Are all training examples equally valuable?

When learning a new concept, not all training examples may prove equally useful for training: some may have higher or lower training value than others. The goal of this paper is to bring to the attention of the vision community the following considerations: (1) some examples are better than others for training detectors or classifiers, and (2) in the presence of better examples, some examples may negatively impact performance and removing them may be beneficial. In this paper, we propose an approach for measuring the training value of an example, and use it for ranking and greedily sorting examples. We test our methods on different vision tasks, models, datasets and classifiers. Our experiments show that the performance of current state-of-the-art detectors and classifiers can be improved when training on a subset, rather than the whole training set.

[1]  J. Paul Brooks,et al.  Support Vector Machines with the Ramp Loss and the Hard Margin Loss , 2011, Oper. Res..

[2]  Stella X. Yu,et al.  Classification and feature selection with human performance data , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.

[3]  Michael J. Black,et al.  Robust Principal Component Analysis for Computer Vision , 2001, ICCV.

[4]  David A. McAllester,et al.  Object Detection with Discriminatively Trained Part Based Models , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[5]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge , 2010, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[6]  Charless C. Fowlkes,et al.  Do We Need More Training Data or Better Models for Object Detection? , 2012, BMVC.

[7]  Yufeng Liu,et al.  Robust Truncated Hinge Loss Support Vector Machines , 2007 .

[8]  Fei-Fei Li,et al.  ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[9]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Discriminative Decorrelation for Clustering and Classification , 2012, ECCV.

[10]  Kristen Grauman,et al.  Cost-Sensitive Active Visual Category Learning , 2010, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[11]  Jason Weston,et al.  Curriculum learning , 2009, ICML '09.

[12]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  SUN database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[13]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  Latent Hough Transform for Object Detection , 2012, ECCV.

[14]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Beyond Bags of Features: Spatial Pyramid Matching for Recognizing Natural Scene Categories , 2006, 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'06).

[15]  Alexei A. Efros,et al.  Unbiased look at dataset bias , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[16]  Pat Langley,et al.  Selection of Relevant Features and Examples in Machine Learning , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Alexei A. Efros,et al.  Ensemble of exemplar-SVMs for object detection and beyond , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[18]  Krista A. Ehinger,et al.  Estimating scene typicality from human ratings and image features , 2011, CogSci.

[19]  Derek Hoiem,et al.  Diagnosing Error in Object Detectors , 2012, ECCV.

[20]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Pruning training sets for learning of object categories , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[21]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..