I am using the Facenet algorithm for face recognition. I want to create application based on this, but the problem is the Facenet algorithm returns an array of length 128, which is the face embedding per person.
For person identification, I have to find the Euclidian difference between two persons face embedding, then check that if it is greater than a threshold or not. If it is then the persons are same; if it is less then persons are different.
Let's say If I have to find person x in the database of 10k persons. I have to calculate the difference with each and every person's embeddings, which is not efficient.
Is there any way to store this face embedding efficiently and search for the person with better efficiency?
I guess reading this blog will help the others.
It's in detail and also covers most aspects of implementation.
Face recognition on 330 million faces at 400 images per second
Recommend you to store them in redis or cassandra. They will overperform than relational databases.
Those key-value stores can store multidimensional vector as a value.
You can find embedding vectors with deepface. I shared a sample code snippet below.
#!pip install deepface
from deepface import DeepFace
img_list = ["img1.jpg", "img2.jpg", ...]
model = DeepFace.build_model("Facenet")
for img_path in img_list:
img_embedding = DeepFace.represent(img_path, model = model)
#store img_embedding into the redis here
Sounds like you want a nearest neighbour search. You could have a look at the various space partitioning data structures like kd-trees
First make a dictionary with 10000 face encodings as it is shown at Face_recognition sample, then store it as pickle-file. While loaded in memory it will take a sacond to find distance between X face encoding and that 10000 pre-encoded ones. take a look how it works I'm operating with millions of faces in such way.
Related
I hope this is not a too stupid question to ask. Grateful for any advice.
I want to store a 2d landscape consisting of discrete values in a database.
The value for each point represents what type of landscape it is (20 = tree).
Not each point must be defined/ stored.
I expect ~ 10.000 read- operations per minute, the write operations are neglectible (<1 per minute).
A optimal query might look like: "Return all values around point (x/y) with radius r." or "Return all values in a given rectangle."
I wont host the hardware by myself and will rent the server/ cloud sulution that is needed. In case it makes any difference: Prefered language for BE and FE is JS, but Java, Scala and C# are viable options, too.
What kind of database and datastructure would you use for this use case?
What if clients should be able to subscribe to changes in certain areas - how would you tacle this problem in theory?
What if each point holds a JSON, not an integer?
If I have a vector (for example: (5,4,6,8) ) in my application and I want to find similarity to other vector in my DB, let say for simplicity that I'm calculating distance between two vectors with Manhattan distance.
What I need is a way to calculate the algorithm (Manhattan distance in my example) between my vector and all the vectors that are stored in my DB, Can I do 10 million vectors under a couple of seconds ?
If You really deal with a lot of data, what You really need is an Approximate Near Neighborhood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest_neighbor_search#Approximate_nearest_neighbor implementation. Take look at Annoy - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/annoy/1.8.0 project page. There is a benchmark with other ANN projects wich You can find interesting. Maybe there is a implementation as a plugin for DB, but I am not aware of such. However, ANN can be also used to pre-compute top-n NN and store them in DB as a list for User/Item.
I need a way of storing sets of arbitrary size for fast query later on.
I'll be needing to query the resulting data structure for subsets or sets that are already stored.
===
Later edit: To clarify, an accepted answer to this question would be a link to a study that proposes a solution to this problem. I'm not expecting for people to develop the algorithm themselves.
I've been looking over the tuple clustering algorithm found here, but it's not exactly what I want since from what I understand it 'clusters' the tuples into more simple, discrete/aproximate forms and loses the original tuples.
Now, an even simpler example:
[alpha, beta, gamma, delta] [alpha, epsilon, delta] [gamma, niu, omega] [omega, beta]
Query:
[alpha, delta]
Result:
[alpha, beta, gama, delta] [alpha, epsilon, delta]
So the set elements are just that, unique, unrelated elements. Forget about types and values. The elements can be tested among them for equality and that's it. I'm looking for an established algorithm (which probably has a name and a scientific paper on it) more than just creating one now, on the spot.
==
Original examples:
For example, say the database contains these sets
[A1, B1, C1, D1], [A2, B2, C1], [A3, D3], [A1, D3, C1]
If I use [A1, C1] as a query, these two sets should be returned as a result:
[A1, B1, C1, D1], [A1, D3, C1]
Example 2:
Database:
[Gasoline amount: 5L, Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: red]
[Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: blue, number of car seats: 2]
[number of car seats: 2, Gasoline amount: 2L]
Query:
[Distance to berlin: 240km]
Result
[Gasoline amount: 5L, Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: red]
[Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: blue, number of car seats: 2]
There can be an unlimited number of 'fields' such as Gasoline amount. A solution would probably involve the database grouping and linking sets having common states (such as Gasoline amount: 240) in such a way that the query is as efficient as possible.
What algorithms are there for such needs?
I am hoping there is already an established solution to this problem instead of just trying to find my own on the spot, which might not be as efficient as one tested and improved upon by other people over time.
Clarifications:
If it helps answer the question, I'm intending on using them for storing states:
Simple example:
[Has milk, Doesn't have eggs, Has Sugar]
I'm thinking such a requirement might require graphs or multidimensional arrays, but I'm not sure
Conclusion
I've implemented the two algorithms proposed in the answers, that is Set-Trie and Inverted Index and did some rudimentary profiling on them. Illustrated below is the duration of a query for a given set for each algorithm. Both algorithms worked on the same randomly generated data set consisting of sets of integers. The algorithms seem equivalent (or almost) performance wise:
I'm confident that I can now contribute to the solution. One possible quite efficient way is a:
Trie invented by Frankling Mark Liang
Such a special tree is used for example in spell checking or autocompletion and that actually comes close to your desired behavior, especially allowing to search for subsets quite conveniently.
The difference in your case is that you're not interested in the order of your attributes/features. For your case a Set-Trie was invented by Iztok Savnik.
What is a Set-Tree? A tree where each node except the root contains a single attribute value (number) and a marker (bool) if at this node there is a data entry. Each subtree contains only attributes whose values are larger than the attribute value of the parent node. The root of the Set-Tree is empty. The search key is the path from the root to a certain node of the tree. The search result is the set of paths from the root to all nodes containing a marker that you reach when you go down the tree and up the search key simultaneously (see below).
But first a drawing by me:
The attributes are {1,2,3,4,5} which can be anything really but we just enumerate them and therefore naturally obtain an order. The data is {{1,2,4}, {1,3}, {1,4}, {2,3,5}, {2,4}} which in the picture is the set of paths from the root to any circle. The circles are the markers for the data in the picture.
Please note that the right subtree from root does not contain attribute 1 at all. That's the clue.
Searching including subsets Say you want to search for attributes 4 and 1. First you order them, the search key is {1,4}. Now startin from root you go simultaneously up the search key and down the tree. This means you take the first attribute in the key (1) and go through all child nodes whose attribute is smaller or equal to 1. There is only one, namely 1. Inside you take the next attribute in the key (4) and visit all child nodes whose attribute value is smaller than 4, that are all. You continue until there is nothing left to do and collect all circles (data entries) that have the attribute value exactly 4 (or the last attribute in the key). These are {1,2,4} and {1,4} but not {1,3} (no 4) or {2,4} (no 1).
Insertion Is very easy. Go down the tree and store a data entry at the appropriate position. For example data entry {2.5} would be stored as child of {2}.
Add attributes dynamically Is naturally ready, you could immediately insert {1,4,6}. It would come below {1,4} of course.
I hope you understand what I want to say about Set-Tries. In the paper by Iztok Savnik it's explained in much more detail. They probably are very efficient.
I don't know if you still want to store the data in a database. I think this would complicate things further and I don't know what is the best to do then.
How about having an inverse index built of hashes?
Suppose you have your values int A, char B, bool C of different types. With std::hash (or any other hash function) you can create numeric hash values size_t Ah, Bh, Ch.
Then you define a map that maps an index to a vector of pointers to the tuples
std::map<size_t,std::vector<TupleStruct*> > mymap;
or, if you can use global indices, just
std::map<size_t,std::vector<size_t> > mymap;
For retrieval by queries X and Y, you need to
get hash value of the queries Xh and Yh
get the corresponding "sets" out of mymap
intersect the sets mymap[Xh] and mymap[Yh]
If I understand your needs correctly, you need a multi-state storing data structure, with retrievals on combinations of these states.
If the states are binary (as in your examples: Has milk/doesn't have milk, has sugar/doesn't have sugar) or could be converted to binary(by possibly adding more states) then you have a lightning speed algorithm for your purpose: Bitmap Indices
Bitmap indices can do such comparisons in memory and there literally is nothing in comparison on speed with these (ANDing bits is what computers can really do the fastest).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap_index
Here's the link to the original work on this simple but amazing data structure: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306457385901086
Almost all SQL databases supoort Bitmap Indexing and there are several possible optimizations for it as well(by compression etc.):
MS SQL: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522541(v=sql.105).aspx
Oracle: http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/Bitmap_index
Edit:
Apparently the original research work on bitmap indices is no longer available for free public access.
Links to recent literature on this subject:
Bitmap Index Design Choices and Their Performance
Implications
Bitmap Index Design and Evaluation
Compressing Bitmap Indexes for Faster Search Operations
This problem is known in the literature as subset query. It is equivalent to the "partial match" problem (e.g.: find all words in a dictionary matching A??PL? where ? is a "don't care" character).
One of the earliest results in this area is from this paper by Ron Rivest from 19761. This2 is a more recent paper from 2002. Hopefully, this will be enough of a starting point to do a more in-depth literature search.
Rivest, Ronald L. "Partial-match retrieval algorithms." SIAM Journal on Computing 5.1 (1976): 19-50.
Charikar, Moses, Piotr Indyk, and Rina Panigrahy. "New algorithms for subset query, partial match, orthogonal range searching, and related problems." Automata, Languages and Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002. 451-462.
This seems like a custom made problem for a graph database. You make a node for each set or subset, and a node for each element of a set, and then you link the nodes with a relationship Contains. E.g.:
Now you put all the elements A,B,C,D,E in an index/hash table, so you can find a node in constant time in the graph. Typical performance for a query [A,B,C] will be the order of the smallest node, multiplied by the size of a typical set. E.g. to find {A,B,C] I find the order of A is one, so I look at all the sets A is in, S1, and then I check that it has all of BC, since the order of S1 is 4, I have to do a total of 4 comparisons.
A prebuilt graph database like Neo4j comes with a query language, and will give good performance. I would imagine, provided that the typical orders of your database is not large, that its performance is far superior to the algorithms based on set representations.
Hashing is usually an efficient technique for storage and retrieval of multidimensional data. Problem is here that the number of attributes is variable and potentially very large, right? I googled it a bit and found Feature Hashing on Wikipedia. The idea is basically the following:
Construct a hash of fixed length from each data entry (aka feature vector)
The length of the hash must be much smaller than the number of available features. The length is important for the performance.
On the wikipedia page there is an implementation in pseudocode (create hash for each feature contained in entry, then increase feature-vector-hash at this index position (modulo length) by one) and links to other implementations.
Also here on SO is a question about feature hashing and amongst others a reference to a scientific paper about Feature Hashing for Large Scale Multitask Learning.
I cannot give a complete solution but you didn't want one. I'm quite convinced this is a good approach. You'll have to play around with the length of the hash as well as with different hashing functions (bloom filter being another keyword) to optimize the speed for your special case. Also there might still be even more efficient approaches if for example retrieval speed is more important than storage (balanced trees maybe?).
Why would one use kmedoids algoirthm rather then kmeans? Is it only the fact that
the number of metrics that can be used in kmeans is very limited or is there something more?
