I'll try running the new data file locally, but there are a few more
things I'm confused about.  What do you mean by "scale" and
"sampling"? How are you evaluating the anomaly scores that NUPIC is
producing? Do you have a way of viewing the point in a ship's track
that is anomalous? Or the entire track with anomaly values indicated
somehow?
---------
Matt Taylor
OS Community Flag-Bearer
Numenta


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:47 PM, carlos arenas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> I was already running it with the -m flag and I also was introducing the
> original csv file in chronological order, but doing it with excel before
> introducing it in the program. So, I think that it is sampling the tracks
> correctly, with 1 for the first position and a 0 for the other positions of
> the same ship.
>
> I have added a bigger sample of data and a table where it is compared scale
> and anomaly ratio of a regular data sample (for this table I've considered
> an anomaly everything over a 0.5 score)
>
>
>
> 2016-02-23 22:29 GMT+01:00 Matthew Taylor <[email protected]>:
>>
>> Carlos,
>>
>> After looking through your code, I am pretty sure you are not feeding
>> in the ship data properly. Please see the video I made explaining
>> this: https://youtu.be/pBKqdmejYHI
>>
>> Regards,
>> ---------
>> Matt Taylor
>> OS Community Flag-Bearer
>> Numenta
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, carlos arenas <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > You would run maritimeanomalies.py as you would run run.py in Geospatial
>> > Tracking. First of all, it makes a conversion from the original format
>> > to
>> > the one needed by the application (convertion.py). Then it calls run.py
>> > and
>> > preprocesses the data (preprocess_data.py) grouping it by ship ID code
>> > (MMSI) and deletes all the tracks with a time interval lower than 30s
>> > (the
>> > actualization rate of the API is 2 min) or a difference lower than 0.03
>> > minutes in both latitude and longitude. Then it runs
>> > geospatial_anomaly.py
>> > (It`s the same as in Geospatial tracking but it adds trackName to the
>> > exit
>> > file). Once it has anomaly_scores.csv it creates from it a KML file to
>> > present graphically the results. All the deeper stuff is the same as
>> > Geospatial Tracking, I haven’t modified it.
>> > Does this make any sense?
>> >
>> > 2016-02-22 23:24 GMT+01:00 carlos arenas <[email protected]>:
>> >>
>> >> Ok, thank you very much.
>> >> One of the doubts I have is if modifiying some model parameters, like
>> >> the
>> >> size of the encoder vector, the column count, the cells per column or
>> >> the
>> >> synapses number I could improve the performance.
>> >>
>> >> Another doubt I have, but not so important, is if i can save the
>> >> learning
>> >> made by the system, avoiding having to introduce all my data every
>> >> time.
>> >>
>> >> 2016-02-22 23:01 GMT+01:00 Matthew Taylor <[email protected]>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks Carlos. I'll try to look into this tomorrow morning.
>> >>>
>> >>> By the way, I am working on getting access to a lot of geospatial data
>> >>> for free from a local source. If I can get it (fingers crossed), it
>> >>> will mean that I have a dataset I can experiment with to help solve
>> >>> these types of problems, because this data set contains many multiple
>> >>> tracks that could be analyzed in the same fashion as your data.
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------
>> >>> Matt Taylor
>> >>> OS Community Flag-Bearer
>> >>> Numenta
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM, carlos arenas
>> >>> <[email protected]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > The positions are supposed to have a two minutes interval. Here you
>> >>> > have an
>> >>> > extract of how the data gets to me and I have attached the principal
>> >>> > modules
>> >>> > of my code. The rest of it is the same as Geospatial Tracking.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > MMSI, LAT, LON, SPEED, COURSE, STATUS, TIMESTAMP
>> >>> > 210047000,43.468670,-9.770435,82,29,0,2016-02-22T17:18:24
>> >>> > 212376000,43.243820,-10.084700,92,191,0,2016-02-22T17:20:11
>> >>> > 219023000,43.146660,-9.937616,105,349,0,2016-02-22T17:18:56
>> >>> > 224013910,43.066790,-9.612607,9,0,15,2016-02-22T17:19:18
>> >>> > 224123730,43.101720,-9.610230,21,226,7,2016-02-22T17:16:03
>> >>> > 235084298,43.426110,-9.640910,192,17,0,2016-02-22T17:20:47
>> >>> > 235096368,43.040520,-9.771927,120,358,7,2016-02-22T17:21:17
>> >>> > 244650165,42.986370,-9.797475,89,357,0,2016-02-22T17:20:28
>> >>> > 245947000,43.236970,-9.724459,94,27,0,2016-02-22T17:20:35
>> >>> > 247325500,43.293460,-9.927738,123,28,0,2016-02-22T17:20:13
>> >>> > 256612000,43.125930,-10.072610,116,185,0,2016-02-22T17:18:56
>> >>> > 257833000,43.380730,-9.852883,108,12,0,2016-02-22T17:21:24
>> >>> > 258649000,43.369920,-9.643563,168,30,0,2016-02-22T17:20:36
>> >>> > 304031000,43.204720,-10.103680,115,179,0,2016-02-22T17:19:33
>> >>> > 304050982,43.399410,-10.119990,139,207,0,2016-02-22T17:22:01
>> >>> > 351675000,43.376810,-10.049390,164,205,0,2016-02-22T17:16:14
>> >>> > 355289000,43.149670,-9.784833,180,7,0,2016-02-22T17:21:37
>> >>> > 428044000,42.999350,-9.777610,116,357,3,2016-02-22T17:19:22
>> >>> > 566577000,42.976810,-9.956157,122,1,0,2016-02-22T17:20:20
>> >>> > 636015262,43.199380,-9.751516,94,27,0,2016-02-22T17:19:09
>> >>> > 636015529,43.194890,-9.781404,137,1,0,2016-02-22T17:16:14
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to