Results 1  10
of
2,303
A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition
 Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
, 1998
"... The tutorial starts with an overview of the concepts of VC dimension and structural risk minimization. We then describe linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) for separable and nonseparable data, working through a nontrivial example in detail. We describe a mechanical analogy, and discuss when SV ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3393 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The tutorial starts with an overview of the concepts of VC dimension and structural risk minimization. We then describe linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) for separable and nonseparable data, working through a nontrivial example in detail. We describe a mechanical analogy, and discuss when SVM solutions are unique and when they are global. We describe how support vector training can be practically implemented, and discuss in detail the kernel mapping technique which is used to construct SVM solutions which are nonlinear in the data. We show how Support Vector machines can have very large (even infinite) VC dimension by computing the VC dimension for homogeneous polynomial and Gaussian radial basis function kernels. While very high VC dimension would normally bode ill for generalization performance, and while at present there exists no theory which shows that good generalization performance is guaranteed for SVMs, there are several arguments which support the observed high accuracy of SVMs, which we review. Results of some experiments which were inspired by these arguments are also presented. We give numerous examples and proofs of most of the key theorems. There is new material, and I hope that the reader will find that even old material is cast in a fresh light.
Making LargeScale SVM Learning Practical
, 1998
"... Training a support vector machine (SVM) leads to a quadratic optimization problem with bound constraints and one linear equality constraint. Despite the fact that this type of problem is well understood, there are many issues to be considered in designing an SVM learner. In particular, for large lea ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1861 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Training a support vector machine (SVM) leads to a quadratic optimization problem with bound constraints and one linear equality constraint. Despite the fact that this type of problem is well understood, there are many issues to be considered in designing an SVM learner. In particular, for large learning tasks with many training examples, offtheshelf optimization techniques for general quadratic programs quickly become intractable in their memory and time requirements. SV M light1 is an implementation of an SVM learner which addresses the problem of large tasks. This chapter presents algorithmic and computational results developed for SV M light V2.0, which make largescale SVM training more practical. The results give guidelines for the application of SVMs to large domains.
Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization
 ACM COMPUTING SURVEYS
, 2002
"... The automated categorization (or classification) of texts into predefined categories has witnessed a booming interest in the last ten years, due to the increased availability of documents in digital form and the ensuing need to organize them. In the research community the dominant approach to this p ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1734 (22 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The automated categorization (or classification) of texts into predefined categories has witnessed a booming interest in the last ten years, due to the increased availability of documents in digital form and the ensuing need to organize them. In the research community the dominant approach to this problem is based on machine learning techniques: a general inductive process automatically builds a classifier by learning, from a set of preclassified documents, the characteristics of the categories. The advantages of this approach over the knowledge engineering approach (consisting in the manual definition of a classifier by domain experts) are a very good effectiveness, considerable savings in terms of expert labor power, and straightforward portability to different domains. This survey discusses the main approaches to text categorization that fall within the machine learning paradigm. We will discuss in detail issues pertaining to three different problems, namely document representation, classifier construction, and classifier evaluation.
Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques
 IN PROCEEDINGS OF EMNLP
, 2002
"... We consider the problem of classifying documents not by topic, but by overall sentiment, e.g., determining whether a review is positive or negative. Using movie reviews as data, we find that standard machine learning techniques definitively outperform humanproduced baselines. However, the three mac ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1101 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the problem of classifying documents not by topic, but by overall sentiment, e.g., determining whether a review is positive or negative. Using movie reviews as data, we find that standard machine learning techniques definitively outperform humanproduced baselines. However, the three machine learning methods we employed (Naive Bayes, maximum entropy classification, and support vector machines) do not perform as well on sentiment classification as on traditional topicbased categorization. We conclude by examining factors that make the sentiment classification problem more challenging. 1
Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines and Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods
 ADVANCES IN LARGE MARGIN CLASSIFIERS
, 1999
"... The output of a classifier should be a calibrated posterior probability to enable postprocessing. Standard SVMs do not provide such probabilities. One method to create probabilities is to directly train a kernel classifier with a logit link function and a regularized maximum likelihood score. Howev ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1051 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
The output of a classifier should be a calibrated posterior probability to enable postprocessing. Standard SVMs do not provide such probabilities. One method to create probabilities is to directly train a kernel classifier with a logit link function and a regularized maximum likelihood score. However, training with a maximum likelihood score will produce nonsparse kernel machines. Instead, we train an SVM, then train the parameters of an additional sigmoid function to map the SVM outputs into probabilities. This chapter compares classification error rate and likelihood scores for an SVM plus sigmoid versus a kernel method trained with a regularized likelihood error function. These methods are tested on three dataminingstyle data sets. The SVM+sigmoid yields probabilities of comparable quality to the regularized maximum likelihood kernel method, while still retaining the sparseness of the SVM.
Text Classification from Labeled and Unlabeled Documents using EM
 MACHINE LEARNING
, 1999
"... This paper shows that the accuracy of learned text classifiers can be improved by augmenting a small number of labeled training documents with a large pool of unlabeled documents. This is important because in many text classification problems obtaining training labels is expensive, while large qua ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1033 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper shows that the accuracy of learned text classifiers can be improved by augmenting a small number of labeled training documents with a large pool of unlabeled documents. This is important because in many text classification problems obtaining training labels is expensive, while large quantities of unlabeled documents are readily available. We introduce an algorithm for learning from labeled and unlabeled documents based on the combination of ExpectationMaximization (EM) and a naive Bayes classifier. The algorithm first trains a classifier using the available labeled documents, and probabilistically labels the unlabeled documents. It then trains a new classifier using the labels for all the documents, and iterates to convergence. This basic EM procedure works well when the data conform to the generative assumptions of the model. However these assumptions are often violated in practice, and poor performance can result. We present two extensions to the algorithm that improve ...
A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification
, 1998
"... Recent work in text classification has used two different firstorder probabilistic models for classification, both of which make the naive Bayes assumption. Some use a multivariate Bernoulli model, that is, a Bayesian Network with no dependencies between words and binary word features (e.g. Larkey ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1025 (26 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Recent work in text classification has used two different firstorder probabilistic models for classification, both of which make the naive Bayes assumption. Some use a multivariate Bernoulli model, that is, a Bayesian Network with no dependencies between words and binary word features (e.g. Larkey and Croft 1996; Koller and Sahami 1997). Others use a multinomial model, that is, a unigram language model with integer word counts (e.g. Lewis and Gale 1994; Mitchell 1997). This paper aims to clarify the confusion by describing the differences and details of these two models, and by empirically comparing their classification performance on five text corpora. We find that the multivariate Bernoulli performs well with small vocabulary sizes, but that the multinomial performs usually performs even better at larger vocabulary sizesproviding on average a 27% reduction in error over the multivariate Bernoulli model at any vocabulary size.
Visual categorization with bags of keypoints
 In Workshop on Statistical Learning in Computer Vision, ECCV
, 2004
"... Abstract. We present a novel method for generic visual categorization: the problem of identifying the object content of natural images while generalizing across variations inherent to the object class. This bag of keypoints method is based on vector quantization of affine invariant descriptors of im ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1005 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We present a novel method for generic visual categorization: the problem of identifying the object content of natural images while generalizing across variations inherent to the object class. This bag of keypoints method is based on vector quantization of affine invariant descriptors of image patches. We propose and compare two alternative implementations using different classifiers: Naïve Bayes and SVM. The main advantages of the method are that it is simple, computationally efficient and intrinsically invariant. We present results for simultaneously classifying seven semantic visual categories. These results clearly demonstrate that the method is robust to background clutter and produces good categorization accuracy even without exploiting geometric information. 1.
Transductive Inference for Text Classification using Support Vector Machines
, 1999
"... This paper introduces Transductive Support Vector Machines (TSVMs) for text classification. While regular Support Vector Machines (SVMs) try to induce a general decision function for a learning task, Transductive Support Vector Machines take into account a particular test set and try to minimiz ..."
Abstract

Cited by 892 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper introduces Transductive Support Vector Machines (TSVMs) for text classification. While regular Support Vector Machines (SVMs) try to induce a general decision function for a learning task, Transductive Support Vector Machines take into account a particular test set and try to minimize misclassifications of just those particular examples. The paper presents an analysis of why TSVMs are well suited for text classification. These theoretical findings are supported by experiments on three test collections. The experiments show substantial improvements over inductive methods, especially for small training sets, cutting the number of labeled training examples down to a twentieth on some tasks. This work also proposes an algorithm for training TSVMs efficiently, handling 10,000 examples and more.
A ReExamination of Text Categorization Methods
, 1999
"... This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests on five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a kNearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a NaiveBayes (NB) classifier. We f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 853 (24 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper reports a controlled study with statistical significance tests on five text categorization methods: the Support Vector Machines (SVM), a kNearest Neighbor (kNN) classifier, a neural network (NNet) approach, the Linear Leastsquares Fit (LLSF) mapping and a NaiveBayes (NB) classifier. We focus on the robustness of these methods in dealing with a skewed category distribution, and their performance as function of the trainingset category frequency. Our results show that SVM, kNN and LLSF significantly outperform NNet and NB when the number of positive training instances per category are small (less than ten), and that all the methods perform comparably when the categories are sufficiently common (over 300 instances).