MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510588791

Metric learning revisited new approaches for supervised and unsupervised metric learning with analysis and algorithms

2012· article· en· W2510588791 on OpenAlexaff
Frank P. Ferrie, Karim T. Abou–Moustafa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Equivalence of metricsMetric spaceEuclidean distanceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Supervised learningIntrinsic metricUnsupervised learningSemi-supervised learningSpace (punctuation)Similarity (geometry)Euclidean spaceConvex metric spaceAlgorithmComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In machine learning one is usually given a data set of real high dimensional vectors X , based on which it is desired to select a hypothesis t from the space of hypotheses Θ using a learning algorithm. An immediate assumption that is usually imposed on X is that it is a subset from the very general embedding space Rp which makes the Euclidean distance || · ||2 to become the default metric for the elements of X . Since various learning algorithms assume that the input space is Rp with its endowed metric || · ||2 as a (dis)similarity measure, it follows that selecting hypothesis t becomes intrinsically tied to the Euclidean distance. Metric learning is the problem of selecting a specific metric dX from a certain family of metrics D based on the properties of the elements in the set X . Under some performance measure, the metric dX is expected to perform better on X than any other metric d ∈ D . If the learning algorithm replaces the very general metric || · ||2 with the metric dX , then selecting hypothesis t will be tied to the more specific metric dX which carries all the information on the properties of the elements in X . In this thesis I propose two algorithms for learning the metric dX ; the first for supervised learning settings, and the second for unsupervised, as well as for supervised and semi-supervised settings. In particular, I propose algorithms that take into consideration the structure and geometry of X on one hand, and the characteristics of real world data sets on the other. However, if we are also seeking dimensionality reduction, then under some mild assumptions on the topology of X , and based on the available a priori information, one can learn an embedding for X into a low dimensional Euclidean space Rp0 , p0 << p, where the Euclidean distance better reveals the similarities between the elements of X and their groupings (clusters). That is, as a by-product, we obtain dimensionality reduction together with metric learning. In the supervised setting, I propose PARDA, or Pareto discriminant analysis for discriminative linear dimensionality reduction. PARDA is based on the machinery of multi-objective optimization; simultaneously optimizing multiple, possibly conflicting, objective functions. This allows PARDA to adapt to the class topology in the lower dimensional space, and naturally handles the class masking problem that is inherent in Fisher's discriminant analysis framework for multiclass problems. As a result, PARDA yields significantly better classification results when compared with modern techniques for discriminative dimensionality reduction. In the unsupervised setting, I propose an algorithmic framework, denoted by X (note the different notation), that encapsulates spectral manifold learning algorithms and gears them for metric learning. The framework X captures the local structure and the local density information from each point in a data set, and hence it carries all the information on the varying sample density in the input space. The structure of X induces two distance metrics for its elements, the Bhattacharyya-Riemann metric dBR and the Jeffreys-Riemann metric dJR . Both metrics reorganize the proximity between the points in X based on the local structure and density around each point. As a result, when combining the metric space ( X,dBR ) or ( X,dJR ) with spectral clustering and Euclidean embedding, they yield significant improvements in clustering accuracies and error rates for a large variety of clustering and classification tasks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207