Upload
teresa-adams
View
212
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Principled Asymmetric Boosting Approachesto Rapid Training and Classification
in Face Detection
Pham Minh TriPh.D. Candidate and Research AssociateNanyang Technological University, Singapore
presented by
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Problem
Application
Application
Face recognition
Application
3D face reconstruction
Application
Camera auto-focusing
Application
Windows face logon• Lenovo Veriface Technology
Appearance-based Approach• Scan image with probe
window patch (x,y,s)– at different positions and scales– Binary classify each patch into
• face, or• non-face
• Desired output state: – (x,y,s) containing face
0 1
Most popular approach•Viola-Jones ‘01-’04, Li et.al. ‘02, Wu et.al. ’04, Brubaker et.al. ‘04, Liu et.al. ’04, Xiao et.al ‘04, •Bourdev-Brandt ‘05, Mita et.al. ‘05, Huang et.al. ’05 – ‘07, Wu et.al. ‘05, Grabner et.al.
’05-’07, •And many more
Appearance-based Approach• Statistics:
– 6,950,440 patches in a 320x240 image
– P(face) < 10-5
• Key requirement:– A very fast classifier
0 1
A very fast classifier• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
F1 F2 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
F1 F2 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
• F1, F2, …, FN : asymmetric classifiers
– FRR(Fk) 0– FAR(Fk) as small as possible (e.g. 0.5 – 0.8)
A very fast classifier
F1 F2
non-face
F1 F2 FN faceF1 F2
non-face
F1 F2 FN faceF1 F2
non-face
F1 F2 FN faceF1 F2
non-face
F1 F2 FN face
• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
• F1, F2, …, FN : asymmetric classifiers
– FRR(Fk) 0– FAR(Fk) as small as possible (e.g. 0.5 – 0.8)
A very fast classifier
F1 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
F2
• A strong combination of weak classifiers:
Non-face Rejector
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,1 f1,2f1,K
> ?
• A strong combination of weak classifiers:
Non-face Rejector
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,1 f1,2f1,K
> ?
Boosting
WeakClassifierLearner
1
WeakClassifierLearner
2
Wrongly classified
Wrongly classified
Correctly classified
Correctly classified
: negative example: positive example
Stage 1 Stage 2
Asymmetric Boosting
WeakClassifierLearner
1
WeakClassifierLearner
2
: negative example: positive example
Stage 1 Stage 2
• Weight positives times more than negatives
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,2f1,K
> ?
• A strong combination of weak classifiers:
Non-face Rejector
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
f1,1
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,2f1,K
> ?
• A strong combination of weak classifiers:
Non-face Rejector
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
f1,1
• Classify a Haar-like feature value
Weak classifier
input patch
featurevalue v
Classifyv
score
• Classify a Haar-like feature value
Weak classifier
input patch
featurevalue v
Classifyv
score
…
• Learning is time-consuming
Main issues
• Learning is time-consuming
Main issues
• Classify a Haar-like feature value
Weak classifier
input patch
featurevalue v
Classifyv
score
…10 minutes to learn a
weak classifier
A very fast classifier• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
F1 F2 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
To learn a face detector ( 4000 weak classifiers):4,000 * 10 minutes 1 month
• Learning is time-consuming
• Learning requires too much intervention from experts
Main issues
• Learning is time-consuming
• Learning requires too much intervention from experts
Main issues
• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
• F1, F2, …, FN : asymmetric classifiers
– FRR(Fk) 0– FAR(Fk) as small as possible (e.g. 0.5 – 0.8)
A very fast classifier
F1 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
F2
How to choose bounds for FRR(Fk) and FAR(Fk)?
Asymmetric Boosting
WeakClassifierLearner
1
WeakClassifierLearner
2
: negative example: positive example
Stage 1 Stage 2
• Weight positives times more than negatives
How to choose ?
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,2f1,K
> ?
• A strong combination of weak classifiers:
Non-face Rejector
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
f1,1
How to choose ?
• Requires too much intervention from experts
• Very long learning time
Main issues
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Motivation
• Face detectors today– Real-time detection
speed
…but…
– Weeks of training time
Factor
Description Common value
N number of examples 10,000
M number of weak classifiers in total
4,000 - 6,000
T number of Haar-like features
40,000
Why is Training so Slow?
• Time complexity: O(MNT log N)– 15ms to train a feature classifier– 10min to train a weak classifier– 27 days to train a face detector
A view of a face detector training algorithm
for weak classifier m from 1 to M:…update weights – O(N)for feature t from 1 to T:
compute N feature values – O(N)sort N feature values – O(N log N)train feature classifier – O(N)
select best feature classifier – O(T)…
A view of a face detector training algorithm
for weak classifier m from 1 to M:…update weights – O(N)for feature t from 1 to T:
compute N feature values – O(N)sort N feature values – O(N log N)train feature classifier – O(N)
select best feature classifier – O(T)…
Factor
Description Common value
N number of examples 10,000
M number of weak classifiers in total
4,000 - 6,000
T number of Haar-like features
40,000
Why is Training so Slow?
• Time complexity: O(MNT log N)– 15ms to train a feature classifier– 10min to train a weak classifier– 27 days to train a face detector
• Bottleneck:– At least O(NT) to train a weak
classifier
• Can we avoid O(NT)?
Our Proposal
• Fast StatBoost: To train feature classifiers using statistics rather than using input data– Con:
• Less accurate
… but not critical for a feature classifier– Pro:
• Much faster training time: Constant time instead of linear time
Fast StatBoost• Training feature classifiers using
statistics:– Assumption: feature value v(t) is normally
distributed given face class c is known – Closed-form solution for optimal threshold
• Fast linear projections of the statistics of a window’s integral image into 1D statistics of a feature value
Non-face
Face
Optimalthreshold
Featurevalue
)()( tTt gmJ )()(2)( tTtt gg
J
constant time to train a feature classifier
: Haar-like feature, a sparse vector with less than 20 non-zero elements
: mean vector and covariance matrix ofJJ
m , J
)(tg
: random vector representing a window’s integral imageJ : mean and variance of feature value v(t)2)()( , tt
Fast StatBoost• Integral image’s statistics are obtained directly from the weighted input data
– Input: N training integral images and their current weights w(m):
– We compute:• Sample total weight:
• Sample mean vector:
• Sample covariance matrix:
NNmN
mm ccc ,,,...,,,,,, )(22
)(2
)(1 JwJwJw 11
ccn
nmncc
n
wz:
)(1ˆˆ Jm
ccn
mnc
n
wz:
)(ˆ
Tcc
ccn
Tnn
mncc
n
wz mmJJ ˆˆˆˆ:
)(1
Factor
Description Common value
N number of examples 10,000
M number of weak classifiers in total
4,000 - 6,000
T number of Haar-like features
40,000
d number of pixels of a window
300-500
Fast StatBoost• To train a weak classifier:
– Extract the class-conditional integral image statistics
• Time complexity: O(Nd2)• Factor d2 negligible because fast algorithms
exist, hence in practice: O(N)
– Train T feature classifiers by projecting the statistics into 1D:
• Time complexity: O(T)
– Select the best feature classifier• Time complexity: O(T)
• Time complexity: O(N+T)
A view of our face detector training algorithm
for weak classifier m from 1 to M:…update weights – O(N)Extract statistics of integral image – O(Nd2)for feature t from 1 to T:
project statistics into 1D – O(1)train feature classifier – O(1)
select best feature classifier – O(T)…
Experimental Results
• Setup– Intel Pentium IV 2.8GHz– 19 types 295,920 Haar-like
features
• Time for extracting the statistics:– Main factor: covariance matrices
• GotoBLAS: 0.49 seconds per matrix
• Time for training T features:– 2.1 seconds
(1) (2)
(17)
(7)
(3) (4) (5) (6)
(14)(15)
(16)
(8) (9)(10) (11) (12) (13)
(18) (19)
Edge features: Corner features:
Diagonal line features:
Line features: Center-surround features:
Nineteen feature types used in our experiments
Total training time: 3.1 seconds per weak classifier with 300K features• Existing methods: up to 10 minutes with 40K features or fewer
Experimental Results• Comparison with Fast AdaBoost (J. Wu et. al. ‘07), the fastest known
implementation of Viola-Jones’ framework:
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 3000000
2
4
6
8
10
12
training time of a weak classifier
Fast AdaBoost
Fast StatBoost
number of features (T)
se
co
nd
s (
s)
Experimental Results• Performance of a cascade:
ROC curves of the final cascades for face detection
Method Total training time
Memory requirement
Fast AdaBoost (T=40K)
13h 20m 800 MB
Fast StatBoost (T=40K)
02h 13m 30 MB
Fast StatBoost (T=300K)
03h 02m 30 MB
Conclusions
• Fast StatBoost: – use of statistics instead of input data to train feature
classifiers
• Learning time:– A month 3 hours
• Better detection accuracy:– Due to much more members of Haar-like features explored
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Problem overview• Common appearance-based approach:
– F1, F2, …, FN : boosted classifiers
– f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K : weak classifiers
– : threshold
F1 F2 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
object
non-object
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,1 f1,2f1,K
> ?
Objective
• Find f1,1, f1,2, …, f1,K, and such that:
– – – K is minimized proportional to F1’s evaluation time
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,1 f1,2f1,K
> ?
01
01
)(
)(
FFRR
FFAR
K
ii xfsignxF
1,11 )()(
Existing trends (1)
Idea: Boosting + Thresholding• For k from 1 until convergence:
– Let
– Learn new weak classifier f1,k(x):
– Let
– Adjust to see if we can achieve FAR(F1) <= 0 and FRR(F1) <= 0:
• Break loop if such exists
Issues• Weak classifiers are sub-
optimal w.r.t. training goal.• Too many weak classifiers
are required in practice.
k
ii xfsignxF
1,11 )()(
)()(minargˆ11,1
,1
FFRRFFARfkf
k
k
ii xfsignxF
1,11 )()(
Existing trends (2)
Idea: Asymmetric Boosting• For k from 1 until convergence:
– Let
– Learn new weak classifier f1,k(x):
– Break loop if FAR(F1) <= 0 and FRR(F1) <= 0
Pros• Reduce FRR at the
cost of increasing FAR – acceptable for cascades
• Fewer weak classifiers
k
ii xfsignxF
1,11 )()(
)()(minargˆ11,1
,1
FFRRFFARfkf
k
Cons• How to choose ?• Much longer training
time
Solution to con• Trial and error:
• choose such that K is minimized.
Our solution
Why?
Learn every weak classifier using the same asymmetric goal:
where
)(,1 xf k
,)()(minargˆ11,1
,1
FFRRFFARfkf
k
.0
0
Because…• Consider two desired bounds (or targets) for learning a boosted classifier
– Exact bound: and– Conservative bound:
• (2) is more conservative than (1) because (2) => (1).
0)( MFFAR 0)( MFFRR
00
0 )()(
MM FFRRFFAR
:)(xFM
(2)
(1)
0 1
1
0
= 1
H1
H2
H200H201
H3
H4
b0
Q1Q2
Q200
Q201
Q3Q4
FAR
FRR
exact bound
conservativebound
FRR0 1
1
= 0/0
FAR
H1
H2
H3
H39
H40
0
b0
H41
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q39
Q41
Q40
exact bound
conservativebound
At for every new weak classifier learned, the ROC operating
point moves the fastest toward the conservative bound
,0
0
Implication
• When the ROC operating point reaches in the conservative bound:– – – Conditions met, therefore = 0.
pass
reject
F1
…. +++yes
no
f1,1 f1,2f1,K
> ?
01
01
)(
)(
FFRR
FFAR
K
ii xfsignxF
1,11 )()(
Goal () vs. Number of weak classifiers (K)
• Toy problem: To learn a (single-exit) boosted classifier F for classifying face/non-face patches such that FAR(F) < 0.8 and FRR(F) < 0.01– Empirically best goal:
– Our method chooses:
• Similar results were obtained for tests on other desired error rates.
.8001.0
8.0
].100,10[
Multi-exit Asymmetric BoostingA method to train a single boosted classifier with multiple exit nodes:
: a weak classifier : a weak classifier followed by a decision to continue or reject – an exit node
f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 face
non-face
pass pass passreject reject reject
fi fi
+ + + + + + +
.0
0
• Features:• Weak classifiers are trained with the same goal:• Every pass/reject decision is guaranteed with and• The classifier is a cascade.• Score is propagated from one node to another.
