In practical situations, experts may visually examine the images and provide a subjective noisy estimate of the truth. Calibrating the reliability and bias of expert labellers is a nontrivial problem. In this paper we discuss some of our recent work on this topic in the context of detecting small volcanoes in Magellan SAR images of Venus. Empirical results (using the Expectation-Maximization procedure) suggest that accounting for subjective noise can be quite significant interms of quantifying both human and algorithm detection performance.

In this paper, we derive classifiers which are winner-take-all (WTA) approximations to a Bayes classifier with Gaussian mixtures for class conditional densities. The derived classifiers include clustering based algorithms like LVQ and k-Means. We propose a constrained rank Gaussian mixtures model and derive a WTA algorithm for it. Our experiments with two speech classification tasks indicate that the constrained rank model and the WTA approximations improve the performance over the unconstrained models. 1 Introduction A classifier assigns vectors from Rn (n dimensional feature space) to one of K classes, partitioning the feature space into a set of K disjoint regions. A Bayesian classifier builds the partition based on a model of the class conditional probability densities of the inputs (the partition is optimal for the given model).

Many real world learning problems are best characterized by an interaction of multiple independent causes or factors. Discovering suchcausal structure from the data is the focus of this paper. Based on Zemel and Hinton's cooperative vector quantizer (CVQ) architecture, an unsupervised learning algorithm is derived from the Expectation-Maximization (EM) framework. Due to the combinatorial natureof the data generation process, the exact E-step is computationally intractable. Two alternative methods for computing theE-step are proposed: Gibbs sampling and mean-field approximation, and some promising empirical results are presented.

We develop a principled strategy to sample a function optimally for function approximation tasks within a Bayesian framework. Using ideas from optimal experiment design, we introduce an objective function (incorporating both bias and variance) to measure the degree ofapproximation, and the potential utility of the data points towards optimizing this objective. We show how the general strategy canbe used to derive precise algorithms to select data for two cases: learning unit step functions and polynomial functions. In particular, we investigate whether such active algorithms can learn the target with fewer examples. We obtain theoretical and empirical resultsto suggest that this is the case. 1 INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION Learning from examples is a common supervised learning paradigm that hypothesizes atarget concept given a stream of training examples that describes the concept. In function approximation, example-based learning can be formulated as synthesizing anapproximation function for data sampled from an unknown target function (Poggio and Girosi, 1990). Active learning describes a class of example-based learning paradigms that seeks out new training examples from specific regions of the input space, instead of passively accepting examples from some data generating source. By judiciously selecting ex- 594 KahKay Sung, Parlha Niyogi amples instead of allowing for possible random sampling, active learning techniques can conceivably have faster learning rates and better approximation results than passive learning methods. This paper presents a Bayesian formulation for active learning within the function approximation framework.

If data collection is costly, there is much to be gained by actively selecting particularlyinformative data points in a sequential way. In a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework we develop a query selection criterionwhich explicitly takes into account the intended use of the model predictions. By Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods the necessary quantities can be approximated to a desired precision. Asthe number of data points grows, the model complexity is modified by a Bayesian model selection strategy. The properties oftwo versions of the criterion ate demonstrated in numerical experiments.

The conventional Bayesian justification of backprop is that it finds the MAP weight vector. As this paper shows, to find the MAP io function instead one must add a correction tenn to backprop. That tenn biases one towards io functions with small description lengths, and in particular favors (somekinds of) feature-selection, pruning, and weight-sharing.

The conventional Bayesian justification of backprop is that it finds the MAP weight vector. As this paper shows, to find the MAP io function instead one must add a correction tenn to backprop. That tenn biases one towards io functions with small description lengths, and in particular favors (some kinds of) feature-selection, pruning, and weight-sharing.

The conventional Bayesian justification of backprop is that it finds the MAP weight vector. As this paper shows, to find the MAP io function instead one must add a correction tenn to backprop. That tenn biases one towards io functions with small description lengths, and in particular favors (some kinds of) feature-selection, pruning, and weight-sharing.

Model-based object recognition solves the problem of invariant recognition by relying on stored prototypes at unit scale positioned at the origin of an object-centered coordinate system. Elastic matching techniques are used to find a correspondence between features of the stored model and the data and can also compute the parameters of the transformation the observed instance has undergone relative to the stored model.

The past several years have seen a tremendous growth in the complexity of the recognition, estimation and control tasks expected of neural networks. In solving these tasks, one is faced with a large variety of learning algorithms and a vast selection of possible network architectures. After all the training, how does one know which is the best network? This decision is further complicated by the fact that standard techniques can be severely limited by problems such as over-fitting, data sparsity and local optima. The usual solution to these problems is a winner-take-all cross-validatory model selection.