About Learning of Supervised Generative Models for Dissimilarity Data

Exemplar based techniques such as affinity propagation represent data in terms of typical exemplars. This has two benefits: (i) the resulting models are directly interpretable by humans since representative exemplars can be inspected in the same way as data points, (ii) the model can be applied to any dissimilarity measure including non-Euclidean or non-metric settings. Most exemplar based techniques have been proposed in the unsupervised setting only, such that their performance in supervised learning tasks can be weak depending on the given data. We address the problem of learning exemplar-based models for general dissimilarity data in a discriminative framework in this contribution. For this purpose, we extend a generative model to an exemplar based scenario using a generalized EM framework for its optimization. The resulting classifiers represent data in terms of sparse models thereby reaching stateof-the art results in benchmarks. Machine Learning Reports http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/∼fschleif/mlr/mlr.html About Learning of Supervised Generative Models for Dissimilarity Data David Nebel, Barbara Hammer, and Thomas Villmann University of Applied Sciences Mittweida, Fac. of Mathematics/Natural and Computer Sciences, Computational Intelligence Group CITEC Centre of Excellence, Bielefeld University Theoretical Computer Science Group Abstract Exemplar based techniques such as affinity propagation [13] represent data in terms of typical exemplars. This has two benefits: (i) the resulting models are directly interpretable by humans since representative exemplars can be inspected in the same way as data points, (ii) the model can be applied to any dissimilarity measure including non-Euclidean or non-metric settings. Most exemplar based techniques have been proposed in the unsupervised setting only, such that their performance in supervised learning tasks can be weak depending on the given data. We address the problem of learning exemplar-based models for general dissimilarity data in a discriminative framework in this contribution. For this purpose, we extend a generative model proposed in [36] to an exemplar based scenario using a generalized EM framework for its optimization. The resulting classifiers represent data in terms of sparse models thereby reaching state-of-the art results in benchmarks.Exemplar based techniques such as affinity propagation [13] represent data in terms of typical exemplars. This has two benefits: (i) the resulting models are directly interpretable by humans since representative exemplars can be inspected in the same way as data points, (ii) the model can be applied to any dissimilarity measure including non-Euclidean or non-metric settings. Most exemplar based techniques have been proposed in the unsupervised setting only, such that their performance in supervised learning tasks can be weak depending on the given data. We address the problem of learning exemplar-based models for general dissimilarity data in a discriminative framework in this contribution. For this purpose, we extend a generative model proposed in [36] to an exemplar based scenario using a generalized EM framework for its optimization. The resulting classifiers represent data in terms of sparse models thereby reaching state-of-the art results in benchmarks.

[1]  Klaus Obermayer,et al.  Soft nearest prototype classification , 2003, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[2]  James J. Thomas,et al.  Defining Insight for Visual Analytics , 2009, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[3]  Frank-Michael Schleif,et al.  Learning vector quantization for (dis-)similarities , 2014, Neurocomputing.

[4]  Horst Bunke,et al.  Edit distance-based kernel functions for structural pattern classification , 2006, Pattern Recognit..

[5]  Kilian Q. Weinberger,et al.  Large Margin Multi-Task Metric Learning , 2010, NIPS.

[6]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-Organizing Maps , 2010 .

[7]  Michael Biehl,et al.  Distance Learning in Discriminative Vector Quantization , 2009, Neural Computation.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  A View of the Em Algorithm that Justifies Incremental, Sparse, and other Variants , 1998, Learning in Graphical Models.

[9]  George Eastman House,et al.  Sparse Bayesian Learning and the Relevan e Ve tor Ma hine , 2001 .

[10]  J. Stark,et al.  Network motifs: structure does not determine function , 2006, BMC Genomics.

[11]  S. Begum,et al.  Sequence Alignment , 2018, Beginners Guide to Bioinformatics for High Throughput Sequencing.

[12]  Michael Biehl,et al.  Dynamics and Generalization Ability of LVQ Algorithms , 2007, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[13]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[14]  D. Schteingart,et al.  Urine Steroid Metabolomics as a Biomarker Tool for Detecting Malignancy in Adrenal Tumors , 2012 .

[15]  Barbara Hammer,et al.  Graph-Based Representation of Symbolic Musical Data , 2009, GbRPR.

[16]  Paulo J. G. Lisboa,et al.  Towards interpretable classifiers with blind signal separation , 2012, The 2012 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[17]  Atsushi Sato,et al.  Generalized Learning Vector Quantization , 1995, NIPS.

[18]  Alessandro Sperduti,et al.  Mining Structured Data , 2010, IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine.

[19]  A. Kai Qin,et al.  A novel kernel prototype-based learning algorithm , 2004, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004..

[20]  Heiko Wersing,et al.  Online figure-ground segmentation with adaptive metrics in generalized LVQ , 2009, Neurocomputing.

[21]  Barbara Hammer,et al.  Relevance learning in generative topographic mapping , 2011, Neurocomputing.

[22]  Peter Tiño,et al.  Visualization of Tree-Structured Data Through Generative Topographic Mapping , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.

[23]  Klaus Obermayer,et al.  Soft Learning Vector Quantization , 2003, Neural Computation.

[24]  Koby Crammer,et al.  Margin Analysis of the LVQ Algorithm , 2002, NIPS.

[25]  Martin A. Riedmiller,et al.  Incremental GRLVQ: Learning relevant features for 3D object recognition , 2008, Neurocomputing.

[26]  Ming Li,et al.  Clustering by compression , 2003, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, 2003. Proceedings..

[27]  T. Maier,et al.  Fast and reliable MALDI-TOF MS–based microorganism identification , 2006 .

[28]  Klaus Obermayer,et al.  Structure Spaces , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[29]  E. Granum,et al.  Quantitative analysis of 6985 digitized trypsin G ‐banded human metaphase chromosomes , 1980, Clinical genetics.

[30]  Robert P. W. Duin,et al.  The Dissimilarity Representation for Pattern Recognition - Foundations and Applications , 2005, Series in Machine Perception and Artificial Intelligence.

[31]  Delbert Dueck,et al.  Clustering by Passing Messages Between Data Points , 2007, Science.

[32]  Paulo J. G. Lisboa,et al.  Research directions in interpretable machine learning models , 2013, ESANN.

[33]  P. Grassberger,et al.  Sequence Alignment, Mutual Information, and Dissimilarity Measures for Constructing Phylogenies , 2010, PloS one.

[34]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[35]  Michael Biehl,et al.  Adaptive Relevance Matrices in Learning Vector Quantization , 2009, Neural Computation.

[36]  Thomas Gärtner,et al.  Guest editors’ introduction: special issue on mining and learning with graphs , 2009, Machine Learning.

[37]  Maya R. Gupta,et al.  Similarity-based Classification: Concepts and Algorithms , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[38]  Christopher M. Bishop,et al.  GTM: The Generative Topographic Mapping , 1998, Neural Computation.

[39]  Trinad Chakraborty,et al.  Rapid Identification and Typing of Listeria Species by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry , 2008, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.