Modern classification applications necessitate supplementing the few available labeled examples with unlabeled examples to improve classification performance. We present a new tractable algorithm for exploiting unlabeled examples in discriminative classification. This is achieved essentially by expanding the input vectors into longer feature vectors via both labeled and unlabeled examples. The resulting classification method can be interpreted as a discriminative kernel density estimate and is readily trained via the EM algorithm, which in this case is both discriminative and achieves the optimal solution. We provide, in addition, a purely discriminative formulation of the estimation problem by appealing to the maximum entropy framework. We demonstrate that the proposed approach requires very few labeled examples for high classification accuracy.

Modern classification applications necessitate supplementing the few available labeled examples with unlabeled examples to improve classification performance. We present a new tractable algorithm for exploiting unlabeled examples in discriminative classification. This is achieved essentially by expanding the input vectors into longer feature vectors via both labeled and unlabeled examples. The resulting classification method can be interpreted as a discriminative kernel density estimate and is readily trained via the EM algorithm, which in this case is both discriminative and achieves the optimal solution. We provide, in addition, a purely discriminative formulation of the estimation problem by appealing to the maximum entropy framework. We demonstrate that the proposed approach requires very few labeled examples for high classification accuracy.

Modern classification applications necessitate supplementing the few available labeled examples with unlabeled examples to improve classification performance.We present a new tractable algorithm for exploiting unlabeled examples in discriminative classification. This is achieved essentially by expanding the input vectors into longer feature vectors via both labeled and unlabeled examples. The resulting classification method can be interpreted as a discriminative kernel density estimate and is readily trainedvia the EM algorithm, which in this case is both discriminative and achieves the optimal solution. We provide, in addition, a purely discriminative formulationof the estimation problem by appealing to the maximum entropy framework. We demonstrate that the proposed approach requiresvery few labeled examples for high classification accuracy.

A key question in vision is how to represent our knowledge of previously encountered objects to classify new ones. The answer depends on how we determine the similarity of two objects. Similarity tells us how relevant each previously seen object is in determining the category to which a new object belongs.

A key question in vision is how to represent our knowledge of previously encountered objects to classify new ones. The answer depends on how we determine the similarity of two objects. Similarity tells us how relevant each previously seen object is in determining the category to which a new object belongs.

We investigate the problem of learning a classification task on data represented in terms of their pairwise proximities. This representation does not refer to an explicit feature representation of the data items and is thus more general than the standard approach of using Euclidean feature vectors, from which pairwise proximities can always be calculated. Our first approach is based on a combined linear embedding and classification procedure resulting in an extension of the Optimal Hyperplane algorithm to pseudo-Euclidean data. As an alternative we present another approach based on a linear threshold model in the proximity values themselves, which is optimized using Structural Risk Minimization. We show that prior knowledge about the problem can be incorporated by the choice of distance measures and examine different metrics W.r.t.

A key question in vision is how to represent our knowledge of previously encountered objects to classify new ones. The answer depends on how we determine the similarity of two objects. Similarity tells us how relevant each previously seen object is in determining the category to which a new object belongs.

We compare two strategies for training connectionist (as well as nonconnectionist) models for statistical pattern recognition. The probabilistic strategy is based on the notion that Bayesian discrimination (i.e.- optimal classification) is achieved when the classifier learns the a posteriori class distributions of the random feature vector. The differential strategy is based on the notion that the identity of the largest class a posteriori probability of the feature vector is all that is needed to achieve Bayesian discrimination. Each strategy is directly linked to a family of objective functions that can be used in the supervised training procedure. We prove that the probabilistic strategy - linked with error measure objective functions such as mean-squared-error and cross-entropy - typically used to train classifiers necessarily requires larger training sets and more complex classifier architectures than those needed to approximate the Bayesian discriminant function.

We compare two strategies for training connectionist (as well as nonconnectionist) modelsfor statistical pattern recognition. The probabilistic strategy is based on the notion that Bayesian discrimination (i.e.- optimal classification) isachieved when the classifier learns the a posteriori class distributions of the random feature vector. The differential strategy is based on the notion that the identity of the largest class a posteriori probability of the feature vector is all that is needed to achieve Bayesian discrimination. Each strategy is directly linked to a family ofobjective functions that can be used in the supervised training procedure. We prove that the probabilistic strategy - linked with error measure objective functions such as mean-squared-error and cross-entropy - typically used to train classifiers necessarily requires larger training sets and more complex classifier architectures than those needed to approximate the Bayesian discriminant function.In contrast.