深度解析：模式分类的关键技术与挑战

1星需积分: 45 192 浏览量更新于2024-07-18 收藏 28.49MB PDF 举报

本资源主要围绕"模式分类"这一主题展开，涵盖了机器感知、模式识别和机器学习的广泛内容。在第一章"Introduction"中，作者首先强调了模式识别在日常生活中所扮演的重要角色，如人脸识别、语音理解、手写字符识别等复杂任务。这些任务揭示了隐藏在其背后的极其复杂的认知过程。章节详细探讨了一系列模式分类中的关键子问题： 1. **机器感知（Machine Perception）**：这是基础，指计算机如何通过传感器接收并解析环境中的信息，以形成对周围世界的理解。 2. **实例分析（An Example）**：通过具体例子来阐述模式分类的概念和应用，使读者能更好地理解其实际操作。 3. **子问题与挑战**： - **特征提取（Feature Extraction）**：指从原始数据中挑选出对模式识别有用的特征，这直接影响到模型的性能。 - **噪声（Noise）**：处理数据中的不准确或随机干扰，保证模型的鲁棒性。 - **过拟合（Overfitting）**：当模型过于复杂，过度适应训练数据，导致在新数据上的泛化能力下降。 - **模型选择（Model Selection）**：确定最适合特定任务的模型，避免简单或复杂度过高。 - **先验知识（Prior Knowledge）**：利用已知的信息或假设指导模型设计，提升学习效率。 - **缺失特征（Missing Features）**：处理数据中缺失的数据点，可能需要通过插补或其他方法进行处理。 - **mereology（部分-整体关系）**：理解事物由哪些部分组成，对整体进行分类。 - **分割（Segmentation）**：将图像或信号分解成更小的有意义的部分。 - **上下文（Context）**：考虑环境因素对模式识别的影响，如语境信息。 - **不变性（Invariances）**：确保模型在不同情况下仍能正确识别。 - **证据融合（Evidence Pooling）**：整合多个来源的信息以做出更准确的判断。 - **成本与风险（Costs and Risks）**：评估决策过程中的代价和潜在错误。 - **计算复杂度（Computational Complexity）**：权衡模型的效率和性能。 4. **学习与适应（Learning and Adaptation）**： - **监督学习（Supervised Learning）**：基于标记数据训练模型，是最常见的学习方式。 - **无监督学习（Unsupervised Learning）**：在无标签数据中寻找结构或模式，如聚类或降维。 - **强化学习（Reinforcement Learning）**：通过与环境互动，学习最优策略。 5. **结论**：总结章节内容，强调模式分类在实际应用中的核心地位和不断发展的技术趋势。此外，资源还包含章节概览、历史和文献评论、参考文献列表以及索引，为深入研究提供了丰富的背景资料和学术支持。整个文档旨在为读者提供一个全面而深入的理解模式分类及其在现代信息技术中的作用。

4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

images — variations in lighting, position of the ﬁsh on the conveyor, even “static”

due to the electronics of the camera itself.

Given that there truly are diﬀerences between the population of sea bass and that

of salmon, we view them as having diﬀerent models — diﬀerent descriptions, whichmodel

are typically mathematical in form. The overarching goal and approach in pattern

classiﬁcation is to hypothesize the class of these models, process the sensed data

to eliminate noise (not due to the models), and for any sensed pattern choose the

model that corresponds best. Any techniques that further this aim should be in the

conceptual toolbox of the designer of pattern recognition systems.

Our prototype system to perform this very speciﬁc task might well have the form

shown in Fig. 1.1. First the camera captures an image of the ﬁsh. Next, the camera’s

signals are preprocessed to simplify subsequent operations without loosing relevantpre-

processing information. In particular, we might use a segmentation operation in which the images

segmentation

of diﬀerent ﬁsh are somehow isolated from one another and from the background. The

information from a single ﬁsh is then sent to a feature extractor, whose purpose is to

feature

extraction

reduce the data by measuring certain “features” or “properties.” These features

(or, more precisely, the values of these features) are then passed to a classiﬁer that

evaluates the evidence presented and makes a ﬁnal decision as to the species.

The preprocessor might automatically adjust for average light level, or threshold

the image to remove the background of the conveyor belt, and so forth. For the

moment let us pass over how the images of the ﬁsh might be segmented and consider

how the feature extractor and classiﬁer might be designed. Suppose somebody at the

ﬁsh plant tells us that a sea bass is generally longer than a salmon. These, then,

give us our tentative models for the ﬁsh: sea bass have some typical length, and this

is greater than that for salmon. Then length becomes an obvious feature, and we

might attempt to classify the ﬁsh merely by seeing whether or not the length l of

a ﬁsh exceeds some critical value l

∗

. To choose l

∗

we could obtain some design or

training samples of the diﬀerent types of ﬁsh, (somehow) make length measurements,training

samples and inspect the results.

Suppose that we do this, and obtain the histograms shown in Fig. 1.2. These

disappointing histograms bear out the statement that sea bass are somewhat longer

than salmon, on average, but it is clear that this single criterion is quite poor; no

matter how we choose l

∗

, we cannot reliably separate sea bass from salmon by length

alone.

Discouraged, but undeterred by these unpromising results, we try another feature

— the average lightness of the ﬁsh scales. Now we are very careful to eliminate

variations in illumination, since they can only obscure the models and corrupt our

new classiﬁer. The resulting histograms, shown in Fig. 1.3, are much more satisfactory

— the classes are much better separated.

