Spotting tasks require detection of target patterns from a background of richly varied non-target inputs. The performance measure of interest for these tasks, called the figure of merit (FOM), is the detection rate for target patterns when the false alarm rate is in an acceptable range. A new approach to training spotters is presented which computes the FOM gradient for each input pattern and then directly maximizes the FOM using backpropagation. This eliminates the need for thresholds during training. It also uses network resources to model Bayesian a posteriori probability functions accurately only for patterns which have a significant effect on the detection accuracy over the false alarm rate of interest.

A new boundary hunting radial basis function (BH-RBF) classifier which allocates RBF centers constructively near class boundaries is described. This classifier creates complex decision boundaries only in regions where confusions occur and corresponding RBF outputs are similar. A predicted square error measure is used to determine how many centers to add and to determine when to stop adding centers. Two experiments are presented which demonstrate the advantages of the BH RBF classifier. One uses artificial data with two classes and two input features where each class contains four clusters but only one cluster is near a decision region boundary.

A new boundary hunting radial basis function (BH-RBF) classifier which allocates RBF centers constructively near class boundaries is described. This classifier creates complex decision boundaries only in regions where confusions occur and corresponding RBF outputs are similar. A predicted square error measure is used to determine how many centers to add and to determine when to stop adding centers. Two experiments are presented which demonstrate the advantages of the BH RBF classifier. One uses artificial data with two classes and two input features where each class contains four clusters but only one cluster is near a decision region boundary.

The RBF network consists of an input layer, a hidden layer composed of Gaussian basis functions, and an output layer. Connections from the input layer to the hidden layer are fixed at unity while those from the hidden layer to the output layer are trained by minimizing the overall mean-square error between actual and desired output values. Each RBF output node has a corresponding state in a set of HMM word models which represent the words in the vocabulary. HMM word models are left-to-right with no skip states and have a one-state background noise model at either end. The background noise models are identical for all words.

The RBF network consists of an input layer, a hidden layer composed of Gaussian basis functions, and an output layer. Connections from the input layer to the hidden layer are fixed at unity while those from the hidden layer to the output layer are trained by minimizing the overall mean-square error between actual and desired output values. Each RBF output node has a corresponding state in a set of HMM word models which represent the words in the vocabulary. HMM word models are left-to-right with no skip states and have a one-state background noise model at either end. The background noise models are identical for all words.

Feature selection and creation are two of the most important and difficult tasks in the field of pattern classification. Good features improve the performance of both conventional and neural network pattern classifiers. Exemplar selection is another task that can reduce the memory and computation requirements of a KNN classifier.

Feature selection and creation are two of the most important and difficult tasks in the field of pattern classification. Good features improve the performance of both conventional and neural network pattern classifiers. Exemplar selection is another task that can reduce the memory and computation requirements of a KNN classifier. These three tasks require a search through a space which is typically so large that 797 798 Chang and Lippmann exhaustive search is impractical. The purpose of this research was to explore the usefulness of Genetic search algorithms for these tasks.

(Lee and Lippmann, 1989).

Seven different neural network and conventional pattern classifiers were compared using artificial and speech recognition tasks. High order polynomial GMDH classifiers typically provided intermediate error rates and often required long training times and large amounts of memory. In addition, the decision regions formed did not generalize well to regions of the input space with little training data. Radial basis function classifiers generalized well in high dimensional spaces, and provided low error rates with training times that were much less than those of back-propagation classifiers (Lee and Lippmann, 1989). Gaussian mixture classifiers provided good performance when the numbers and types of mixtures were selected carefully to model class densities well. Linear tree classifiers were the most computationally ef- 976 Ng and Lippmann ficient but performed poorly with high dimensionality inputs and when the number of training patterns was small. KD-tree classifiers reduced classification time by a factor of four over conventional KNN classifiers for low 2-input dimension problems. They provided little or no reduction in classification time for high 22-input dimension problems. Improved condensed KNN classifiers reduced memory requirements over conventional KNN classifiers by a factor of two to fifteen for all problems, without increasing the error rate significantly.

Eight neural net and conventional pattern classifiers (Bayesianunimodal Gaussian, k-nearest neighbor, standard back-propagation, adaptive-stepsize back-propagation, hypersphere, feature-map, learning vector quantizer, and binary decision tree) were implemented on a serial computer and compared using two speech recognition and two artificial tasks. Error rates were statistically equivalent on almost all tasks, but classifiers differed by orders of magnitude in memory requirements, training time, classification time, and ease of adaptivity. Nearest-neighbor classifiers trained rapidly but required the most memory. Tree classifiers provided rapid classification but were complex to adapt. Back-propagation classifiers typically required long training times and had intermediate memory requirements. These results suggest that classifier selection should often depend more heavily on practical considerations concerning memory and computation resources, and restrictions on training and classification times than on error rate.