Scribd
Upload
20 views37 pages

Computer Examples: Tenenbaum, de Silva, Langford "A Global Geometric Framework For Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction"

The document describes experiments using Isomap, a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique, to create a low-dimensional manifold representation of faces from a database of 698 images. It tests the semantic consistency of the manifold coordinates by sorting faces along different dimensions and finds deterioration for points far apart. Comparisons with LLE show Isomap has faster running time and more meaningful paths through the manifold. The document also examines Isomap's weakness in handling uniform image translations.

Uploaded by

Mclin Jhon Marave Mabalot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views37 pages

Computer Examples: Tenenbaum, de Silva, Langford "A Global Geometric Framework For Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction"

The document describes experiments using Isomap, a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique, to create a low-dimensional manifold representation of faces from a database of 698 images. It tests the semantic consistency of the manifold coordinates by sorting faces along different dimensions and finds deterioration for points far apart. Comparisons with LLE show Isomap has faster running time and more meaningful paths through the manifold. The document also examines Isomap's weakness in handling uniform image translations.

Uploaded by

Mclin Jhon Marave Mabalot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 37

Computer examples

Tenenbaum, de Silva, Langford


A Global Geometric Framework for
Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction

Statue face database


698 64x64 grayscale images
2 mins, 12 secs on a ~600 (?) MHz PIII

The computed manifold

The computed manifold

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
One test you could do:
1. Sort all faces according to first manifold
coordinate (left-right)
2. View them in order
3. See if the face makes a monotonic progression
from left to right

Right Left

Up Down
Cleaner, since
light variation
is strictly
azimuthal
(consistent
chin shadow)

Lit on left Lit on right

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
Semantic consistency of a dimension value
deteriorates between points that are far away
on the manifold.
4 consecutive frames from right left movie:
Well-lit faces are turning to
the left with respect to each
other
Dimly-lit faces also dont
turn right w.r.t each other

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
Semantic consistency of a dimension value
deteriorates between points that are far away
on the manifold.
Explanations:
Geodesic distance on the manifold is
approximated by shortest-path distance in a
neighbor graph.
Sparsity in neighbor graphs result in
distance error for points far away on the
graph.

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
Geodesic distance approximator cant be perfect in the
face of sparse data

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
The test expected this face:

Testing the sensibility of the


manifold coordinates
to be a bit more left-facing than this face:

Traversing the manifold


Collapsing the manifold to one dimension
isnt the way to use it.
Try tracing one dimension while keeping
the other dimensions from jumping around
too much.

Traversing the manifold

Algorithm used:
Sort images by left-right coord as before
Draw a smooth line through the manifold
Only add images that are within a certain
manifold distance D from this line.

Traversing the manifold

Traversing the manifold

Traversing the manifold

Traversing the manifold

D = 20
(Half the range of the up-down dimension)

Traversing the manifold

(D = 30)

Traversing the manifold

D = 40 (using 80% of the faces)

Traversing the manifold

D = 50 (using 98% of the faces)

Comparison to LLE
Run both algorithms on 100 of the statue faces
(64 x 64 pixels)
Isomap

LLE

Comparison to LLE
Running time for 100 64x64 images:
LLE: 5 secs
Isomap: 1.39 secs

Comparison to LLE
The collapsing-to-primary-dimension-test:

Comparison to LLE
Uh the collapsing-to-second-dimension-test

Comparison to LLE
The horizontal manifold traversal test (7 frames)

Comparison to LLE
LLE: once manifold is computed,
meaningful paths through it need to be
searched for.

Weakness under translation


Images with a common background and a
single translating object will have a rough
time with pixel differences.

Weakness under translation


Uniform translation, no overlap
Input images:

Output images:

Weakness under translation


Uniform translation, 1-column overlap
Input images:

Output images:

Weakness under translation


Uniform translation, 1-column overlap

Weakness under translation


Uniform translation, with a skip

Weakness under translation


Isomap with k = 1 (like before)
(Original)

(Reconstruction)

Weakness under translation


Isomap with k = 2
(Original)

(Reconstruction)

Overestimating k
Isomap with k = 2

End

You might also like