Vocabulary-Based Approaches for Multiple-Instance Data: A Comparative Study

Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) has become a hot topic and many different algorithms have been proposed in the last years. Despite this fact, there is a lack of comparative studies that shed light into the characteristics of the different methods and their behavior in different scenarios. In this paper we provide such an analysis. We include methods from different families, and pay special attention to vocabulary-based approaches, a new family of methods that has not received much attention in the MIL literature. The empirical comparison includes seven databases from four heterogeneous domains, implementations of eight popular MIL methods, and a study of the behavior under synthetic conditions. Based on this analysis, we show that, with an appropriate implementation, vocabulary-based approaches outperform other MIL methods in most of the cases, showing in general a more consistent performance.

[1]  Jun Wang,et al.  Solving the Multiple-Instance Problem: A Lazy Learning Approach , 2000, ICML.

[2]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  Solving the Multiple Instance Problem with Axis-Parallel Rectangles , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Xin Xu,et al.  Logistic Regression and Boosting for Labeled Bags of Instances , 2004, PAKDD.

[4]  Douglas A. Reynolds,et al.  Speaker Verification Using Adapted Gaussian Mixture Models , 2000, Digit. Signal Process..

[5]  Yixin Chen,et al.  MILES: Multiple-Instance Learning via Embedded Instance Selection , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[6]  Peter Auer,et al.  A Boosting Approach to Multiple Instance Learning , 2004, ECML.

[7]  Jun Yang.  Review of Multi-Instance Learning and Its applications , 2005 .

[8]  John Shawe-Taylor,et al.  Improving "bag-of-keypoints" image categorisation: Generative Models and PDF-Kernels , 2005 .

[9]  Lin Dong,et al.  A Comparison of Multi-instance Learning Algorithms , 2006 .

[10]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Local Features and Kernels for Classification of Texture and Object Categories: A Comprehensive Study , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[11]  Qi Zhang,et al.  EM-DD: An Improved Multiple-Instance Learning Technique , 2001, NIPS.

[12]  Gabriela Csurka,et al.  Visual categorization with bags of keypoints , 2002, eccv 2004.

[13]  Mark Craven,et al.  Supervised versus multiple instance learning: an empirical comparison , 2005, ICML.

[14]  N. Boujemaa,et al.  The intermediate matching kernel for image local features , 2005, Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005..

[15]  Zhi-Hua Zhou.  Multi-Instance Learning : A Survey , 2004 .

[16]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  Support Vector Machines for Multiple-Instance Learning , 2002, NIPS.

[17]  Cor J. Veenman,et al.  Visual Word Ambiguity , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[18]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  A Framework for Multiple-Instance Learning , 1997, NIPS.