Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 20, pp 6183–6189 | Cite as

Selecting promising classes from generated data for an efficient multi-class nearest neighbor classification

  • Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza
  • Jose J. Valero-Mas
  • Juan R. Rico-Juan
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

The nearest neighbor rule is one of the most considered algorithms for supervised learning because of its simplicity and fair performance in most cases. However, this technique has a number of disadvantages, being the low computational efficiency the most prominent one. This paper presents a strategy to overcome this obstacle in multi-class classification tasks. This strategy proposes the use of Prototype Reduction algorithms that are capable of generating a new training set from the original one to try to gather the same information with fewer samples. Over this reduced set, it is estimated which classes are the closest ones to the input sample. These classes are referred to as promising classes. Eventually, classification is performed using the original training set using the nearest neighbor rule but restricted to the promising classes. Our experiments with several datasets and significance tests show that a similar classification accuracy can be obtained compared to using the original training set, with a significantly higher efficiency.

Keywords

Nearest neighbor classification Prototype Reduction  Promising classes 

References

  1. Angiulli F (2007) Fast nearest neighbor condensation for large data sets classification. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 19(11):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia N (2010) Vandana: survey of nearest neighbor techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1007.0085
  3. Bishop CM (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Brighton H, Mellish C (1999) On the consistency of information filters for lazy learning algorithms. In: Żytkow JM, Rauch J (eds) Principles of data mining and knowledge discovery, lecture notes in computer science, vol 1704. Springer, Berlin, pp 283–288Google Scholar
  5. Calvo-Zaragoza J, Oncina J (2014) Recognition of pen-based music notation: the HOMUS dataset. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on pattern recognition, ICPR, pp 3038–3043Google Scholar
  6. Calvo-Zaragoza J, Valero-Mas JJ, Rico-Juan JR (2015) Improving kNN multi-label classification in prototype selection scenarios using class proposals. Pattern Recogn 48(5):1608–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP (2002) Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res 321–357Google Scholar
  8. Cover T, Hart P (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 13(1):21–27. doi:10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Decaestecker C (1997) Finding prototypes for nearest neighbour classification by means of gradient descent and deterministic annealing. Pattern Recogn 30(2):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demsar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández F, Isasi P (2004) Evolutionary design of nearest prototype classifiers. J Heuristics 10(4):431–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia S, Derrac J, Cano JR, Herrera F (2012) Prototype selection for nearest neighbor classification: taxonomy and empirical study. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 34(3):417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García S, Luengo J, Herrera F (2015) Data preprocessing in data mining. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Han H, Wang WY, Mao BH (2005) Borderline-smote: a new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In: Advances in intelligent computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 878–887Google Scholar
  15. Hsu CW, Lin CJ (2002) A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector machines. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 13(2):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hull J (1994) A database for handwritten text recognition research. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal 16(5):550–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latecki LJ, Lakämper R, Eckhardt U (2000) Shape descriptors for non-rigid shapes with a single closed contour. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 424–429Google Scholar
  18. LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (2001) Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. In: Intelligent signal processing. IEEE Press, New York, pp 306–351Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Nanni L, Lumini A (2011) Prototype reduction techniques: a comparison among different approaches. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):11820–11828. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.070
  21. Pekalska E, Duin RPW (2005) The dissimilarity representation for pattern recognition: foundations and applications (machine perception and artificial intelligence). World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, SingaporeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Rico-Juan JR, Iñesta JM (2012) New rank methods for reducing the size of the training set using the nearest neighbor rule. Pattern Recogn Lett 33(5):654–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sánchez J (2004) High training set size reduction by space partitioning and prototype abstraction. Pattern Recogn 37(7):1561–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Triguero I, Derrac J, García S, Herrera F (2012) A taxonomy and experimental study on prototype generation for nearest neighbor classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C 42(1):86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson DR, Martinez TR (1997) Instance pruning techniques. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on machine learning, ICML ’97. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 403–411Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza
    • 1
  • Jose J. Valero-Mas
    • 1
  • Juan R. Rico-Juan
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas InformáticosUniversidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations