Results 1  10
of
495
A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH ANNUAL ACM WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL LEARNING THEORY
, 1992
"... A training algorithm that maximizes the margin between the training patterns and the decision boundary is presented. The technique is applicable to a wide variety of classifiaction functions, including Perceptrons, polynomials, and Radial Basis Functions. The effective number of parameters is adjust ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1279 (44 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A training algorithm that maximizes the margin between the training patterns and the decision boundary is presented. The technique is applicable to a wide variety of classifiaction functions, including Perceptrons, polynomials, and Radial Basis Functions. The effective number of parameters is adjusted automatically to match the complexity of the problem. The solution is expressed as a linear combination of supporting patterns. These are the subset of training patterns that are closest to the decision boundary. Bounds on the generalization performance based on the leaveoneout method and the VCdimension are given. Experimental results on optical character recognition problems demonstrate the good generalization obtained when compared with other learning algorithms.
Wrappers for feature subset selection
 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1997
"... In the feature subset selection problem, a learning algorithm is faced with the problem of selecting a relevant subset of features upon which to focus its attention, while ignoring the rest. To achieve the best possible performance with a particular learning algorithm on a particular training set, a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1023 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the feature subset selection problem, a learning algorithm is faced with the problem of selecting a relevant subset of features upon which to focus its attention, while ignoring the rest. To achieve the best possible performance with a particular learning algorithm on a particular training set, a feature subset selection method should consider how the algorithm and the training set interact. We explore the relation between optimal feature subset selection and relevance. Our wrapper method searches for an optimal feature subset tailored to a particular algorithm and a domain. We study the strengths and weaknesses of the wrapper approach and show a series of improved designs. We compare the wrapper approach to induction without feature subset selection and to Relief, a filter approach to feature subset selection. Significant improvement in accuracy is achieved for some datasets for the two families of induction algorithms used: decision trees and
Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm
 Neural Computation
, 1994
"... We present a treestructured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hierarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a maximum likelihood ..."
Abstract

Cited by 723 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a treestructured architecture for supervised learning. The statistical model underlying the architecture is a hierarchical mixture model in which both the mixture coefficients and the mixture components are generalized linear models (GLIM’s). Learning is treated as a maximum likelihood problem; in particular, we present an ExpectationMaximization (EM) algorithm for adjusting the parameters of the architecture. We also develop an online learning algorithm in which the parameters are updated incrementally. Comparative simulation results are presented in the robot dynamics domain. 1
An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants
 MACHINE LEARNING
, 1999
"... Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and realworld datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in co ..."
Abstract

Cited by 539 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Methods for voting classification algorithms, such as Bagging and AdaBoost, have been shown to be very successful in improving the accuracy of certain classifiers for artificial and realworld datasets. We review these algorithms and describe a large empirical study comparing several variants in conjunction with a decision tree inducer (three variants) and a NaiveBayes inducer.
The purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of why and
when these algorithms, which use perturbation, reweighting, and
combination techniques, affect classification error. We provide a
bias and variance decomposition of the error to show how different
methods and variants influence these two terms. This allowed us to
determine that Bagging reduced variance of unstable methods, while
boosting methods (AdaBoost and Arcx4) reduced both the bias and
variance of unstable methods but increased the variance for NaiveBayes,
which was very stable. We observed that Arcx4 behaves differently
than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling,
indicating a fundamental difference. Voting variants, some of which
are introduced in this paper, include: pruning versus no pruning,
use of probabilistic estimates, weight perturbations (Wagging), and
backfitting of data. We found that Bagging improves when
probabilistic estimates in conjunction with nopruning are used, as
well as when the data was backfit. We measure tree sizes and show
an interesting positive correlation between the increase in the
average tree size in AdaBoost trials and its success in reducing the
error. We compare the meansquared error of voting methods to
nonvoting methods and show that the voting methods lead to large
and significant reductions in the meansquared errors. Practical
problems that arise in implementing boosting algorithms are
explored, including numerical instabilities and underflows. We use
scatterplots that graphically show how AdaBoost reweights instances,
emphasizing not only "hard" areas but also outliers and noise.
Hidden Markov models in computational biology: applications to protein modeling
 JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
, 1994
"... Hidden.Markov Models (HMMs) are applied t.0 the problems of statistical modeling, database searching and multiple sequence alignment of protein families and protein domains. These methods are demonstrated the on globin family, the protein kinase catalytic domain, and the EFhand calcium binding moti ..."
Abstract

