Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2004 2004
DOI: 10.5244/c.18.16
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-Mercer Kernels for SVM Object Recognition

Abstract: On the one hand, Support Vector Machines have met with significant success in solving difficult pattern recognition problems with global features representation. On the other hand, local features in images have shown to be suitable representations for efficient object recognition. Therefore, it is natural to try to combine SVM approach with local features representation to gain advantages on both sides. We study in this paper the Mercer property of matching kernels which mimic classical matching algorithms use… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 53 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our experimental evaluation is similar to that reported in [2], also showing that the match kernel satisfies the three conditions above.…”
Section: Exact Recognition With Local Features: the Match Kernelsupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our experimental evaluation is similar to that reported in [2], also showing that the match kernel satisfies the three conditions above.…”
Section: Exact Recognition With Local Features: the Match Kernelsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Boughorbel et al [2] introduced a new definition of kernel positiveness based on a statistical approach. Their definition is such that includes most of Mercer kernels, and it shows that matching kernels are statistically positive definite.…”
Section: Exact Recognition With Local Features: the Match Kernelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This behavior might be due to several factors: to begin with, the matching kernel is not a Mercer kernel [5], which might affect the algorithm. Also, the algorithm does not reach a plateau in the SVs growth because, in the induced space of the matching kernel, there seems to be a high probability that pair of training points are orthogonal, or almost orthogonal, to each other (notice that, as the kernel is not a Mercer one, the geometric interpretation might not be valid).…”
Section: Place Recognition Via Oisvmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the experiments, we consider both exponential χ 2 kernel for SVM (when use CRFH), and local kernels [30] (SIFT). Note the kernel in [30] is not always positive semidefinite [5], so this is also a test on non-Mercer kernels that have proved useful for visual recognition. The kernels used are infinite-dimensional, so for both kernels we run the OISVM using different values of η.…”
Section: Place Recognition Via Oisvmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Counter examples can be found to prove that such kernels are actually not positive definite, see [10]. Although Matching kernels have been successfully applied for recognitions tasks [8], [10], their use is risky since we no longer insure that the SVM maximizes the margin in some space. Moreover, there is always a potential risk that SVM does not converge.…”
Section: Matching Kernelmentioning
confidence: 99%