Is there an example of data, for which it makes much more sense to choose the best representatives
of cluster from the data rather then from R^n?
The problem with k-means is that it is not interpretable. By interpretability i mean the model should also be able to output the reason that why it has resulted a certain output.
lets take an example.
Suppose there is food review dataset which has two posibility that there is a +ve review or a -ve review so we can say we will have k= 2 where k is the number of clusters. Now if you go with k-means where in the algorithm the third step is updation step where you update your k-centroids based on the mean distance of the points that lie in a particular cluster. The example that we have chosen is text problem, so you would also apply some kind of text-featured vector schemes like BagOfWords(BOW), word2vec. now for every review you would get the corresponding vector. Now the generated centroid c_i that you will get after running the k-means would be the mean of the vectors present in that cluster. Now with that centroid you cannot interpret much or rather i should say nothing.
But for same problem you apply k-medoids wherein you choose your k-centroids/medoids from your dataset itself. lets say you choose x_5 point from your dataset as first medoid. From this your interpretability will increase beacuse now you have the review itself which is termed as medoid/centroid. So in k-medoids you choose the centroids from your dataset itself.
This is the foremost motivation of introducing k-mediods
Coming to the metrics part you can apply all the metrics that you apply for k-means
Hope this helps.
Why would we use k-medoids instead of k-means in case of (squared) Euclidean distance?
1. Technical justification
In case of relatively small data sets (as k-medoids complexity is greater) - to obtain a clustering more robust to noise and outliers.
Example 2D data showing that:
The graph on the left shows clusters obtained with K-medoids (sklearn_extra.cluster.KMedoids method in Python with default options) and the one on the right with K-means for K=2. Blue crosses are cluster centers.
The Python code used to generate green points:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
rng = np.random.default_rng(seed=32)
a = rng.random((6,2))*2.35 - 3*np.ones((6,2))
b = rng.random((50,2))*0.25 - 2*np.ones((50,2))
c = rng.random((100,2))*0.5 - 1.5*np.ones((100,2))
d = rng.random((7,2))*0.55
points = np.concatenate((a, b, c, d))
plt.plot(points[:,0],points[:,1],"g.", markersize=8, alpha=0.3) # green points
2. Business case justification
Here are some example business cases showing why we would prefer k-medoids. They mostly come down to the interpretability of the results and the fact that in k-medoids the resulting cluster centers are members of the original dataset.
2.1 We have a recommender engine based only on user-item preference data and want to recommend to the user those items (e.g. movies) that other similar people enjoyed. So we assign the user to his/her closest cluster and recommend top movies that the cluster representant (actual person) watched. If the cluster representant wasn't an actual person we wouldn't possess the history of actually watched movies to recommend. Each time we'd have to search additionally e.g. for the closest person from the cluster. Example data: classic MovieLens 1M Dataset
2.2 We have a database of patients and want to pick a small representative group of size K to test a new drug with them. After clustering the patients with K-medoids, cluster representants are invited to the drug trial.
Difference between is that in k-means centroids(cluster centrum) are calculated as average of vectors containing in the cluster, and in k-medoids the medoid (cluster centrum) is record from dataset closest to centroid, so if you need to represent cluster centrum by record of your data you use k-medoids, otherwise i should use k-means (but concept of these algorithms are same)
The K-Means algorithm uses a Distance Function such as Euclidean Distance or Manhattan Distance, which are computed over vector-based instances. The K-Medoid algorithm instead uses a more general (and less constrained) distance function: aka pair-wise distance function.
This distinction works well in contexts like Complex Data Types or relational rows, where the instances have a high number of dimensions.
High dimensionality problem
In standard clustering libraries and the k-means algorithms, the distance computation phase can spend a lot of time scanning the entire vector of attributes that belongs to an instance; for instance, in the context of documents clustering, using the standard TF-IDF representation. During the computation of the cosine similarity, the distance function scans all the possible words that appear in the whole collection of documents. Which in many cases can be composed by millions of entries. This is why, in this domain, some authors [1] suggests to restrict the words considered to a subset of N most frequent word of that language.
