groups, no matter what. That k-means isn't the right type of algorithm for your problem should be rather obvious, isn't it?
This sounds very similar; the difference is the scale. A clustering algorithm will produce "macro" clusters, e.g. divide your data set into 10 clusters. What you probably want is that much of your data isn't clustered at all, but you want to want to merge near-duplicate strings, which may stem from errors, right?
Levenshtein distance with a threshold is probably what you need. You can try to accelerate this by using hashing techniques, for example.
Similarly, TF-IDF is the wrong tool. It's used for clustering texts, not strings. TF-IDF is the weight assigned to a single word (string; but it is assumed that this string does not contain spelling errors!) within a larger document. It doesn't work well on short documents, and it won't work at all on single-word strings.
I have encountered the same kind of problem. My approach was to create a graph where each string will be a node and each edge will connect two nodes with weight the similarity of those two strings. You can use edit distance or Sorensen for that. I also set a threshold of 0.2 so that my graph will not be complete thus very computationally heavy. After forming the graph you can use community detection algorithms to detect node communities. Each community is formed with nodes that have a lot of edges with each other, so they will be very similar with each other. You can use networkx or igraph to form the graph and identify each community. So each community will be a cluster of strings. I tested this approach with some string that I wanted to cluster. Here are some of the identified clusters.
University cluster
Council cluster
Committee cluster
I visualised the graph with the gephi tool.
Hope that helps even if it is quite late.
I'm new to machine learning and want to implement the distance dependent Chinese Restaurant process in MATLAB for the clustering of audio tracks.
I'm looking to use the dd-CRP on 26 features. I'm guessing the process might go like this
Read in 1st feature vector and assign it a "table"
Read in 2nd feature vector and compare it to the 1st "table", maybe using the cosine angle(due to high dimension) of the two vectors and if it agrees within some defined theta, join that table, else start a new one.
Read in next feature and repeat step 2 for the new feature vector for each existing table.
While this is occurring, I will be keeping track of how many tables there are.
I will be running the algorithm over say for example 16 audio tracks. The way the audio will be fed into the algorithm is the first feature vector will be from say the first frame from audio track 1, the second feature vector from form the first frame in track 2 etc. as I'm trying to find out which audio tracks like to cluster together most, but I don't want to define how many centroids there are. Obviously I'll have to keep track of which audio track is at which "table".
Does this make sense?
This is not a Chinese Restaurant Process. This is a heuristic algorithm which has some similarity to a Chinese Restaurant Process. In a CRP everything is phrased in terms of priors over the assignments of items to clusters (the tables analogy), and these are combined with a likelihood function for each cluster (which formalises the similarity function you described). Inference is then done by Gibbs Sampling, which means non-deterministically sampling which cluster each track is assigned to in turn given all the other assignments. Variational methods for non-parametrics are still in a very preliminary state.
Why do you want to use a CRP? Do you think you'll get something out of it beyond more conventional clustering methods? The bar to entry for the implementation and proper understanding of non-parametrics is pretty high, and they're often of little practical use at the moment because of the constraints on inference I mentioned.
You can use the X-means algorithm, which automatically determines the optimal number of centroids (and hence number of clusters) based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (or BIC). In short, the algorithm looks for how dense each cluster is, and how far is each cluster from the other.
I will be start working on a robotics project which involves a mobile robot that has mounted 2 cameras (1.3 MP) fixed at a distance of 0.5m in between.I also have a few ultrasonic sensors, but they have only a 10 metter range and my enviroment is rather large (as an example, take a large warehouse with many pillars, boxes, walls .etc) .My main task is to identify obstacles and also find a roughly "best" route that the robot must take in order to navigate in a "rough" enviroment (the ground floor is not smooth at all). All the image processing is not made on the robot, but on a computer with NVIDIA GT425 2Gb Ram.
My questions are :
Should I mount the cameras on a rotative suport, so that they take pictures on a wider angle?
It is posible creating a reasonable 3D reconstruction based on only 2 views at such a small distance in between? If so, to what degree I can use this for obstacle avoidance and a best route construction?
If a roughly accurate 3D representation of the enviroment can be made, how can it be used as creating a map of the enviroment? (Consider the following example: the robot must sweep an fairly large area and it would be energy efficient if it would not go through the same place (or course) twice;however when a 3D reconstruction is made from one direction, how can it tell if it has already been there if it comes from the opposite direction )
I have found this response on a similar question , but I am still concerned with the accuracy of 3D reconstruction (for example a couple of boxes situated at 100m considering the small resolution and distance between the cameras).
I am just starting gathering information for this project, so if you haved worked on something similar please give me some guidelines (and some links:D) on how should I approach this specific task.
Thanks in advance,
Tamash
If you want to do obstacle avoidance, it is probably easiest to use the ultrasonic sensors. If the robot is moving at speeds suitable for a human environment then their range of 10m gives you ample time to stop the robot. Keep in mind that no system will guarantee that you don't accidentally hit something.
(2) It is posible creating a reasonable 3D reconstruction based on only 2 views at such a small distance in between? If so, to what degree I can use this for obstacle avoidance and a best route construction?
Yes, this is possible. Have a look at ROS and their vSLAM. http://www.ros.org/wiki/vslam and http://www.ros.org/wiki/slam_gmapping would be two of many possible resources.
however when a 3D reconstruction is made from one direction, how can it tell if it has already been there if it comes from the opposite direction
Well, you are trying to find your position given a measurement and a map. That should be possible, and it wouldn't matter from which direction the map was created. However, there is the loop closure problem. Because you are creating a 3D map at the same time as you are trying to find your way around, you don't know whether you are at a new place or at a place you have seen before.
CONCLUSION
This is a difficult task!
Actually, it's more than one. First you have simple obstacle avoidance (i.e. Don't drive into things.). Then you want to do simultaneous localisation and mapping (SLAM, read Wikipedia on that) and finally you want to do path planning (i.e. sweeping the floor without covering area twice).
I hope that helps?
I'd say no if you mean each eye rotating independently. You won't get the accuracy you need to do the stereo correspondence and make calibration a nightmare. But if you want the whole "head" of the robot to pivot, then that may be doable. But you should have some good encoders on the joints.
If you use ROS, there are some tools which help you turn the two stereo images into a 3d point cloud. http://www.ros.org/wiki/stereo_image_proc. There is a tradeoff between your baseline (the distance between the cameras) and your resolution at different ranges. large baseline = greater resolution at large distances, but it also has a large minimum distance. I don't think i would expect more than a few centimeters of accuracy from a static stereo rig. and this accuracy only gets worse when you compound there robot's location uncertainty.
2.5. for mapping and obstacle avoidance the first thing i would try to do is segment out the ground plane. the ground plane goes to mapping, and everything above is an obstacle. check out PCL for some point cloud operating functions: http://pointclouds.org/
if you can't simply put a planar laser on the robot like a SICK or Hokuyo, then i might try to convert the 3d point cloud into a pseudo-laser-scan then use some off the shelf SLAM instead of trying to do visual slam. i think you'll have better results.
Other thoughts:
now that the Microsoft Kinect has been released, it is usually easier (and cheaper) to simply use that to get a 3d point cloud instead of doing actual stereo.
This project sounds a lot like the DARPA LAGR program. (learning applied to ground robots). That program is over, but you may be able to track down papers published from it.