So far we have tacitly assumed that the consequences of our actions are equally

costly: deciding the ﬁsh was a sea bass when in fact it was a salmon was just as

undesirable as the converse. Such a symmetry in the cost is often, but not invariablycost

the case. For instance, as a ﬁsh packing company we may know that our customers

easily accept occasional pieces of tasty salmon in their cans labeled “sea bass,” but

they object vigorously if a piece of sea bass appears in their cans labeled “salmon.”

If we want to stay in business, we should adjust our decision boundary to avoid

antagonizing our customers, even if it means that more salmon makes its way into

the cans of sea bass. In this case, then, we should move our decision boundary x

∗

smaller values of lightness, thereby reducing the number of sea bass that are classiﬁed

as salmon (Fig. 1.3). The more our customers object to getting sea bass with their

1.2. AN EXAMPLE 7

2 4 6 8 10

Width

Lightness

salmon sea bass

Figure 1.4: The two features of lightness and width for sea bass and salmon. The

dark line might serve as a decision boundary of our classiﬁer. Overall classiﬁcation

error on the data shown is lower than if we use only one feature as in Fig. 1.3, but

there will still be some errors.

of more than one feature at a time.

In our search for other features, we might try to capitalize on the observation that

sea bass are typically wider than salmon. Now we have two features for classifying

ﬁsh — the lightness x

and the width x

. If we ignore how these features might be

measured in practice, we realize that the feature extractor has thus reduced the image

of each ﬁsh to a point or feature vector x in a two-dimensional feature space, where

x =





Our problem now is to partition the feature space into two regions, where for all

patterns in one region we will call the ﬁsh a sea bass, and all points in the other we

call it a salmon. Suppose that we measure the feature vectors for our samples and

obtain the scattering of points shown in Fig. 1.4. This plot suggests the following rule

for separating the ﬁsh: Classify the ﬁsh as sea bass if its feature vector falls above the

decision boundary shown, and as salmon otherwise. decision

boundary

This rule appears to do a good job of separating our samples and suggests that

perhaps incorporating yet more features would be desirable. Besides the lightness

and width of the ﬁsh, we might include some shape parameter, such as the vertex

angle of the dorsal ﬁn, or the placement of the eyes (as expressed as a proportion of

the mouth-to-tail distance), and so on. How do we know beforehand which of these

features will work best? Some features might be redundant: for instance if the eye

color of all ﬁsh correlated perfectly with width, then classiﬁcation performance need

not be improved if we also include eye color as a feature. Even if the diﬃculty or

computational cost in attaining more features is of no concern, might we ever have

too many features?

Suppose that other features are too expensive or expensive to measure, or provide

little improvement (or possibly even degrade the performance) in the approach de-

scribed above, and that we are forced to make our decision based on the two features

in Fig. 1.4. If our models were extremely complicated, our classiﬁer would have a

decision boundary more complex than the simple straight line. In that case all the

8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

2 4 6 8 10

Width

Lightness

salmon sea bass

Figure 1.5: Overly complex models for the ﬁsh will lead to decision boundaries that are

complicated. While such a decision may lead to perfect classiﬁcation of our training

samples, it would lead to poor performance on future patterns. The novel test point

marked ? is evidently most likely a salmon, whereas the complex decision boundary

shown leads it to be misclassiﬁed as a sea bass.

training patterns would be separated perfectly, as shown in Fig. 1.5. With such a

“solution,” though, our satisfaction would be premature because the central aim of

designing a classiﬁer is to suggest actions when presented with novel patterns, i.e.,

ﬁsh not yet seen. This is the issue of generalization. It is unlikely that the complexgeneral-

ization decision boundary in Fig. 1.5 would provide good generalization, since it seems to be

“tuned” to the particular training samples, rather than some underlying characteris-

tics or true model of all the sea bass and salmon that will have to be separated.

Naturally, one approach would be to get more training samples for obtaining a

better estimate of the true underlying characteristics, for instance the probability

distributions of the categories. In most pattern recognition problems, however, the

amount of such data we can obtain easily is often quite limited. Even with a vast

amount of training data in a continuous feature space though, if we followed the

approach in Fig. 1.5 our classiﬁer would give a horrendously complicated decision

boundary — one that would be unlikely to do well on novel patterns.

Rather, then, we might seek to “simplify” the recognizer, motivated by a belief

that the underlying models will not require a decision boundary that is as complex as

that in Fig. 1.5. Indeed, we might be satisﬁed with the slightly poorer performance

on the training samples if it means that our classiﬁer will have better performance

on novel patterns.

∗

But if designing a very complex recognizer is unlikely to give

good generalization, precisely how should we quantify and favor simpler classiﬁers?

How would our system automatically determine that the simple curve in Fig. 1.6

is preferable to the manifestly simpler straight line in Fig. 1.4 or the complicated

boundary in Fig. 1.5? Assuming that we somehow manage to optimize this tradeoﬀ,

can we then predict how well our system will generalize to new patterns? These are

some of the central problems in statistical pattern recognition.

For the same incoming patterns, we might need to use a drastically diﬀerent cost

∗

The philosophical underpinnings of this approach derive from William of Occam (1284-1347?), who

advocated favoring simpler explanations over those that are needlessly complicated — Entia non

sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (“Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity”).

Decisions based on overly complex models often lead to lower accuracy of the classiﬁer.

剩余737页未读，继续阅读

思考熊

粉丝: 92
资源: 17

深度解析：模式分类的关键技术与挑战

模式分类 中文版

模式分类-中文版（原书第二版完整版）

模式分类中文高清版.zip

模式分类richard课后答案

c++ 调制模式分类

统计模式识别的主要工作是选取什么表达模式和设计分类器进行分类

matlab art模式分类

设计模式中策略模式有哪些分类？

23种设计模式分类是什么？

创建型模式分类为类创建型模式和对象创建型模式，怎么区分的

最新资源

模式分类中文版