• Main advantages:• Weak classifiers are learned (approximately) optimally.• No training of multiple boosted classifiers.• Much fewer weak classifiers are needed than traditional cascades.
0FAR .0FRR
F2F1 F3
Results
• Use Fast StatBoost as base method for fast-learning a weak classifier.
Method No of weak
classifiers
No of exit
nodes
Total training
time
Viola Jones [3] 4,297 32 6h20m
Viola Jones [4] 3,502 29 4h30m
Boosting chain [7] 959 22 2h10m
Nested cascade [5] 894 20 2h
Soft cascade [1] 4,871 4,871 6h40m
Dynamic cascade [6] 1,172 1,172 2h50m
Multi-exit Asymmetric Boosting
575 24 1h20m
Results
• MIT+CMU Frontal Face Test set:
Conclusions
• Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal: – Rejectors are trained with a goal that allows to utilize
approximately the fewest weak classifiers.
• Eliminates human intervention in selecting and
• Faster detection speed:– Due to fewer weak classifiers
• Better detection accuracy:– Due to principled score propagation
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Other Contributions• Online Asymmetric Boosting
– To learn online an asymmetric boosted classifier– Integration of two lines of research:
• Online Boosting• Asymmetric Boosting
• Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error– To explain how well Asymmetric Boosting works– For all t > 0, with probability at least 1 – 4exp(-2t2):
tC
CCn
VC
n
VCyxFPyxFP
FFRRFFAR 2
22221
1
)1,0[)1,0[
)/2(loglog)/2(loglog
)1|)((ˆ)1|)((ˆ
inf)()(
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
• Extending Haar-like features• From axis-aligned shape to polygonal shape?
• Fast searching for Haar-like features
• Consistency and convergence rate of asymmetric boosting
• Sharper asymmetric bounds
Some immediate directions…
• Cascade of non-face rejectors:
Analysis of sequential decisions
F1 FN….passpasspass pass
reject reject reject
face
non-face
F2
What is the best strategy to design the sequence F1, F2, …, FN?
• Current popular object classes:– Upright frontal face:
– Medium color variance– Small shape variance– Works best with Haar-like features
Tackling harder object class
Mean intensity
• Current popular object classes:– Pedestrian:
– Large color variance– Small shape variance– Works best with HOG
Tackling harder object class
Mean gradient
Multi-view multi-pose human
• Large color variance• Large shape variance
Multi-view face
• Medium color variance
• Large shape variance
Multi-pose hand
• Small color variance• Large shape variance
• More challenging object classes:
Tackling harder object class
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Outline
• Motivation• Contributions
– Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Online Asymmetric Boosting– Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error
• Future Work• Summary
Summary
• Fast Weak Classifier Learning– Reduction of face detector learning time: a month 3 hours
• Automatic Selection of Asymmetric Goal– Principled learning goal for learning the rejectors
• Online Asymmetric Boosting– Online learning an asymmetric boosted classifier
• Generalization Bounds on the Asymmetric Error– Theory to explain how well asymmetric boosting works
Publications
• M.T. Pham and V.D.D. Hoang and T.J. Cham. Detection with Multi-exit Asymmetric Boosting. In Proc. CVPR Anchorage, Alaska, Jun 2008.– Acceptance rate 27.9%
• M.T. Pham and T.J. Cham. Fast Training and Selection of Haar features using Statistics in Boosting-based Face Detection. In Proc. ICCV, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Oct 2007.– Oral paper – acceptance rate 3.9%.
• M.T. Pham and T.J. Cham. Online Learning Asymmetric Boosted Classifiers for Object Detection. In Proc. CVPR, Minnesota, USA, Jun 2007.– Oral paper – acceptance rate 4.1%.
• M.T. Pham and T.J. Cham. Detection Caching for Faster Object Detection. In Proc. IEEE International Workshop on modeling People and Human Interaction (PHI'05), Beijing, China, Jun 2005. Held in conjunction with ICCV.
Awards
• One of only two first authors in the world with CVPR and ICCV oral papers in 2007.
• Travel Grant, ICCV, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2007.
• Second Prize, Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence Association (PREMIA)’s Best Student Paper in 2007 Award, Singapore, Feb 2008.
• Travel Grant, CVPR, Anchorage, Alaska, Jun 2008.
Thank You