Results 1  10
of
113
A DecisionTheoretic Generalization of onLine Learning and an Application to Boosting
, 1996
"... ..."
Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines
 Machine Learning
"... Abstract. DNA microarrays now permit scientists to screen thousands of genes simultaneously and determine whether those genes are active, hyperactive or silent in normal or cancerous tissue. Because these new microarray devices generate bewildering amounts of raw data, new analytical methods must ..."
Abstract

Cited by 746 (25 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. DNA microarrays now permit scientists to screen thousands of genes simultaneously and determine whether those genes are active, hyperactive or silent in normal or cancerous tissue. Because these new microarray devices generate bewildering amounts of raw data, new analytical methods must be developed to sort out whether cancer tissues have distinctive signatures of gene expression over normal tissues or other types of cancer tissues. In this paper, we address the problem of selection of a small subset of genes from broad patterns of gene expression data, recorded on DNA microarrays. Using available training examples from cancer and normal patients, we build a classifier suitable for genetic diagnosis, as well as drug discovery. Previous attempts to address this problem select genes with correlation techniques. We propose a new method of gene selection utilizing Support Vector Machine methods based on Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). We demonstrate experimentally that the genes selected by our techniques yield better classification performance and are biologically relevant to cancer. In contrast with the baseline method, our method eliminates gene redundancy automatically and yields better and more compact gene subsets. In patients with leukemia our method discovered 2 genes that yield zero leaveoneout error, while 64 genes are necessary for the baseline method to get the best result (one leaveoneout error). In the colon cancer database, using only 4 genes our method is 98 % accurate, while the baseline method is only 86 % accurate.
Regularization networks and support vector machines
 Advances in Computational Mathematics
, 2000
"... Regularization Networks and Support Vector Machines are techniques for solving certain problems of learning from examples – in particular the regression problem of approximating a multivariate function from sparse data. Radial Basis Functions, for example, are a special case of both regularization a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 288 (34 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Regularization Networks and Support Vector Machines are techniques for solving certain problems of learning from examples – in particular the regression problem of approximating a multivariate function from sparse data. Radial Basis Functions, for example, are a special case of both regularization and Support Vector Machines. We review both formulations in the context of Vapnik’s theory of statistical learning which provides a general foundation for the learning problem, combining functional analysis and statistics. The emphasis is on regression: classification is treated as a special case.
Algorithmic Stability and SanityCheck Bounds for LeaveOneOut CrossValidation
 Neural Computation
, 1997
"... In this paper we prove sanitycheck bounds for the error of the leaveoneout crossvalidation estimate of the generalization error: that is, bounds showing that the worstcase error of this estimate is not much worse than that of the training error estimate. The name sanitycheck refers to the fact ..."
Abstract

Cited by 111 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In this paper we prove sanitycheck bounds for the error of the leaveoneout crossvalidation estimate of the generalization error: that is, bounds showing that the worstcase error of this estimate is not much worse than that of the training error estimate. The name sanitycheck refers to the fact that although we often expect the leaveoneout estimate to perform considerably better than the training error estimate, we are here only seeking assurance that its performance will not be considerably worse. Perhaps surprisingly, such assurance has been given only for limited cases in the prior literature on crossvalidation. Any nontrivial bound on the error of leaveoneout must rely on some notion of algorithmic stability. Previous bounds relied on the rather strong notion of hypothesis stability, whose application was primarily limited to nearestneighbor and other local algorithms. Here we introduce the new and weaker notion of error stability, and apply it to obtain sanitycheck b...
Some PACBayesian Theorems
 Machine Learning
, 1998
"... This paper gives PAC guarantees for "Bayesian" algorithms  algorithms that optimize risk minimization expressions involving a prior probability and a likelihood for the training data. PACBayesian algorithms are motivated by a desire to provide an informative prior encoding informat ..."
Abstract

Cited by 108 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper gives PAC guarantees for "Bayesian" algorithms  algorithms that optimize risk minimization expressions involving a prior probability and a likelihood for the training data. PACBayesian algorithms are motivated by a desire to provide an informative prior encoding information about the expected experimental setting but still having PAC performance guarantees over all IID settings. The PACBayesian theorems given here apply to an arbitrary prior measure on an arbitrary concept space. These theorems provide an alternative to the use of VC dimension in proving PAC bounds for parameterized concepts. 1 INTRODUCTION Much of modern learning theory can be divided into two seemingly separate areas  Bayesian inference and PAC learning. Both areas study learning algorithms which take as input training data and produce as output a concept or model which can then be tested on test data. In both areas learning algorithms are associated with correctness theorems. PAC correct...
Estimating the Generalization Performance of an SVM Efficiently
, 2000
"... This paper proposes and analyzes an approach to estimating the generalization performance of a support vector machine (SVM) for text classification. Without any computation intensive resampling, the new estimators are computationally much more ecient than crossvalidation or bootstrap, since they ca ..."
Abstract

Cited by 103 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper proposes and analyzes an approach to estimating the generalization performance of a support vector machine (SVM) for text classification. Without any computation intensive resampling, the new estimators are computationally much more ecient than crossvalidation or bootstrap, since they can be computed immediately from the form of the hypothesis returned by the SVM. Moreover, the estimators delevoped here address the special performance measures needed for text classification. While they can be used to estimate error rate, one can also estimate the recall, the precision, and the F 1 . A theoretical analysis and experiments on three text classification collections show that the new method can effectively estimate the performance of SVM text classifiers in a very efficient way.
Learning the k in kmeans
 In Proc. 17th NIPS
, 2003
"... When clustering a dataset, the right number k of clusters to use is often not obvious, and choosing k automatically is a hard algorithmic problem. In this paper we present an improved algorithm for learning k while clustering. The Gmeans algorithm is based on a statistical test for the hypothesis t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 93 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
When clustering a dataset, the right number k of clusters to use is often not obvious, and choosing k automatically is a hard algorithmic problem. In this paper we present an improved algorithm for learning k while clustering. The Gmeans algorithm is based on a statistical test for the hypothesis that a subset of data follows a Gaussian distribution. Gmeans runs kmeans with increasing k in a hierarchical fashion until the test accepts the hypothesis that the data assigned to each kmeans center are Gaussian. Two key advantages are that the hypothesis test does not limit the covariance of the data and does not compute a full covariance matrix. Additionally, Gmeans only requires one intuitive parameter, the standard statistical significance level α. We present results from experiments showing that the algorithm works well, and better than a recent method based on the BIC penalty for model complexity. In these experiments, we show that the BIC is ineffective as a scoring function, since it does
PACBayesian Model Averaging
 In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory
, 1999
"... PACBayesian learning methods combine the informative priors of Bayesian methods with distributionfree PAC guarantees. Building on earlier methods for PACBayesian model selection, this paper presents a method for PACBayesian model averaging. The main result is a bound on generalization error of a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 82 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
PACBayesian learning methods combine the informative priors of Bayesian methods with distributionfree PAC guarantees. Building on earlier methods for PACBayesian model selection, this paper presents a method for PACBayesian model averaging. The main result is a bound on generalization error of an arbitrary weighted mixture of concepts that depends on the empirical error of that mixture and the KLdivergence of the mixture from the prior. A simple characterization is also given for the error bound achieved by the optimal weighting. 1