Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MURI Meeting July 2002 Gert Lanckriet ( ) L. El Ghaoui, M. Jordan, C. Bhattacharrya, N. Cristianini, P. Bartlett.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "MURI Meeting July 2002 Gert Lanckriet ( ) L. El Ghaoui, M. Jordan, C. Bhattacharrya, N. Cristianini, P. Bartlett."— Presentation transcript:

1 MURI Meeting July 2002 Gert Lanckriet ( gert@eecs.berkeley.edu ) gert@eecs.berkeley.edu L. El Ghaoui, M. Jordan, C. Bhattacharrya, N. Cristianini, P. Bartlett U.C. Berkeley Convex Optimization in Machine Learning

2

3 QP LP QCQP SDP SOCP Advanced Convex Optimization in Machine Learning

4

5 Linear Programming (LP)

6 Quadratic Programming (QP)

7 Quadratic Constrained Quadratic Programming (QCQP)

8 Second Order Cone Programming (SOCP)

9 Semi-Definite Programming

10 Advanced Convex Optimization in Machine Learning

11 MPM: Problem Sketch (1) a T z = b : decision hyperplane

12 MPM: Problem Sketch (2)

13 MPM: Problem Sketch (3) Probability of misclassification… … for worst-case class- conditional density… … should be minimized !

14 MPM: Main Result (1) Marshall & Olkin / Popescu & Bertsimas ??

15 MPM: Main Result (2)

16 Lemma MPM: Main Result (3)

17 MPM: Main Result (4) Lemma Probabilistic Constraint Deterministic Constraint

18 MPM: Main Result (5)

19 MPM: Geometric Interpretation

20 MPM: Link with FDA (1)

21 MPM: Link with FDA (2)

22 MPM: Link with FDA (3)

23 Robustness to Estimation Errors: Robust MPM (R-MPM)

24

25

26 MPM: Convex Optimization to solve the problem Linear Classifier Nonlinear Classifier Kernelizing Convex Optimization: Second Order Cone Program (SOCP) ) competitive with Quadratic Program (QP) SVMs Lemma

27 MPM: Empirical results  =1–  and TSA (test-set accuracy) of the MPM, compared to BPB (best performance in Breiman's report (Arcing classifiers, 1996)) and SVMs. (averages for 50 random partitions into 90% training and 10% test sets) Comparable with existing literature, SVMs  = 1-  is indeed smaller than the test-set accuracy in all cases (consistent with  as worst-case bound on probability of misclassification) Kernelizing leads to more powerfull decision boundaries (  linear decision boundary <  nonlinear decision boundary (Gaussian kernel) )

28 Conclusions

29 Future directions

30 Advanced Convex Optimization in Machine Learning

31 The idea (1) Machine learning Kernel-based machine learning

32 The idea (2)

33 The idea (3)

34 training set (labelled) test set (unlabelled) The idea (4)

35 The idea (5)

36 Hard margin SVM classifiers (1)

37 Hard margin SVM classifiers (2)

38 Hard margin SVM classifiers (3)

39 Hard margin SVM classifiers (4)

40 SDP ! Hard margin SVM classifiers (5)

41 Optimization Learning the kernel matrix ! Learning Hard margin SVM classifiers (6)

42 training set (labelled) test set (unlabelled) Learning the kernel matrix ! Hard margin SVM classifiers (7)

43 ? Hard margin SVM classifiers (8)

44 Hard margin SVM classifiers (9)

45

46

47 Hard margin SVM classifiers (10)

48 Hard margin SVM classifiers (11) Learning Kernel Matrix with SDP !

49 Empirical results hard margin SVMs

50 Conclusions and future directions

51

52 See also


Download ppt "MURI Meeting July 2002 Gert Lanckriet ( ) L. El Ghaoui, M. Jordan, C. Bhattacharrya, N. Cristianini, P. Bartlett."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google