13.08.2018 Views

[Studies in Computational Intelligence 481] Artur Babiarz, Robert Bieda, Karol Jędrasiak, Aleksander Nawrat (auth.), Aleksander Nawrat, Zygmunt Kuś (eds.) - Vision Based Systemsfor UAV Applications (2013, Sprin

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Selection of Individual Gait Features Extracted by MPCA 265<br />

When the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g set of MPCA and the supervised classification conta<strong>in</strong> only<br />

half the data <strong>in</strong> case of "tra<strong>in</strong> set and test set" approach, the results are much worse<br />

as shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. 6. The performance does not exceed 30% and 43% of classification<br />

accuracy for Naive Bayes and 1NN classifiers, respectively. It is much better<br />

than random guess<strong>in</strong>g, which gives only 5%, but still very poor. It is probably<br />

caused by the weak representativeness of <strong>in</strong>put and reduced spaces because of the<br />

small size of the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g set. Only two gait <strong>in</strong>stances of each class are <strong>in</strong>sufficient<br />

for effective probability estimation of high dimensional cont<strong>in</strong>uous spaces, necessary<br />

<strong>in</strong> statistical classification.<br />

Fig. 6. Naïve Bayes classification results for cont<strong>in</strong>uous and discretized spaces for tra<strong>in</strong> set<br />

and test set approach<br />

To improve the classification we applied supervised discretization of reduced<br />

feature spaces, which should make statistical estimation easier. Because calculat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

distances <strong>in</strong> discrete spaces seems to be much less accurate than <strong>in</strong> the cont<strong>in</strong>uous<br />

ones, which is a crucial step of 1NN, we repeated the tests only for Naive<br />

Bayes classifier. In discretization we applied MDL method proposed by Fayyad<br />

and Irani [7]. The results shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. 7 are even better than we expected. Regardless<br />

of the poor representativeness of the tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g set, the maximum accuracy<br />

is 92.50% for Q=0.67 and 0.85, which means only three misclassified gaits. We<br />

can locate extreme once aga<strong>in</strong>. However the <strong>in</strong>fluence of noise <strong>in</strong> high dimensional<br />

spaces is weaker, for Q=0.99 accuracy is still greater than 60%.<br />

Fig. 7. Naïve Bayes classification results for cont<strong>in</strong>uous and discretized spaces for tra<strong>in</strong> set<br />

and test set approach<br />

Because of such promis<strong>in</strong>g results obta<strong>in</strong>ed by the classification based on discretized<br />

spaces for the "tra<strong>in</strong> set and test set" approach, we evaluated the <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />

of discretization on classification performance for the s<strong>in</strong>gle dataset approach. As

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!