ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Training SVM with indefinite kernels
Full text PdfPdf (330 KB)
Source ICML; Vol. 307 archive
Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning table of contents
Helsinki, Finland
Pages 136-143  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-205-4
Authors
Jianhui Chen  Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Jieping Ye  Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
Sponsors
: Yahoo!
: Xerox
IBM : IBM
: NSF
Microsoft Research : Microsoft Research
: Machine Learning Journal/Springer
: Pascal
: University of Helsinki
: Federation of Finnish Learned Societies
: Intel Corporation
: Google
: Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 77,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1390156.1390174
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Similarity matrices generated from many applications may not be positive semidefinite, and hence can't fit into the kernel machine framework. In this paper, we study the problem of training support vector machines with an indefinite kernel. We consider a regularized SVM formulation, in which the indefinite kernel matrix is treated as a noisy observation of some unknown positive semidefinite one (proxy kernel) and the support vectors and the proxy kernel can be computed simultaneously. We propose a semi-infinite quadratically constrained linear program formulation for the optimization, which can be solved iteratively to find a global optimum solution. We further propose to employ an additional pruning strategy, which significantly improves the efficiency of the algorithm, while retaining the convergence property of the algorithm. In addition, we show the close relationship between the proposed formulation and multiple kernel learning. Experiments on a collection of benchmark data sets demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
Golub, G. H., & Van Loan, C. F. (1996). Matrix computations. Johns Hopkins University Press. 3 edition.
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
Hiriart-Urruty, J.-B., & Lemarechal, C. (1993). Convex analysis and minimization algorithms II. Springer.
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
Lin, H.-T., & Lin, C.-J. (2003). A study on sigmoid kernels for svm and the training of non-psd kernels by smo-type methods. Technical Report, National Taiwan University.
 
13
Luss, R., & d'Aspremont, A. (2007). Support vector machine classification with indefinite kernels. NIPS.
 
14
Newman, D., Hettich, S., Blake, C., & Merz, C. (1998). UCI repository of machine learning databases.
 
15
Nocedal, J., & Wright, S. J. (1999). Numerical optimization springer series in operations research. Springer.
16
 
17
 
18
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
Shimodaira, H., Noma, K.-I., Nakai, M., & Sagayama, S. (2001). Dynamic time-alignment kernel in support vector machine. NIPS (pp. 921--928).
 
24
Smola, A. J., Óvári, Z. L., & Williamson, R. C. (2000). Regularization with dot-product kernels. NIPS (pp. 308--314).
 
25
26
27
 
28
 
29
Wu, G., Zhang, Z., & Chang, E. Y. (2005). An analysis of transformation on non-positive semidefinite similarity matrix for kernel machines. Technical Report, UCSB.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Jianhui Chen: colleagues
Jieping Ye: colleagues