3 ms·
That left me a bit disappointed about the current - I assume the tested detectors are at least somewhat state of the art - capabilities of neural network for ob
by danbruc 9y ago
That left me a bit disappointed about the current - I assume the tested detectors are at least somewhat state of the art - capabilities of neural network for object identification. But thinking about it also makes it somewhat obvious that they are flawed in this way.
Humans identify objects by looking at how different parts are geometrically located and connected, possibly in a hierarchical fashion, and what basic shapes, colors and textures those parts have. A sheep is a body, four legs, hoofs, a tail, a head with its characteristic shape, the ears, mouth, nose and all those come with characteristic textures and colors.
And because there are so many features and their relations, it is quite hard to fool humans, you can hide or change quite a few of them. We also have a lot of background knowledge, a bright orange sheep might be unusual but we also have a pretty good idea of how hard it is to change the color of a sheep.
I naively expected neural networks to also learn those features but there is just no pressure for them to do so. They mostly see common objects in common situations and there just looking for a patch of wool-colored, wool-textured fur might be enough to identify the presence of sheep correctly almost all the time. Or if sheep are mostly depicted in a characteristic environment it might be good enough to just identify landscape features and ignore the sheep altogether.
I would guess that it is in general not really feasible to come up with enough contrived, adversarial examples to force neural networks to learn the important parts and relations of different objects just by starring at many images. I think one would have to hard-wire some knowledge about space, spatial relations, occlusion, shapes and the like into a system to really get it to learn what a sheep is in a similar way as humans do without heavily increasing the risk of over-fitting.
- dahart 9y ago> Humans identify objects by looking at how different parts are geometrically located and connected, possibly in a hierarchical fashion FWIW this is what capsule networks are designed to do.
- notahacker 9y agoAlso, our grasp of sheep morphology is based on an abstract idea that the sheep is qualitatively different to and more significant than the surrounding fields and rocks which are roughly the same size, shape and colour as sheep. Unlike the ML process, this concept of sheep or more unfamiliar mammals as animate creatures which might be friend, foe or food exists independently of how many sheep I've seen before and the language used to classify them, and is probably instinctual rather than learned. Show me a couple of images of fields full of sheep classified as oveja or Schafe and I might make the same learning error as the ML process and think the word refers to the [general pattern of] surrounding field or hills. But show me a further image of oveja outside a field - even a close up of an oveja that doesn't resemble those in field photos in any way - and I'll grasp the meaning of the term straight away. Needless to say I'm also less likely to stumble over conceptual links between the names of animals and tastes of food, types of clothing etc which are independent of the living animal's morphology