Int. J. Fuzzy Log. Intell. Syst. 2017; 17(1): 10-16
Published online March 31, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2017.17.1.10
© The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems
Minyoung Kim
Department of Electronics & IT Media Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to :
Minyoung Kim (mikim@seoultech.ac.kr)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The kernel function plays a central role in modern pattern classification for its ability to capture the inherent affinity structure of the underlying data manifold. While the kernel function can be chosen by human experts with domain knowledge, it is often more principled and promising to learn it directly from data. This idea of kernel learning has been studied considerably in machine learning and pattern recognition. However, most kernel learning algorithms assume fully supervised setups requiring expensive class label annotation for the training data. In this paper we consider kernel learning in the semi-supervised setup where only a fraction of data points need to be labeled. We propose two approaches: the first extends the idea of label propagation along the data similarity graph, in which we simultaneously learn the kernel and impute the labels of the unlabeled data. The second aims to minimize the dual loss in the support vector machines (SVM) classifier learning with respect to the kernel parameters and the missing labels. We provide reasonable and effective approximate solution methods for these optimization problems. These approaches exploit both labeled and unlabeled data in kernel leaning, where we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness on several benchmark datasets with partially labeled learning setups.
Keywords: Kernel learning, Semi-supervised learning, Pattern classification, Optimization
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
E-mail: mikim@seoultech.ac.kr
Int. J. Fuzzy Log. Intell. Syst. 2017; 17(1): 10-16
Published online March 31, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2017.17.1.10
Copyright © The Korean Institute of Intelligent Systems.
Minyoung Kim
Department of Electronics & IT Media Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to:Minyoung Kim (mikim@seoultech.ac.kr)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The kernel function plays a central role in modern pattern classification for its ability to capture the inherent affinity structure of the underlying data manifold. While the kernel function can be chosen by human experts with domain knowledge, it is often more principled and promising to learn it directly from data. This idea of kernel learning has been studied considerably in machine learning and pattern recognition. However, most kernel learning algorithms assume fully supervised setups requiring expensive class label annotation for the training data. In this paper we consider kernel learning in the semi-supervised setup where only a fraction of data points need to be labeled. We propose two approaches: the first extends the idea of label propagation along the data similarity graph, in which we simultaneously learn the kernel and impute the labels of the unlabeled data. The second aims to minimize the dual loss in the support vector machines (SVM) classifier learning with respect to the kernel parameters and the missing labels. We provide reasonable and effective approximate solution methods for these optimization problems. These approaches exploit both labeled and unlabeled data in kernel leaning, where we empirically demonstrate the effectiveness on several benchmark datasets with partially labeled learning setups.
Keywords: Kernel learning, Semi-supervised learning, Pattern classification, Optimization
Table 1 . Statistics of the UCI datasets.
Dataset | Number of data points | Input dimension |
---|---|---|
Sonar | 208 | 60 |
Vote | 320 | 16 |
Wpbc | 180 | 33 |
Liver | 345 | 6 |
Table 2 . Test errors (%) on the UCI datasets with three different labeled training set proportions.
Dataset | Method | Labeled set proportions | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
10% | 30% | 50% | ||
Sonar | KTA | 48.43 ± 4.42 | 43.95 ± 3.23 | 36.67 ± 3.94 |
SLM | 47.14 ± 3.83 | 43.10 ± 3.45 | 38.81 ± 3.82 | |
SSKL-LP | 43.05 ± 3.79 | 40.24 ± 3.80 | 33.10 ± 3.05 | |
SSKL-SDM | 42.14 ± 4.22 | 40.00 ± 3.81 | 30.48 ± 3.73 | |
Vote | KTA | 25.86 ± 3.99 | 22.66 ± 3.50 | 13.57 ± 4.55 |
SLM | 23.66 ± 3.21 | 20.76 ± 4.62 | 13.74 ± 3.46 | |
SSKL-LP | 19.86 ± 4.62 | 16.57 ± 3.55 | 11.89 ± 2.78 | |
SSKL-SDM | 18.29 ± 3.90 | 15.29 ± 3.69 | 10.97 ± 3.53 | |
Wpbc | KTA | 35.43 ± 4.60 | 31.87 ± 3.97 | 29.05 ± 3.13 |
SLM | 34.39 ± 3.94 | 31.45 ± 4.60 | 29.87 ± 4.79 | |
SSKL-LP | 31.82 ± 3.42 | 28.43 ± 3.57 | 26.06 ± 3.65 | |
SSKL-SDM | 31.39 ± 3.65 | 27.56 ± 3.13 | 25.82 ± 3.42 | |
Liver | KTA | 48.84 ± 4.38 | 46.80 ± 3.32 | 40.87 ± 3.59 |
SLM | 47.25 ± 3.67 | 45.30 ± 3.90 | 40.75 ± 3.73 | |
SSKL-LP | 42.03 ± 3.72 | 40.29 ± 4.72 | 38.87 ± 3.92 | |
SSKL-SDM | 42.88 ± 3.32 | 41.30 ± 3.67 | 38.72 ± 3.59 |
Le Van Hoa and Vo Viet Minh Nhat
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2024; 24(3): 181-193 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2024.24.3.181Archana P. Kale
International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Systems 2023; 23(4): 465-481 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2023.23.4.465Hye-Woo Lee, Noo-ri Kim, and Jee-Hyong Lee
Int. J. Fuzzy Log. Intell. Syst. 2017; 17(1): 1-9 https://doi.org/10.5391/IJFIS.2017.17.1.1