4.7 Article

Bilevel Model-Based Discriminative Dictionary Learning for Recognition

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 1173-1187

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2016.2623487

关键词

Sparse representation; dictionary learning; bilevel optimization; recognition; alternating direction method

资金

  1. National Key Basic Research Project of China (973 Program) [2015CB352303]
  2. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61671027, 61071156]
  3. 973 Program of China [2015CB352502]
  4. NSF of China [61625301, 61231002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most supervised dictionary learning methods optimize the combinations of reconstruction error, sparsity prior, and discriminative terms. Thus, the learnt dictionaries may not be optimal for recognition tasks. Also, the sparse codes learning models in the training and the testing phases are inconsistent. Besides, without utilizing the intrinsic data structure, many dictionary learning methods only employ the l(0) or l(1) norm to encode each datum independently, limiting the performance of the learnt dictionaries. We present a novel bilevel model-based discriminative dictionary learning method for recognition tasks. The upper level directly minimizes the classification error, while the lower level uses the sparsity term and the Laplacian term to characterize the intrinsic data structure. The lower level is subordinate to the upper level. Therefore, our model achieves an overall optimality for recognition in that the learnt dictionary is directly tailored for recognition. Moreover, the sparse codes learning models in the training and the testing phases can be the same. We further propose a novel method to solve our bilevel optimization problem. It first replaces the lower level with its Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions and then applies the alternating direction method of multipliers to solve the equivalent problem. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method.

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