Skip to content

Conversation

@charbelmarche33
Copy link
Member

@charbelmarche33 charbelmarche33 commented Oct 29, 2024

Second PR from issue 29 of extractor repo.

This is PR n.o. 2 from issue #29.

Methods Evaluated and Performance

Without any error in boxes all methods: kmeans, agglomerative, and dbscan obtained 100% accuracy.

With accounting for 5% error adding and removing boxes

image

Improvements:

  • Using density max to isolate relevant bounding boxes.
  • Clustering via multiple methods
  • Testing using mAP as well as incrementing until 0.95.

Work moving forward for next semester/in-between other :

  • Smart identification of clusters to be more flexible to detection identification errors (use spacing for this)
  • ...

charbelmarche33 and others added 25 commits October 10, 2024 01:35
…his file will be ignored by git (all files within this directory will be ignored by git with exception of ".gitkeep"). Additionally adding details to README.md to ease set up.
…er. May want to take some of these functions and turn them into a package to use in various microservices?
…d version of Ryan's selected method and datapoints are split by a diagonal line. Converted to using BoundingBox class instead of handling coordinates directly. Added labels to output.
@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@charbelmarche33 charbelmarche33 changed the title Clustering completed: DBScan provides most accurate results when accounting for erroneous labels. Clustering in progress... Nov 11, 2024
@charbelmarche33 charbelmarche33 marked this pull request as draft November 19, 2024 01:47
@charbelmarche33 charbelmarche33 changed the title Clustering in progress... Clustering completed. Nov 19, 2024
@charbelmarche33 charbelmarche33 marked this pull request as ready for review November 19, 2024 02:54
@charbelmarche33
Copy link
Member Author

@RyanDoesMath Will talk about this in the next meeting, but the results are actually much better than we were getting. We were having an issue with some of the ground-truth data not being accurate to the registered images we were using. I found you had added new data in the Google Drive under cluster_bp_and_hr_yolo.zip so we used that instead, and these are the numbers we are getting:

image

Still room for improvement with a more robust method of cluster naming, but all-in-all quite an improvement.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants