4.8 Article

Kernel Methods on Riemannian Manifolds with Gaussian RBF Kernels

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2414422

Keywords

Riemannian manifolds; Gaussian RBF kernels; kernel methods; positive definite kernels; symmetric positive definite matrices; Grassmann manifolds

Funding

  1. ARC
  2. Australian Government
  3. Australian Research Council (ARC) through the ICT Centre of Excellence program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, we develop an approach to exploiting kernel methods with manifold-valued data. In many computer vision problems, the data can be naturally represented as points on a Riemannian manifold. Due to the non-Euclidean geometry of Riemannian manifolds, usual Euclidean computer vision and machine learning algorithms yield inferior results on such data. In this paper, we define Gaussian radial basis function (RBF)-based positive definite kernels on manifolds that permit us to embed a given manifold with a corresponding metric in a high dimensional reproducing kernel Hilbert space. These kernels make it possible to utilize algorithms developed for linear spaces on nonlinear manifold-valued data. Since the Gaussian RBF defined with any given metric is not always positive definite, we present a unified framework for analyzing the positive definiteness of the Gaussian RBF on a generic metric space. We then use the proposed framework to identify positive definite kernels on two specific manifolds commonly encountered in computer vision: the Riemannian manifold of symmetric positive definite matrices and the Grassmann manifold, i.e., the Riemannian manifold of linear subspaces of a Euclidean space. We show that many popular algorithms designed for Euclidean spaces, such as support vector machines, discriminant analysis and principal component analysis can be generalized to Riemannian manifolds with the help of such positive definite Gaussian kernels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available