Results 11 - 20
of
2,373
Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm
- Neural Computation
, 1994
"... We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hi-erarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a max-imum likelihood ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 635 (20 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We present a tree-structured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hi-erarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a max-imum likelihood problem; in particular, we present an Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for adjusting the parame-ters of the architecture. We also develop an on-line learning algorithm in which the pa-rameters are updated incrementally. Com-parative simulation results are presented in the robot dynamics domain. 1
Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods
- In Proceedings International Conference on Machine Learning
, 1997
"... Abstract. One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 606 (49 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Abstract. One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik’s support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition. 1
Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage
- Biometrika
, 1994
"... With ideal spatial adaptation, an oracle furnishes information about how best to adapt a spatially variable estimator, whether piecewise constant, piecewise polynomial, variable knot spline, or variable bandwidth kernel, to the unknown function. Estimation with the aid of an oracle o ers dramatic ad ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 578 (2 self)
- Add to MetaCart
With ideal spatial adaptation, an oracle furnishes information about how best to adapt a spatially variable estimator, whether piecewise constant, piecewise polynomial, variable knot spline, or variable bandwidth kernel, to the unknown function. Estimation with the aid of an oracle o ers dramatic advantages over traditional linear estimation by nonadaptive kernels � however, it is a priori unclear whether such performance can be obtained by a procedure relying on the data alone. We describe a new principle for spatially-adaptive estimation: selective wavelet reconstruction. Weshowthatvariableknot spline ts and piecewise-polynomial ts, when equipped with an oracle to select the knots, are not dramatically more powerful than selective wavelet reconstruction with an oracle. We develop a practical spatially adaptive method, RiskShrink, which works by shrinkage of empirical wavelet coe cients. RiskShrink mimics the performance of an oracle for selective wavelet reconstruction as well as it is possible to do so. A new inequality inmultivariate normal decision theory which wecallthe oracle inequality shows that attained performance di ers from ideal performance by at most a factor 2logn, where n is the sample size. Moreover no estimator can give a better guarantee than this. Within the class of spatially adaptive procedures, RiskShrink is essentially optimal. Relying only on the data, it comes within a factor log 2 n of the performance of piecewise polynomial and variable-knot spline methods equipped with an oracle. In contrast, it is unknown how or if piecewise polynomial methods could be made to function this well when denied access to an oracle and forced to rely on data alone.
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
- INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1995
"... We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), te ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 528 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We review accuracy estimation methods and compare the two most common methods: cross-validation and bootstrap. Recent experimental results on artificial data and theoretical results in restricted settings have shown that for selecting a good classifier from a set of classifiers (model selection), ten-fold cross-validation may be better than the more expensive leaveone-out cross-validation. We report on a largescale experiment -- over half a million runs of C4.5 and a Naive-Bayes algorithm -- to estimate the effects of different parameters on these algorithms on real-world datasets. For cross-validation, we vary the number of folds and whether the folds are stratified or not; for bootstrap, we vary the number of bootstrap samples. Our results indicate that for real-word datasets similar to ours, the best method to use for model selection is ten-fold stratified cross validation, even if computation power allows using more folds.
Quantization
- IEEE TRANS. INFORM. THEORY
, 1998
"... The history of the theory and practice of quantization dates to 1948, although similar ideas had appeared in the literature as long ago as 1898. The fundamental role of quantization in modulation and analog-to-digital conversion was first recognized during the early development of pulsecode modula ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 515 (10 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The history of the theory and practice of quantization dates to 1948, although similar ideas had appeared in the literature as long ago as 1898. The fundamental role of quantization in modulation and analog-to-digital conversion was first recognized during the early development of pulsecode modulation systems, especially in the 1948 paper of Oliver, Pierce, and Shannon. Also in 1948, Bennett published the first high-resolution analysis of quantization and an exact analysis of quantization noise for Gaussian processes, and Shannon published the beginnings of rate distortion theory, which would provide a theory for quantization as analog-to-digital conversion and as data compression. Beginning with these three papers of fifty years ago, we trace the history of quantization from its origins through this decade, and we survey the fundamentals of the theory and many of the popular and promising techniques for quantization.
Irrelevant Features and the Subset Selection Problem
- MACHINE LEARNING: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL
, 1994
"... We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 515 (22 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We address the problem of finding a subset of features that allows a supervised induction algorithm to induce small high-accuracy concepts. We examine notions of relevance and irrelevance, and show that the definitions used in the machine learning literature do not adequately partition the features into useful categories of relevance. We present definitions for irrelevance and for two degrees of relevance. These definitions improve our understanding of the behavior of previous subset selection algorithms, and help define the subset of features that should be sought. The features selected should depend not only on the features and the target concept, but also on the induction algorithm. We describe a method for feature subset selection using cross-validation that is applicable to any induction algorithm, and discuss experiments conducted with ID3 and C4.5 on artificial and real datasets.
Statistical pattern recognition: A review
- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
, 2000
"... The primary goal of pattern recognition is supervised or unsupervised classification. Among the various frameworks in which pattern recognition has been traditionally formulated, the statistical approach has been most intensively studied and used in practice. More recently, neural network techniques ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 487 (20 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The primary goal of pattern recognition is supervised or unsupervised classification. Among the various frameworks in which pattern recognition has been traditionally formulated, the statistical approach has been most intensively studied and used in practice. More recently, neural network techniques and methods imported from statistical learning theory have bean receiving increasing attention. The design of a recognition system requires careful attention to the following issues: definition of pattern classes, sensing environment, pattern representation, feature extraction and selection, cluster analysis, classifier design and learning, selection of training and test samples, and performance evaluation. In spite of almost 50 years of research and development in this field, the general problem of recognizing complex patterns with arbitrary orientation, location, and scale remains unsolved. New and emerging applications, such as data mining, web searching, retrieval of multimedia data, face recognition, and cursive handwriting recognition, require robust and efficient pattern recognition techniques. The objective of this review paper is to summarize and compare some of the well-known methods used in various stages of a pattern recognition system and identify research topics and applications which are at the forefront of this exciting and challenging field.
Privacy-Preserving Data Mining
, 2000
"... A fruitful direction for future data mining research will be the development of techniques that incorporate privacy concerns. Specifically, we address the following question. Since the primary task in data mining is the development of models about aggregated data, can we develop accurate models with ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 483 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
A fruitful direction for future data mining research will be the development of techniques that incorporate privacy concerns. Specifically, we address the following question. Since the primary task in data mining is the development of models about aggregated data, can we develop accurate models without access to precise information in individual data records? We consider the concrete case of building a decision-tree classifier from tredning data in which the values of individual records have been perturbed. The resulting data records look very different from the original records and the distribution of data values is also very different from the original distribution. While it is not possible to accurately estimate original values in individual data records, we propose a-novel reconstruction procedure to accurately estimate the distribution of original data values. By using these reconstructed distributions, we are able to build classifiers whose accuracy is comparable to the accuracy of classifiers built with the original data.
Least angle regression
- Ann. Statist
"... The purpose of model selection algorithms such as All Subsets, Forward Selection and Backward Elimination is to choose a linear model on the basis of the same set of data to which the model will be applied. Typically we have available a large collection of possible covariates from which we hope to s ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 478 (27 self)
- Add to MetaCart
The purpose of model selection algorithms such as All Subsets, Forward Selection and Backward Elimination is to choose a linear model on the basis of the same set of data to which the model will be applied. Typically we have available a large collection of possible covariates from which we hope to select a parsimonious set for the efficient prediction of a response variable. Least Angle Regression (LARS), a new model selection algorithm, is a useful and less greedy version of traditional forward selection methods. Three main properties are derived: (1) A simple modification of the LARS algorithm implements the Lasso, an attractive version of ordinary least squares that constrains the sum of the absolute regression coefficients; the LARS modification calculates all possible Lasso estimates for a given problem, using an order of magnitude less computer time than previous methods. (2) A different LARS modification efficiently implements Forward Stagewise linear regression, another promising
Inducing Features of Random Fields
- IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
, 1997
"... We present a technique for constructing random fields from a set of training samples. The learning paradigm builds increasingly complex fields by allowing potential functions, or features, that are supported by increasingly large subgraphs. Each feature has a weight that is trained by minimizing the ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 465 (14 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We present a technique for constructing random fields from a set of training samples. The learning paradigm builds increasingly complex fields by allowing potential functions, or features, that are supported by increasingly large subgraphs. Each feature has a weight that is trained by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the model and the empirical distribution of the training data. A greedy algorithm determines how features are incrementally added to the field and an iterative scaling algorithm is used to estimate the optimal values of the weights. The random field models and techniques introduced in this paper differ from those common to much of the computer vision literature in that the underlying random fields are non-Markovian and have a large number of parameters that must be estimated. Relations to other learning approaches, including decision trees, are given. As a demonstration of the method, we describe its application to the problem of automatic word classifica...

