BBYR Achieve
返回信息流
这是一条镜像帖。来源:北邮人论坛 / ml-dm / #4540同步于 2009/3/28
该镜像源已超过 30 天没有更新,可能在源站已被删除。
ML_DM机器人发帖

看到一篇讲分类的博客 觉得挺有意思

zixu1986
2009/3/28镜像同步12 回复
http://quantombone.blogspot.com/2009/03/beyond-categorization-getting-away-from.html Beyond Categorization: Getting Away From Object Categories in Computer Vision Natural language evolved over thousands of years to become the powerful tool that is is today. When we say things using language to convey our experiences with the world, we can't help but refer to object categories. When we say things such as "this is a car" what we are actually saying is "this is an instance from the car category." Categories let us get away from referring to individual object instances -- in most cases knowing that something belongs to a particular category is more than enough knowledge to deal with it. This is a type of "understanding by compression" or understanding by abstracting away the unnecessary details. In the words of Rosch, "the task of category systems is to provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort." Rosch would probably agree that it only makes sense to talk about the utility of a category system (a for getting a grip on reality) as opposed to the truth value of a category system with respect how well it aligns to observer-independent reality. The degree of pragmatism expressed by Rosch is something that William James would have been proud of. From a very young age we are taught language and soon it takes over our inner world. We 'think' in language. Language provides us with a list of nouns -- a way of cutting up the world into categories. Different cultures have different languages that cut up the world differently and one might wonder how well the object categories contained in any given single language correspond to reality -- if it even makes sense to talk about an observer independent reality. Rosch would argue that human categorization is the result of "psychological principles of categorization" and is more related to how we interact with the world than how the world is. If the only substances we ingested for nutrients were types of grass, then categorizing all of the different strains of grass with respect to flavor, vitamin content, color, etc would be beneficial for us (as a species). Rosch points out in her works that her ideas refer to categorization at the species-level and she calls it human categorization. She is not referring to a personal categorization; for example, the way a child might cluster concepts when he/she starts learning about the world. It is not at all clear to me whether we should be using the categories from natural language as the to-be-recognized entities in our image understanding systems. Many animals do not have a language with which they can compress percepts into neat little tokens -- yet they have no problem interacting with the world. Of course, if we want to build machines that understand the world around them in a way that they can communicate with us (humans), then language and its inherent categorization will play a crucial role. While we ultimately use language to convey our ideas to other humans, how early are the principles of categorization applied to perception? Is the grouping of percepts into categories even essential for perception? I doubt that anybody would argue that language and its inherent categorization is not useful for dealing with the world -- the only question is how it interacts with perception. Most computer vision researchers are stuck in the world of categorization and many systems rely on categorization at a very early stage. A problem with categorization is its inability to deal with novel categories -- something which humans must deal with at a very young age. We (humans) can often deal with arbitrary input and using analogies can still get a grip and the world around us (even when it is full of novel categories). One hypothesis is that at the level of visual perception things do not get recognized into discrete object classes -- but a continuous recognition space. Thus instead of asking the question, "What is this?" we focus on similarity measurements and ask "What is this like?". Such a comparison-based view would help us cope with novel concepts.
订阅后,新回复会通过你的通知中心匿名送达。
9 条回复
JimmyDong机器人#1 · 2009/3/28
who are you 【 在 zixu1986 (Euro) 的大作中提到: 】 : http://quantombone.blogspot.com/2009/03/beyond-categorization-getting-away-from.html : Beyond Categorization: Getting Away From Object Categories in Computer Vision : Natural language evolved over thousands of years to become the powerful tool that is is today. When we say things using language to convey our experiences with the world, we can't help but refer to object categories. When we say things such as "this : ...................
zixu1986机器人#2 · 2009/3/28
你说写博客的那个人?估计是波兰的还是俄国的 在CMU跟Efros
JimmyDong机器人#3 · 2009/3/28
I mean you...
zixu1986机器人#4 · 2009/3/28
我是信通院05小本
JimmyDong机器人#5 · 2009/3/29
大本阿。怎么叫小本呢
zixu1986机器人#6 · 2009/3/29
小本小本 低调低调 【 在 JimmyDong 的大作中提到: 】 : 大本阿。怎么叫小本呢
earl机器人#7 · 2009/3/29
It is not at all clear to me whether we should be using the categories from natural language as the to-be-recognized entities in our image understanding systems. 对于图像和语言来说,我们都没有弄清在大脑里面都是怎么表示的,也没有找到个好方法来表示。。不过如果只是简单的利用语言的表面符号到图像识别中我认为应该帮助不大。一直觉得大脑里有种内在语言,这个语言在不同的语言间甚至相差很小,也是不同的语言能相互理解的基础
zixu1986机器人#8 · 2009/3/29
嗯 这个博客大概也就是这个意思
JimmyDong机器人#9 · 2009/3/29
曾经跟一个老总聊天,他说想要几个大本学生。社会上都这么看重咱,又何必谦虚呢