Using K-Kedoids there is no need to represent and store the documents as vectors of word frequencies.
As an alternative representation for the documents is possible to use the set of words appearing at least twice in the document; and as a distance measure, there can be used Jaccard Distance.
In this case, vector representation is long as the number of words in your dictionary.
Heterogeneousity and Complex Data Types.
There are many domains where is considerably better to abstract the implementation of an instance:
Graph's nodes clustering;
Car driving behaviour, represented as GPS routes;
Complex data type allows the design of ad-hoc distance measures which can fit better with the proper data domain.
[1] Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
Source: https://github.com/eracle/Gap
I want to pack a giant DNA sequence with an iOS app (about 3,000,000,000 base pairs). Each base pair can have a value A, C, T or G. Storing each base pair in one bytes would give a file of 3 GB, which is way too much. :)
Now I though of storing each base pair in two bits (four base pairs per octet), which gives a file of 750 MB. 750 MB is still way too much, even when compressed.
Are there any better file formats for efficiently storing giant base pairs on disk? In memory is not a problem as I read in chunks.
I think you'll have to use two bits per base pair, plus implement compression as described in this paper.
"DNA sequences... are not random; they contain
repeating sections, palindromes, and other features that
could be represented by fewer bits than is required to spell
out the complete sequence in binary...
With the proposed algorithm, sequence will be compressed by 75%
irrespective of the number of repeated or non-repeated
patterns within the sequence."
DNA Compression Using Hash Based Data Structure, International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management
July-December 2010, Volume 2, No. 2, pp. 383-386.
Edit: There is a program called GenCompress which claims to compress DNA sequences efficiently:
http://www1.spms.ntu.edu.sg/~chenxin/GenCompress/
Edit: See also this question on BioStar.
If you don't mind having a complex solution, take a look at this paper or this paper or even this one which is more detailed.
But I think you need to specify better what you're dealing with. Some specifics applications can lead do diferent storage. For example, the last paper I cited deals with lossy compression of DNA...
Base pairs always pair up, so you should only have to store one side of the strand. Now, I doubt that this works if there are certain mutations in the DNA (like a di-Thiamine bond) that cause the opposite strand to not be the exact opposite of the stored strand. Beyond that, I don't think you have many options other than to compress it somehow. But, then again, I'm not a bioinformatics guy, so there might be some pretty sophisticated ways to store a bunch of DNA in a small space. Another idea if it's an iOS app is just putting a reader on the device and reading the sequence from a web service.
Use a diff from a reference genome. From the size (3Gbp) that you post, it looks like you want to include a full human sequences. Since sequences don't differ too much from person to person, you should be able to compress massively by storing only a diff.
Could help a lot. Unless your goal is to store the reference sequence itself. Then you're stuck.
consider this, how many different combinations can you get? out of 4 (i think its about 16 )
actg = 1
atcg = 2
atgc = 3 and so on, so that
you can create an array like [1,2,3] then you can go one step further,
check if 1 is follow by 2, convert 12 to a, 13 = b and so on...
if I understand DNA a bit it means that you cannot get a certain value
as a must be match with c, and t with g or something like that which reduces your options,
so basically you can look for a sequence and give it a something you can also convert back...
You want to look into a 3d space-filling curve. A 3d sfc reduces the 3d complexity to a 1d complexity. It's a little bit like n octree or a r-tree. If you can store your full dna in a sfc you can look for similar tiles in the tree although a sfc is most likely to use with lossy compression. Maybe you can use a block-sorting algorithm like the bwt if you know the size of the tiles and then try an entropy compression like a huffman compression or a golomb code?
You can use the tools like MFCompress, Deliminate,Comrad.These tools provides entropy less than 2.That is for storing each symbol it will take less than 2 bits