about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/sourcecodes/bnt-master/BNT/examples/dynamic/HHMM/Square/learn_square_hhmm_discrete.m
blob: 3110ae5e1496fe558be35e2d8c231921e2e75d81 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
% Try to learn a 3 level HHMM similar to mk_square_hhmm
% from synthetic discrete sequences


discrete_obs = 1;
supervised = 0;
obs_finalF2 = 0;

seed = 1;
rand('state', seed);
randn('state', seed);

bnet_init = mk_square_hhmm(discrete_obs, 0);

ss = 6;
Q1 = 1; Q2 = 2; Q3 = 3; F3 = 4; F2 = 5; Onode = 6;
Qnodes = [Q1 Q2 Q3]; Fnodes = [F2 F3];

if supervised
  bnet_init.observed = [Q1 Q2 Onode];
else
  bnet_init.observed = [Onode];
end

if obs_finalF2
  engine_init = jtree_dbn_inf_engine(bnet_init);
  % can't use ndx version because sometimes F2 is hidden, sometimes observed
  error('can''t observe F when learning')
  % It is not possible to observe F2 if we learn
  % because the update_ess method for hhmmF_CPD and hhmmQ_CPD assume
  % the F nodes are always hidden (for speed).
  % However, for generating, we might want to set the final F2=true
  % to force all subroutines to finish.
else
  if supervised
    engine_init = jtree_ndx_dbn_inf_engine(bnet_init);
  else
    engine_init = hmm_inf_engine(bnet_init);
  end
end
  
% generate some synthetic data (easier to debug)
chars = ['L', 'l', 'U', 'u', 'R', 'r', 'D', 'd'];
L=find(chars=='L'); l=find(chars=='l');
U=find(chars=='U'); u=find(chars=='u');
R=find(chars=='R'); r=find(chars=='r');
D=find(chars=='D'); d=find(chars=='d');

cases = {};

T = 8;
ev = cell(ss, T);
ev(Onode,:) = num2cell([L l U u R r D d]);
if supervised
  ev(Q1,:) = num2cell(1*ones(1,T));
  ev(Q2,:) = num2cell( [1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4]);
end
cases{1} = ev;
cases{3} = ev;

T  = 8;
ev = cell(ss, T);
%we start with R then r, even though we are running the model 'backwards'!
ev(Onode,:) = num2cell([R r U u L l D d]);

if supervised
  ev(Q1,:) = num2cell(2*ones(1,T));
  ev(Q2,:) = num2cell( [3 3 2 2 1 1 4 4]);
end

cases{2} = ev;
cases{4} = ev;

if obs_finalF2
  for i=1:length(cases)
    T = size(cases{i},2);
    cases{i}(F2,T)={2}; % force F2 to be finished at end of seq
  end
end


% startprob should be shared for t=1:T,
% but in the DBN it is shared for t=2:T,
% so we train using a single long sequence.
long_seq = cat(2, cases{:});
[bnet_learned, LL, engine_learned] = ...
    learn_params_dbn_em(engine_init, {long_seq}, 'max_iter', 200);

% figure out which subsequence each model is responsible for
mpe = calc_mpe_dbn(engine_learned, long_seq);
pretty_print_hhmm_parse(mpe, Qnodes, Fnodes, Onode, chars);


% The "true" segmentation of the training sequence  is
% Q1: 1                 2
% O:  L l U u R r D d | R r U u L l D d | etc.
% 
% When we learn in a supervised fashion, we recover the "truth".

% When we learn in an unsupervised fashion with seed=1, we get
% Q1: 2                       1
% O:  L l U u R r D d  R r | U u L l D d | etc.
%
% This means for model 1:
% starts in state 2
% transitions 2->1, 1->4, 4->e, 3->2
%
% For model 2,
% starts in state 1
% transitions 1->2, 2->3, 3->4 or e, 4->3

% examine the params
eclass = bnet_learned.equiv_class;
CPDQ1=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(Q1,2)});
CPDQ2=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(Q2,2)});
CPDQ3=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(Q3,2)});
CPDF2=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(F2,1)});
CPDF3=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(F3,1)});
CPDO=struct(bnet_learned.CPD{eclass(Onode,1)});

A_learned =add_hhmm_end_state(CPDQ2.transprob, CPDF2.termprob(:,:,2));
squeeze(A_learned(:,1,:))
squeeze(A_learned(:,2,:))


% Does the "true" model have higher likelihood than the learned one?
% i.e., Does the unsupervised method learn the wrong model because
% we have the wrong cost fn, or because of local minima?

bnet_true = mk_square_hhmm(discrete_obs,1);

% examine the params
eclass = bnet_learned.equiv_class;
CPDQ1_true=struct(bnet_true.CPD{eclass(Q1,2)});
CPDQ2_true=struct(bnet_true.CPD{eclass(Q2,2)});
CPDQ3_true=struct(bnet_true.CPD{eclass(Q3,2)});
CPDF2_true=struct(bnet_true.CPD{eclass(F2,1)});
CPDF3_true=struct(bnet_true.CPD{eclass(F3,1)});

A_true =add_hhmm_end_state(CPDQ2_true.transprob, CPDF2_true.termprob(:,:,2));
squeeze(A_true(:,1,:))


if supervised
  engine_true = jtree_ndx_dbn_inf_engine(bnet_true);
else
  engine_true = hmm_inf_engine(bnet_true);
end

%[engine_learned, ll_learned] = enter_evidence(engine_learned, long_seq);
%[engine_true, ll_true] = enter_evidence(engine_true, long_seq);
[engine_learned, ll_learned] = enter_evidence(engine_learned, cases{2});
[engine_true, ll_true] = enter_evidence(engine_true, cases{2});
ll_learned
ll_true


% remove concatentation artefacts
ll_learned = 0;
ll_true = 0;
for m=1:length(cases)
  [engine_learned, ll_learned_tmp] = enter_evidence(engine_learned, cases{m});
  [engine_true, ll_true_tmp] = enter_evidence(engine_true, cases{m});
  ll_learned = ll_learned + ll_learned_tmp;
  ll_true = ll_true + ll_true_tmp;
end
ll_learned
ll_true

% In both cases, ll_learned >> ll_true
% which shows we are using the wrong cost function!