Accuracy and Specificity Trade-off in \(k\)-nearest Neighbors Classification

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9004)

Abstract

The \(k\)-NN rule is a simple, flexible and widely used non-parametric decision method, also connected to many problems in image classification and retrieval such as annotation and content-based search. As the number of classes increases and finer classification is considered (e.g. specific dog breed), high accuracy is often not possible in such challenging conditions, resulting in a system that will often suggest a wrong label. However, predicting a broader concept (e.g. dog) is much more reliable, and still useful in practice. Thus, sacrificing certain specificity for a more secure prediction is often desirable. This problem has been recently posed in terms of accuracy-specificity trade-off. In this paper we study the accuracy-specificity trade-off in \(k\)-NN classification, evaluating the impact of related techniques (posterior probability estimation and metric learning). Experimental results show that a proper combination of \(k\)-NN and metric learning can be very effective and obtain good performance.

References

  1. 1.
    Fergus, R., Bernal, H., Weiss, Y., Torralba, A.: Semantic label sharing for learning with many categories. In: Daniilidis, K., Maragos, P., Paragios, N. (eds.) ECCV 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6311, pp. 762–775. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin, G., Perona, P.: Learning and using taxonomies for fast visual categorization. In: CVPR (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deng, J., Krause, J., Berg, A.C., Li, F.F.: Hedging your bets: optimizing accuracy-specificity trade-offs in large scale visual recognition. In: CVPR, pp. 3450–3457 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hwang, S.J., Grauman, K., Sha, F.: Learning a tree of metrics with disjoint visual features. In: NIPS, pp. 621–629 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinberger, K.Q., Saul, L.K.: Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. JMLR 10, 207–244 (2009)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shen, C., Kim, J., Wang, L., van den Hengel, A.: Positive semidefinite metric learning using boosting-like algorithms. JMLR 13, 1007–1036 (2012)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulis, B.: Metric learning: a survey. Found. Trends Mach. Learn. 5, 287–364 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fukunaga, K., Hostetler, L.: k-nearest-neighbor bayes-risk estimation. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 21, 285–293 (1975)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atiya, A.F.: Estimating the posterior probabilities using the k-nearest neighbor rule. Neural Comput. 17, 731–740 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Platt, J.: Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparison to regularized likelihood methods. In: Smola, A.J., Bartlett, P., Scholkopf, B., Schuurmans, D. (eds.) Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, pp. 61–74. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, J.V., Kulis, B., Jain, P., Sra, S., Dhillon, I.S.: Information-theoretic metric learning. In: ITML, pp. 209–216 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang, J., Yang, J., Yu, K., Lv, F., Huang, T.S., Gong, Y.: Locality-constrained linear coding for image classification. In: CVPR, pp. 3360–3367 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Budanitsky, A., Hirst, G.: Evaluating wordnet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Comput. Linguist. 32, 13–47 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations