4.7 Article

Weighted Twin Support Vector Machines with Local Information and its application

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 35, 期 -, 页码 31-39

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2012.06.010

关键词

GEPSVM; WLTSVM; Similarity information; Support vector

资金

  1. Scientific Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2009393]
  2. Research Foundation for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20093219120025]
  3. National Science Foundations of China [61101197]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A Twin Support Vector Machine (TWSVM), as a variant of a Multisurface Proximal Support Vector Machine via Generalized Eigenvalues (GEPSVM), attempts to improve the generalization of GEPSVM, whose solution follows from solving two quadratic programming problems (QPPs), each of which is smaller than in a standard SVM. Unfortunately, the two QPPs still lead to rather high computational costs. Moreover, although TWSVM has better classification performance than GEPSVM, a major disadvantage is it fails to exploit the underlying correlation or similarity information between any pair of data points with the same labels that may be important for classification performance as much as possible. To mitigate the above deficiencies, in this paper, we propose a novel nonparallel plane classifier, called Weighted Twin Support Vector Machines with Local Information (WLTSVM). WLTSVM mines as much underlying similarity information within samples as possible. This method not only retains the superior characteristics of TWSVM, but also has its additional advantages: (1) comparable or better classification accuracy compared to SVM, GEPSVM and TWSVM; (2) taking motivation from standard SVM, the concept of support vectors is retained; (3) more efficient than TWSVM in terms of computational costs; and (4) only one penalty parameter is considered as opposed to two in TWSVM. Finally, experiments on both simulated and real problems confirm the effectiveness of our method. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据