1
0
This repository has been archived on 2025-03-06. You can view files and clone it, but cannot push or open issues or pull requests.
2018-05-25 10:58:21 +10:00

97 lines
3.7 KiB
TeX

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
% To compile PDF run: latexmk -pdf {filename}.tex
\usepackage{graphicx} % Used to insert images into the paper
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage[justification=centering]{caption} % Used for captions
\captionsetup[figure]{font=small} % Makes captions small
\newcommand\tab[1][0.5cm]{\hspace*{#1}} % Defines a new command to use 'tab' in text
% Math package
\usepackage{amsmath}
% Enable that parameters of \cref{}, \ref{}, \cite{}, ... are linked so that a reader can click on the number an jump to the target in the document
\usepackage{hyperref}
%enable \cref{...} and \Cref{...} instead of \ref: Type of reference included in the link
\usepackage[capitalise,nameinlink]{cleveref}
% UTF-8 encoding
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} %support umlauts in the input
% Easier compilation
\usepackage{bookmark}
\usepackage{natbib}
\begin{document}
\title{Waldo discovery using Neural Networks}
\author{Kelvin Davis \and Jip J. Dekker\and Anthony Silvestere}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\section{Background}
This paper is mad \cite{Kotsiantis2007}.
\section{Methods}
% Kelvin Start
\subsection{Benchmarking}\label{benchmarking}
In order to benchmark the Neural Networks, the performance of these
algorithms are evaluated against other Machine Learning algorithms. We
use Support Vector Machines, K-Nearest Neighbours (\(K=5\)), Gaussian
Naive Bayes and Random Forest classifiers, as provided in Scikit-Learn.
\subsection{Performance Metrics}\label{performance-metrics}
To evaluate the performance of the models, we record the time taken by
each model to train, based on the training data and statistics about the
predictions the models make on the test data. These prediction
statistics include:
\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
\textbf{Accuracy:}
\[a = \dfrac{|correct\ predictions|}{|predictions|} = \dfrac{tp + tn}{tp + tn + fp + fn}\]
\item
\textbf{Precision:}
\[p = \dfrac{|Waldo\ predicted\ as\ Waldo|}{|predicted\ as\ Waldo|} = \dfrac{tp}{tp + fp}\]
\item
\textbf{Recall:}
\[r = \dfrac{|Waldo\ predicted\ as\ Waldo|}{|actually\ Waldo|} = \dfrac{tp}{tp + fn}\]
\item
\textbf{F1 Measure:} \[f1 = \dfrac{2pr}{p + r}\] where \(tp\) is the
number of true positives, \(tn\) is the number of true negatives,
\(fp\) is the number of false positives, and \(tp\) is the number of
false negatives.
\end{itemize}
Accuracy is a common performance metric used in Machine Learning,
however in classification problems where the training data is heavily
biased toward one category, sometimes a model will learn to optimize its
accuracy by classifying all instances as one category. I.e. the
classifier will classify all images that do not contain Waldo as not
containing Waldo, but will also classify all images containing Waldo as
not containing Waldo. Thus we use, other metrics to measure performance
as well.
\emph{Precision} returns the percentage of classifications of Waldo that
are actually Waldo. \emph{Recall} returns the percentage of Waldos that
were actually predicted as Waldo. In the case of a classifier that
classifies all things as Waldo, the recall would be 0. \emph{F1-Measure}
returns a combination of precision and recall that heavily penalises
classifiers that perform poorly in either precision or recall.
% Kelvin End
\section{Results}
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{humannat}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}