FHWS/Fusion2018
Archived
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Fixed many bugs

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Markus Bullmann
2018-02-27 10:49:05 +01:00
parent 9d4927a365
commit 1fb9461a5f
8 changed files with 67 additions and 68 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

24
tex/chapters/experiments.tex
View File

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
We now empirically evaluate the accuracy of our boxKDE method, using the mean integrated squared error (MISE).
The ground truth is given as $N=1000$ synthetic samples drawn from a bivariate mixture normal density $f$
The ground truth is given with $N=1000$ synthetic samples drawn from a bivariate mixture normal density $f$
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bm{X} \sim & ~\G{\VecTwo{0}{0}}{0.5\bm{I}} + \G{\VecTwo{3}{0}}{\bm{I}} + \G{\VecTwo{0}{3}}{\bm{I}} \\
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Therefore, the particular choice of the ground truth is only of minor importance
\end{figure}
Evaluated at $50^2$ points the exact KDE is compared to the BKDE, boxKDE, and extended box filter approximation, which are evaluated at a smaller grid with $30^2$ points.
The MISE between $f$ and the estimates as a function of $h$ are evaluated, and the resulting plot is given in figure~\ref{fig:errorBandwidth}.
The MISE between $f$ and the estimates as a function of $h$ are evaluated, and the resulting plot is given in fig.~\ref{fig:errorBandwidth}.
A minimum error is obtained with $h=0.35$, for larger oversmoothing occurs and the modes gradually fuse together.
Both the BKDE and the extended box filter estimate resemble the error curve of the KDE quite well and stable.
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ However, both cases do not give a deeper insight of the error behavior of our me
\begin{figure}[t]
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=6cm]{gfx/tmpPerformance.png}
\input{gfx/perf.tex}
\caption{Logarithmic plot of the runtime performance with increasing grid size $G$ and bivariate data. The weighted average estimate (blue) performs fastest followed by the boxKDE (orange) approximation. Both the BKDE (red), and the fastKDE (green) are magnitudes slower, especially for $G<10^4$.}\label{fig:performance}
\caption{Logarithmic plot of the runtime performance with increasing grid size $G$ and bivariate data. The weighted-average estimate (blue) performs fastest followed by the boxKDE (orange) approximation. Both the BKDE (red) and the fastKDE (green) are magnitudes slower, especially for $G<10^3$.}\label{fig:performance}
\end{figure}
% kde, box filter, exbox in abhänigkeit von h (bild)
@@ -53,18 +53,18 @@ However, both cases do not give a deeper insight of the error behavior of our me
\subsection{Performance}
In the following, we underpin the promising theoretical linear time complexity of our method with empirical time measurements compared to other methods.
All tests are performed on a Intel Core \mbox{i5-7600K} CPU with a frequency of \SI{4.2}{\giga\hertz}, and \SI{16}{\giga\byte} main memory.
We compare our C++ implementation of the box filter based KDE approximation based on algorithm~\ref{alg:boxKDE} to the \texttt{ks} R package and the fastKDE Python implementation \cite{oBrien2016fast}.
The \texttt{ks} packages provides a FFT-based BKDE implementation based on optimized C functions at its core.
With state estimation problems in mind, we additionally provide a C++ implementation of a weighted average estimator.
As both methods are not using a grid, an equivalent input sample set was used for the weighted average and the fastKDE.
We compare our C++ implementation of the boxKDE approximation as shown in algorithm~\ref{alg:boxKDE} to the \texttt{ks} R package and the fastKDE Python implementation \cite{oBrien2016fast}.
The \texttt{ks} package provides a FFT-based BKDE implementation based on optimized C functions at its core.
With state estimation problems in mind, we additionally provide a C++ implementation of a weighted-average estimator.
As both methods are not using a grid, an equivalent input sample set was used for the weighted-average and the fastKDE.
The results for performance comparison are presented in plot \ref{fig:performance}.
The results for performance comparison are presented in fig.~\ref{fig:performance}.
% O(N) gut erkennbar für box KDE und weighted average
The linear complexity of the boxKDE and the weighted average is clearly visible.
% Gerade bei kleinen G bis 10^3 ist die box KDE schneller als R und fastKDE, aber das WA deutlich schneller als alle anderen
Especially for small $G$ up to $10^3$ the boxKDE is much faster compared to BKDE and fastKDE.
% Bei zunehmend größeren G wird der Abstand zwischen box KDE und WA größer.
Nevertheless, the simple weighted average approach performs the fastest and with increasing $G$ the distance to the boxKDE grows constantly.
Nevertheless, the simple weighted-average approach performs the fastest and with increasing $G$ the distance to the boxKDE grows constantly.
However, it is obvious that this comes with major disadvantages, like being prone to multimodalities, as discussed in section \ref{sec:intro}.
% (Das kann auch daran liegen, weil das Binning mit größeren G langsamer wird, was ich mir aber nicht erklären kann! Vlt Cache Effekte)
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Further looking at fig. \ref{fig:performance}, the runtime performance of the BK
% Dies kommt durch die FFT. Der Input in für die FFT muss immer auf die nächste power of two gerundet werden.
This behavior is caused by the underlying FFT algorithm.
% Daher wird die Laufzeit sprunghaft langsamer wenn auf eine neue power of two aufgefüllt wird, ansonsten bleibt sie konstant.
The FFT approach requires the input to be always rounded up to a power of two, what then causes a constant runtime behavior within those boundaries and a strong performance deterioration at corresponding manifolds.
The FFT approach requires the input to be always rounded up to a power of two, what then causes a constant runtime behaviour within those boundaries and a strong performance deterioration at corresponding manifolds.
% Der Abbruch bei G=4406^2 liegt daran, weil für größere Gs eine out of memory error ausgelöst wird.
The termination of BKDE graph at $G=4406^2$ is caused by an out of memory error for even bigger $G$ in the \texttt{ks} package.
@@ -85,10 +85,10 @@ Both discussed Gaussian filter approximations, namely box filter and extended bo
While the average runtime over all values of $G$ for the standard box filter is \SI{0.4092}{\second}, the extended one provides an average of \SI{0.4169}{\second}.
To keep the arrangement of fig. \ref{fig:performance} clear, we only illustrated the results of the boxKDE with the regular box filter.
The weighted average has the great advantage of being independent of the dimensionality of the input and effortlessly implemented.
The weighted-average has the great advantage of being independent of the dimensionality of the input and can be implemented effortlessly.
In contrast, the computation of the boxKDE approach increases exponentially with increasing number of dimensions.
However, due to the linear time complexity and the very simple computation scheme, the overall computation time is still sufficient fast for many applications and much smaller compared to other methods.
The boxKDE approach presents a reasonable alternative to the weighted average and is easily integrated into existing systems.
The boxKDE approach presents a reasonable alternative to the weighted-average and is easily integrated into existing systems.
In addition, modern CPUs do benefit from the recursive computation scheme of the box filter, as the data exhibits a high degree of spatial locality in memory and the accesses are reliable predictable.
Furthermore, the computation is easily parallelized, as there is no data dependency between the one-dimensional filter passes in algorithm~\ref{alg:boxKDE}.