Rademacher Complexity and Structural Risk Minimization: An Application to Human Gene Expression Datasets

  • Luca Oneto
  • Davide Anguita
  • Alessandro Ghio
  • Sandro Ridella
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7553)

Abstract

In this paper, we target the problem of model selection for Support Vector Classifiers through in–sample methods, which are particularly appealing in the small–sample regime, i.e. when few high–dimensional patterns are available. In particular, we describe the application of a trimmed hinge loss function to Rademacher Complexity and Maximal Discrepancy based in–sample approaches. We also show that the selected classifiers outperform the ones obtained with other state-of-the-art in-sample and out–of–sample model selection techniques in classifying Human Gene Expression datasets.

Keywords

Support Vector Machine Structural Risk Minimization Rademacher Complexity Gene Expression Datasets 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Oneto, L., Ridella, S.: In-sample Model Selection for Support Vector Machines. In: Proc. of the Int. Joint Conference on Neural Networks (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Oneto, L., Ridella, S.: Selecting the Hypothesis Space for Improving the Generalization Ability of Support Vector Machines. In: Proc. of the Int. Joint Conference on Neural Networks (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anguita, D., Ghio, A., Ridella, S.: Maximal Discrepancy for Support Vector Machines. Neurocomputing 74, 1436–1443 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anguita, D., Ridella, S., Rivieccio, F., Zunino, R.: Quantum optimization for training support vector machines. Neural Networks 16(5-6), 763–770 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartlett, P.L., Boucheron, S., Lugosi, G.: Model selection and error estimation. Machine Learning 48, 85–113 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braga-Neto, U.M., Dougherty, E.R.: Is cross-validation valid for small-sample microarray classification? Bioinformatics 20(3), 374 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collobert, R., Sinz, F., Weston, J., Bottou, L.: Trading convexity for scalability. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 201–208 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu, C., Chang, C., Lin, C., et al.: A practical guide to support vector classification (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohavi, R.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 14, pp. 1137–1145 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pelckmans, K., Suykens, J.A.K., De Moor, B.: Morozov, ivanov and tikhonov regularization based ls-svms. Neural Information Processing 3316, 1216–1222 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Platt, J.: Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines. Advances in Kernel Methods-Support Vector Learning 208, 98–112 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shawe-Taylor, J., Cristianini, N.: Kernel methods for pattern analysis. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Statnikov, A., Aliferis, C.F., Tsamardinos, I., Hardin, D., Levy, S.: A comprehensive evaluation of multicategory classification methods for microarray gene expression cancer diagnosis. Bioinformatics 21(5), 631 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vapnik, V.N.: Statistical learning theory. Wiley Interscience (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Oneto
    • 1
  • Davide Anguita
    • 1
  • Alessandro Ghio
    • 1
  • Sandro Ridella
    • 1
  1. 1.DITENUniversity of GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations