Difference between revisions of "Private:progress-dameh"

From NMSL
Line 1: Line 1:
 
= Summer 2011 (TA) =
 
= Summer 2011 (TA) =
 
* Research: Gram Matrix approximation
 
* Research: Gram Matrix approximation
 +
  
 
===July 10 - July 24 ===
 
===July 10 - July 24 ===
 
* Attending workshop on [http://www.nudt.edu.cn/summerschool/eng/lessoninfo.html High Performance Computing] at National University of Defense Technology, China.
 
* Attending workshop on [http://www.nudt.edu.cn/summerschool/eng/lessoninfo.html High Performance Computing] at National University of Defense Technology, China.
 +
  
 
=== July 8 ===
 
=== July 8 ===

Revision as of 10:04, 17 July 2011

Summer 2011 (TA)

  • Research: Gram Matrix approximation


July 10 - July 24


July 8

  • Comparing our method using the "Locality Sensitive Hashing" to the method using "Hilbert Space filling Curve"
  • Initial results can be found at this address students/dameh/reports/dameh/summer11/H-CurveVSlsh.pdf


Jun 17

  • Report should be available here


Jun 03

  • Proposed new metric to be used instead of the FN ratio (more powerful to compare different families and to pick the optimal value of k)
  • More analysis on the spectral hashing
  • Writing up the report with the results to be sent soon


May 19

  • Spectral Hashing is Data dependent hashing and more powerful than the random projection, see this comparison examples in the 2D.
  • Random Projection Hashing
    • Method:
      • Take random projections of data.
      • Quantize the projections to hash value’s bits.
    • Disadvantage:
      • Data Independent Hashing.
    • Advantage:
      • Strong theoretical guarantees.
      • Simple and fast to compute (linear time).
    • Types:
      • Euclidean distance: two parameters to vary that have the opposite affect (number of random vectors k and quantization width w).
      • L1 distance: uncontrolled, as k increase error increase.
      • Cosine distance: more controlled than L1 as k increase.
  • Data-Dependent Hashing
    • Advantage:
      • Data-distribution dependent; powerful than Random Projection.
    • Disadvantage:
      • More complex to compute than Random Projection.
    • Types:
      • Spectral hashing:
        • Compute PCA.
        • Calculate the k smallest single-dimension analytical EigenFunctions.
        • Threshold the analytical EigenFnction of zero to obtain hash value's bits.
      • KernelLSH:
        • The key idea is first embed the data into a lower space using the kernel G and then do LSH in the lower dimensional space.


May 5

  • Recap
    • Problem: kernel methods' gram matrix is O(N^2), which is computationally and memory usage infeasible for large-scale datasets
    • Previous Work:
      • Low rank matrix approximation:
        • using EigenDecomposition: Optimal solution
          • Problem: requires O(N^3) computation to construct the low rank matrix
          • Solution: use Nytsrom theorem to approximate the EigenDecomposition of the matrix which requires O(m^2N) where m << N.
          • Problem: In this methods in despite of reducing the computation complexity still we need O(N^2) to store the matrix, so the next methods reduce both computation and memory.
      • Efficient implementation for computing the kernel matrix:
        • Using Spatial Indexing:
          • using Z-order, H-order, kd-tress and other spatial indexing techniques to order the points in the space and then using sliding window where the kernel function computed only between points in that window.
          • Problems: requires O(NlogN) as preprocessing to order the points, fails for very high dimensional Data and hard to parallel
          • Solution: We proposed a method that works fine for large-scale and highly dimensional data that overcomes all pervious works drawbacks, easy to parallel, requires linear time preprocessing and reduce both computation and memory usage down form quadratic to subquadratic:
        • Using Spatial Hashing or Locality sensitive hashing: where the kernel function and the cluster methods works on the buckets individually.
          • LSH families :
            • Random projection:
              • Hamming distance, Euclidean Distance, Cosine Distance
              • Problem for random projection, assume data uniformly distrubuted and it doesn’t take in account if data are in a kernel space, Solution:
            • Spectral Hashing: overcomes previous families problems
            • Kernelized LSH : Problem: more complex to compute
    • In progress: Comparing different LSH families


Spring 2011 (TA/RA)

  • Courses:
    • CMPT 885: Special Topics in Computer Architecture
    • CMPT 886: Special Topics in Operating Systems


Fall 2010 (FAS-GF/RA)

  • Courses:
    • CMPT 705: Design/Analysis Algorithms
    • CMPT 820: Multimedia Systems
  • Worked on Gram matrix approximation, High Performance/large scale application case studies


Summer 2010 (TA)

  • Worked on large Scale Kernel methods


Spring 2010 (RA)

  • Courses:
    • CMPT 768: Sound Synthesis
  • Worked on Locality sensitive hashing families and their applications and implementations