Advertisement

Local tangent space alignment based on Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion regularization

  • Xinghua ZhengEmail author
  • Zhengming Ma
  • Lei Li
Short paper
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Local tangent space alignment (LTSA) is a famous manifold learning algorithm, and many other manifold learning algorithms are developed based on LTSA. However, from the viewpoint of dimensionality reduction, LTSA is only a local feature preserving algorithm. What the community of dimensionality reduction is now pursuing are those algorithms capable of preserving both local and global features at the same time. In this paper, a new algorithm for dimensionality reduction, called HSIC-regularized LTSA (HSIC–LTSA), is proposed, in which a HSIC regularization term is added to the objective function of LTSA. HSIC is an acronym for Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion and has been used in many applications of machine learning. However, HSIC has not been directly applied to dimensionality reduction so far, neither used as a regularization term to combine with other machine learning algorithms. Therefore, the proposed HSIC–LTSA is a new try for both HSIC and LTSA. In HSIC–LTSA, HSIC makes the high- and low-dimensional data statistically correlative as much as possible, while LTSA reduces the data dimension under the local homeomorphism-preserving criterion. The experimental results presented in this paper show that, on several commonly used datasets, HSIC–LTSA performs better than LTSA as well as some state-of-the-art local and global preserving algorithms.

Keywords

Dimensionality reduction Local tangent space alignment Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere appreciation to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which have greatly aided us in improving the quality of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Maaten LJP, Postma EO, van der Herik HJ (2007) Dimensionality reduction: a comparative review. J Mach Learn Res 10(1):66–71Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tenenbaum JB, De Silva V, Langford JC (2000) A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science 290(5500):2319–2323Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schölkopf B, Smola A, Müller K-R (1998) Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem. Neural Comput 10(5):1299–1319Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weinberger KQ, Sha F, Saul LK (2004) Learning a kernel matrix for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning. ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lafon S, Lee AB (2006) Diffusion maps and coarse-graining: a unified framework for dimensionality reduction, graph partitioning, and data set parameterization. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 28(9):1393–1403Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Z, Zha H (2004) Principal manifolds and nonlinear dimensionality reduction via tangent space alignment. SIAM J Sci Comput 26(1):313–338MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    He X, Niyogi P (2003) Locality preserving projections. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 16(1):186–197Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen J, Ma Z, Liu Y (2013) Local coordinates alignment with global preservation for dimensionality reduction. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 24(1):106–117Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu X et al (2014) Global and local structure preservation for feature selection. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 25(6):1083–1095Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gretton A et al (2005) Measuring statistical dependence with Hilbert–Schmidt norms. In: International conference on algorithmic learning theory. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yan K, Kou L, Zhang D (2017) Learning domain-invariant subspace using domain features and independence maximization. IEEE Trans Cybern 48:288–299Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damodaran BB, Courty N, Lefèvre S (2017) Sparse Hilbert Schmidt independence criterion and surrogate-kernel-based feature selection for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 55(4):2385–2398Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gangeh MJ, Zarkoob H, Ghodsi A (2017) Fast and scalable feature selection for gene expression data using Hilbert–Schmidt independence criterion. IEEE ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 14(1):167–181Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xiao M, Guo Y (2015) Feature space independent semi-supervised domain adaptation via kernel matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 37(1):54–66Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhong W et al (2010) Incorporating the loss function into discriminative clustering of structured outputs. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 21(10):1564–1575Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boothby WM (2007) An introduction to differentiable manifolds and Riemannian geometry. Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd., SingaporezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roweis ST, Saul LK (2000) Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science 290(5500):2323–2326Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donoho DL, Grimes C (2003) Hessian eigenmaps: locally linear embedding techniques for high-dimensional data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(10):5591–5596MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Belkin M, Niyogi P (2001) Laplacian eigenmaps and spectral techniques for embedding and clustering. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 14(6):585–591Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    He X, Yan S, Hu Y, Niyogi P, Zhang H (2005) Face recognition using Laplacianfaces. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(3):328–340Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pang Y, Zhang L, Liu Z, Yu N, Li H (2005) Neighborhood preserving projections (NPP): a novel linear dimension reduction method. Proc ICIC Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1:117–125Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cai D, He X, Han J, Zhang H (2006) Orthogonal Laplacianfaces for face recognition. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(11):3608–3614Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kokiopoulou E, Saad Y (2007) Orthogonal neighborhood preserving projections: a projection-based dimensionality reduction technique. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 29(12):2143–2156Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yan S, Xu D, Zhang B, Zhang H, Yang Q, Lin S (2007) Graph embedding and extensions: a general framework for dimensionality reduction. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 29(1):40–51Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saul LK, Roweis ST (2003) Think globally, fit locally: unsupervised learning of low dimensional manifold. J Mach Learn Res 4(1):119–155MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qiao H, Zhang P, Wang D, Zhang B (2013) An explicit nonlinear mapping for manifold learning. IEEE Trans Cybern 43(1):51–63Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Belkin M, Niyogi P, Sindhwani V (2006) Manifold regularization: a geometric framework for learning from labeled and unlabeled examples. J Mach Learn Res 7(1):2399–2434MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jost J (2008) Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spivak M (1981) A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry. In: American Mathematical Monthly, vol 4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kreyszig E (1981) Introductory functional analysis with applications, New York, 1Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mika S et al (1999) Fisher discriminant analysis with kernels. In: Neural networks for signal processing IXGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shawe-Taylor J, Cristianini N (2004) Kernel methods for pattern analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gohberg I, Goldberg S, Kaashoek MA (1990) Hilbert–Schmidt operators. In: Classes of linear operators, vol 1. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 138–147Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xiang S et al (2011) Regression reformulations of LLE and LTSA with locally linear transformation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 41(5):1250–1262Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martin Sagayam K, Jude Hemanth D (2018) ABC algorithm based optimization of 1-D hidden Markov model for hand gesture recognition application. Comput Ind 99:313–323Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sagayam KM, Hemanth DJ, Ramprasad YN, Menon R (2018) Optimization of hand motion recognition system based on 2D HMM approach using ABC algorithm. In: Hybrid intelligent techniques for pattern analysis and understanding. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sagayam KM, Hemanth DJ (2018) Comparative analysis of 1-D HMM and 2-D HMM for hand motion recognition applications. In: Progress in intelligent computing techniques: theory, practice, and applications, advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer, p 518Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gangeh MJ, Ghodsi A, Kamel MS (2013) Kernelized supervised dictionary learning. IEEE Trans Signal Process 61(19):4753–4767MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gangeh MJ, Fewzee P, Ghodsi A, Kamel MS, Karray F (2014) Multiview supervised dictionary learning in speech emotion recognition. IEEE ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process 22(6):1056–1068Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barshan E et al (2011) Supervised PCA visualization classification and regression on subspaces and submanifolds. Pattern Recognit 44:1357–1371zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Data and Computer ScienceSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations