# Example usage of JGMT

Here is an example of usage of the graphical models toolbox I’ve just released. I’ll use the terminology of “perturbation” to refer to computing loss gradients from the difference of two problems as in this paper, and “truncated fitting” to refer to backpropagating derivatives through the TRW inference process for a fixed number of iterations, as in this paper.

This is basically the simplest possible vision problem. We will train a conditional random field (CRF) to take some noisy image $\bf x$ as input:

and produce marginals that well predict a binary image $\bf y$ as output:

The noisy image $\bf x$ is produced by setting $x_i = y_i(1-t_i^n) + (1-y_i)t_i^n$ where $t_i$ is random on $[0,1]$ and $n$ is a noise level as described in this paper. For now, we set $n=1.25$ which is a pretty challenging amount of noise, as you see above.

The main file, which does the learning described here can be found in the toolbox in examples/train_binary_denoisers.m.

First off, we will train a model using perturbation, with the univariate likelihood loss function, based on TRW inference, with a convergence threshold of 1e-5. We do this by typing:

>> train_binary_denoisers('pert_ul_trw_1e-5')
First-order
Iteration  Func-count       f(x)        Step-size       optimality
0           1         0.692759                         0.096
1           3         0.686739       0.432616         0.0225
2           5         0.682054             10         0.0182
3           6         0.670785              1         0.0317
4          10         0.542285        48.8796          0.932
5          12         0.515509            0.1          0.965
6          13         0.439039              1          0.355
7          14         0.302082              1          0.279
8          15         0.228832              1          0.471
9          17         0.223659       0.344464         0.0159
10          18         0.223422              1        0.00417
11          19         0.223231              1        0.00269
12          20         0.223227              1        0.00122
13          22         0.223221        4.33583       0.000857
14          23         0.223201              1        0.00121
15          24         0.223138              1        0.00306
16          25         0.223035              1        0.00509
17          26         0.222903              1        0.00564
18          27         0.222824              1         0.0035
19          28         0.222806              1       0.000945
20          29         0.222803              1       0.000798
21          30         0.222802              1        0.00079
22          31         0.222798              1        0.00111
23          32         0.222788              1        0.00168
24          33         0.222763              1        0.00255
25          34         0.222707              1        0.00364
26          35         0.222603              1        0.00435
27          36         0.222479              1        0.00339
28          37         0.222408              1        0.00117
29          38         0.222394              1       9.64e-05
30          39         0.222393              1       2.05e-05
31          40         0.222393              1       4.06e-06
32          41         0.222393              1       2.86e-07



The final model trained has an error rate of 0.096. We can visualize the marginals produced by making an image where each pixel has an intensity proportional to the predicted probability that that pixel takes label “1”.

On the other hand, we might train a model using truncated fitting, with the univariate likelihood, and 5 iterations of TRW.

>> train_binary_denoisers('trunc_ul_trw_5')

Sparing you the details of the optimization, this yields a total error rate of .0984 and the marginals:

Thus, restricting to only 5 iterations pays only a small accuracy penalty compared to a right convergence threshold.

Or, we could fit using the surrogate conditional likelihood. (Here called E.M., though we don’t happen to have any hidden variables.)

>> train_binary_denoisers('em_trw_1e-5')

This yields an error rate of .1016, and the marginals:

There are many permutations of loss functions, inference algorithms, etc. (Some of which have not yet been published.) Rather than exhaust all the possibilities, I’ll just list a bunch of examples:

'pert_ul_trw_1e-5' (Perturbation + univariate likelihood + TRW with 1e-5 threshold)

'trunc_cl_trw_5' (Truncated Fitting + clique likelihood + TRW with 5 iterations)

'trunc_cl_mnf_5' (Truncated Fitting + clique likelihood + Mean Field with 5 iterations)

'trunc_em_trw_5' (Truncated EM, with TRW used to compute both upper and lower bounds on partition function + 5 iterations)

'em_trw_1e-5' (Regular EM, with TRW used to compute both upper and lower bounds on partition function + 1e-5 threshold)

'em_trw/mnf_1e-5' (Regular EM, with TRW used for upper bound and meanfield used for lower bound + 1e-5 threshold)

'pseudo' (Pseudolikelihood)

About the pseudolikelihood, let’s try it.

>> train_binary_denoisers(‘pseudo’)

This yields an near-change error rate of .44, and the marginals (produced by TRW)

Which is why you probably shouldn’t use the pseudolikelihood…