Convex Optimizations for Distance Metric Learning and Pattern Classification [Applications Corner]

The goal of machine learning is to build automated systems that can classify and recognize complex patterns in data. The representation of the data plays an important role in determining what types of patterns can be automatically discovered. Many algorithms for machine learning assume that the data are represented as elements in a metric space. The performance of these algorithms can depend sensitively on the manner in which distances are measured. When data are represented as points in a multidimensional vector space, simple Euclidean distances are often used to measure the dissimilarity between different examples. However, such distances often do not yield reliable judgments; in addition, they cannot highlight the distinctive features that play a role in certain types of classification, but not others. Naturally, for different types of clustering, different ways of measuring dissimilarity were needed. In particular, different metrics for computing distances between feature vectors. This paper describes two algorithms for learning such distance metrics based on recent developments in convex optimization.

[1]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[2]  Bernhard E. Boser,et al.  A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers , 1992, COLT '92.

[3]  Shigeo Abe DrEng Pattern Classification , 2001, Springer London.

[4]  Misha Pavel,et al.  Adjustment Learning and Relevant Component Analysis , 2002, ECCV.

[5]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Distance Metric Learning with Application to Clustering with Side-Information , 2002, NIPS.

[6]  L H Cheong,et al.  An automatic approach for estimating bolus arrival time in dynamic contrast MRI using piecewise continuous regression models. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  D. Gadian,et al.  Quantification of bolus‐tracking MRI: Improved characterization of the tissue residue function using Tikhonov regularization , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[8]  R Frayne,et al.  Removing the effect of SVD algorithmic artifacts present in quantitative MR perfusion studies , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  A. Janke,et al.  Improved Prediction of Final Infarct Volume Using Bolus Delay–Corrected Perfusion-Weighted MRI: Implications for the Ischemic Penumbra , 2004, Stroke.

[10]  Yoram Singer,et al.  Online and batch learning of pseudo-metrics , 2004, ICML.

[11]  Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al.  Distance Metric Learning for Large Margin Nearest Neighbor Classification , 2005, NIPS.

[12]  I. Kanno,et al.  Tracer Delay Correction of Cerebral Blood Flow with Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced MRI , 2005, Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism.

[13]  Amir Globerson,et al.  Metric Learning by Collapsing Classes , 2005, NIPS.

[14]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[15]  Lawrence K. Saul,et al.  Large Margin Hidden Markov Models for Automatic Speech Recognition , 2006, NIPS.

[16]  Lorenzo Torresani,et al.  Large Margin Component Analysis , 2006, NIPS.

[17]  M. Reiser,et al.  Deconvolution of bolus-tracking data: a comparison of discretization methods , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  Du Tran,et al.  Human Activity Recognition with Metric Learning , 2008, ECCV.

[19]  Stephen T. C. Wong,et al.  Improved residue function and reduced flow dependence in MR perfusion using least‐absolute‐deviation regularization , 2009, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  Samy Bengio,et al.  An Online Algorithm for Large Scale Image Similarity Learning , 2009, NIPS.

[21]  R. Bammer,et al.  Optimal Tmax Threshold for Predicting Penumbral Tissue in Acute Stroke , 2009, Stroke.