4.7 Article

Extreme learning machine and adaptive sparse representation for image classification

期刊

NEURAL NETWORKS
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 91-102

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2016.06.001

关键词

Extreme learning machine; Sparse representation; Image classification; Leave-one-out cross validation

资金

  1. NNSF of China [61503104, 61573123]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LY15F030017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent research has shown the speed advantage of extreme learning machine (ELM) and the accuracy advantage of sparse representation classification (SRC) in the area of image classification. Those two methods, however, have their respective drawbacks, e.g., in general, ELM is known to be less robust to noise while SRC is known to be time-consuming. Consequently, ELM and SRC complement each other in computational complexity and classification accuracy. In order to unify such mutual complementarity and thus further enhance the classification performance, we propose an efficient hybrid classifier to exploit the advantages of ELM and SRC in this paper. More precisely, the proposed classifier consists of two stages: first, an ELM network is trained by supervised learning. Second, a discriminative criterion about the reliability of the obtained ELM output is adopted to decide whether the query image can be correctly classified or not. If the output is reliable, the classification will be performed by ELM; otherwise the query image will be fed to SRC. Meanwhile, in the stage of SRC, a sub-dictionary that is adaptive to the query image instead of the entire dictionary is extracted via the ELM output. The computational burden of SRC thus can be reduced. Extensive experiments on handwritten digit classification, landmark recognition and face recognition demonstrate that the proposed hybrid classifier outperforms ELM and SRC in classification accuracy with outstanding computational efficiency. (C) 2016 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