Cited by 525 (35 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Hidden.Markov Models (HMMs) are applied t.0 the problems of statistical modeling, database searching and multiple sequence alignment of protein families and protein domains. These methods are demonstrated the on globin family, the protein kinase catalytic domain, and the EFhand calcium binding motif. In each case the parameters of an HMM are estimated from a training set of unaligned sequences. After the HMM is built, it is used to obtain a multiple alignment of all the training sequences. It is also used to search the. SWISSPROT 22 database for other sequences. that are members of the given protein family, or contain the given domain. The Hi " produces multiple alignments of good quality that agree closely with the alignments produced by programs that incorporate threedimensional structural information. When employed in discrimination tests (by examining how closely the sequences in a database fit the globin, kinase and EFhand HMMs), the '\ HMM is able to distinguish members of these families from nonmembers with a high degree of accuracy. Both the HMM and PROFILESEARCH (a technique used to search for relationships between a protein sequence and multiply aligned sequences) perform better in these tests than PROSITE (a dictionary of sites and patterns in proteins). The HMM appecvs to have a slight advantage over PROFILESEARCH in terms of lower rates of false
The Infinite Hidden Markov Model
 Machine Learning
, 2002
"... We show that it is possible to extend hidden Markov models to have a countably infinite number of hidden states. By using the theory of Dirichlet processes we can implicitly integrate out the infinitely many transition parameters, leaving only three hyperparameters which can be learned from data. Th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 488 (33 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that it is possible to extend hidden Markov models to have a countably infinite number of hidden states. By using the theory of Dirichlet processes we can implicitly integrate out the infinitely many transition parameters, leaving only three hyperparameters which can be learned from data. These three hyperparameters define a hierarchical Dirichlet process capable of capturing a rich set of transition dynamics. The three hyperparameters control the time scale of the dynamics, the sparsity of the underlying statetransition matrix, and the expected number of distinct hidden states in a finite sequence. In this framework it is also natural to allow the alphabet of emitted symbols to be infiniteconsider, for example, symbols being possible words appearing in English text.
Neural Network Ensembles, Cross Validation, and Active Learning
 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems
, 1995
"... Learning of continuous valued functions using neural network ensembles (committees) can give improved accuracy, reliable estimation of the generalization error, and active learning. The ambiguity is defined as the variation of the output of ensemble members averaged over unlabeled data, so it quant ..."
Abstract

Cited by 385 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Learning of continuous valued functions using neural network ensembles (committees) can give improved accuracy, reliable estimation of the generalization error, and active learning. The ambiguity is defined as the variation of the output of ensemble members averaged over unlabeled data, so it quantifies the disagreement among the networks. It is discussed how to use the ambiguity in combination with crossvalidation to give a reliable estimate of the ensemble generalization error, and how this type of ensemble crossvalidation can sometimes improve performance. It is shown how to estimate the optimal weights of the ensemble members using unlabeled data. By a generalization of query by committee, it is finally shown how the ambiguity can be used to select new training data to be labeled in an active learning scheme. 1 INTRODUCTION It is well known that a combination of many different predictors can improve predictions. In the neural networks community "ensembles" of neural networks h...
An introduction to kernelbased learning algorithms
 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS
, 2001
"... This paper provides an introduction to support vector machines (SVMs), kernel Fisher discriminant analysis, and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 373 (48 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper provides an introduction to support vector machines (SVMs), kernel Fisher discriminant analysis, and
Regularization Theory and Neural Networks Architectures
 Neural Computation
, 1995
"... We had previously shown that regularization principles lead to approximation schemes which are equivalent to networks with one layer of hidden units, called Regularization Networks. In particular, standard smoothness functionals lead to a subclass of regularization networks, the well known Radial Ba ..."
Abstract

Cited by 309 (31 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We had previously shown that regularization principles lead to approximation schemes which are equivalent to networks with one layer of hidden units, called Regularization Networks. In particular, standard smoothness functionals lead to a subclass of regularization networks, the well known Radial Basis Functions approximation schemes. This paper shows that regularization networks encompass a much broader range of approximation schemes, including many of the popular general additive models and some of the neural networks. In particular, we introduce new classes of smoothness functionals that lead to different classes of basis functions. Additive splines as well as some tensor product splines can be obtained from appropriate classes of smoothness functionals. Furthermore, the same generalization that extends Radial Basis Functions (RBF) to Hyper Basis Functions (HBF) also leads from additive models to ridge approximation models, containing as special cases Breiman's hinge functions, som...
Operations for Learning with Graphical Models
 Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
, 1994
"... This paper is a multidisciplinary review of empirical, statistical learning from a graphical model perspective. Wellknown examples of graphical models include Bayesian networks, directed graphs representing a Markov chain, and undirected networks representing a Markov field. These graphical models ..."
Abstract

Cited by 249 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper is a multidisciplinary review of empirical, statistical learning from a graphical model perspective. Wellknown examples of graphical models include Bayesian networks, directed graphs representing a Markov chain, and undirected networks representing a Markov field. These graphical models are extended to model data analysis and empirical learning using the notation of plates. Graphical operations for simplifying and manipulating a problem are provided including decomposition, differentiation, and the manipulation of probability models from the exponential family. Two standard algorithm schemas for learning are reviewed in a graphical framework: Gibbs sampling and the expectation maximization algorithm. Using these operations and schemas, some popular algorithms can be synthesized from their graphical specification. This includes versions of linear regression, techniques for feedforward networks, and learning Gaussian and discrete Bayesian networks from data. The paper conclu...