Skip to main content
Log in

Learning with Similarity Functions: a Tensor-Based Framework

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Machine learning algorithms are typically designed to deal with data represented as vectors. Several major applications, however, involve multi-way data, such as video sequences and multi-sensory arrays. In those cases, tensors endow a more consistent way to capture multi-modal relations, which may be lost by a conventional remapping of original data into a vector representation. This paper presents a tensor-oriented machine learning framework, and shows that the theory of learning with similarity functions provides an effective paradigm to support this framework. The proposed approach adopts a specific similarity function, which defines a measure of similarity between a pair of tensors. The performance of the tensor-based framework is evaluated on a set of complex, real-world, pattern-recognition problems. Experimental results confirm the effectiveness of the framework, which compares favorably with state-of-the-art machine learning methodologies that can accept tensors as inputs. Indeed, a formal analysis proves that the framework is more efficient than state-of-the-art methodologies also in terms of computational cost. The paper thus provides two main outcomes: (1) a theoretical framework that enables the use of tensor-oriented similarity notions and (2) a cognitively inspired notion of similarity that leads to computationally efficient predictors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cambria E, White B. Jumping nlp curves: A review of natural language processing research. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 2014;9(2):48–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu X, Lin S, Fang J, Xu Z. Is extreme learning machine feasible? A theoretical assessment (part I). IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 2015;26(1):7–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Plakias S, Stamatatos E. 2008. Tensor space models for authorship identification. In: Hellenic conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, p. 239–249.

  4. Gastaldo P, Pinna L, Seminara L, Valle M, Zunino R. A tensor-based pattern-recognition framework for the interpretation of touch modality in artificial skin systems. IEEE Sensors J 2014;14(7):2216–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang X-W, Nie D, Lu B-L. Emotional state classification from EEG data using machine learning approach. Neurocomputing 2014;129:94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhao Q, Zhou G, Adali T, Zhang L, Cichocki A. Kernelization of tensor-based models for multiway data analysis: Processing of multidimensional structured data. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2013;30(4):137–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao Q, Zhang L, Cichocki A. Multilinear and nonlinear generalizations of partial least squares: an overview of recent advances. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2014;4(2):104–15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liu Y, Liu Y, Chan KC. Tensor distance based multilinear locality-preserved maximum information embedding. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2010;21(11):1848–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Iwasaki T, Furukawa T. Tensor SOM and tensor GTM: nonlinear tensor analysis by topographic mappings. Neural Netw 2016;77:107–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lai Z, Wong WK, Xu Y, Zhao C, Sun M. Sparse alignment for robust tensor learning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 2014;25(10):1779–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu H, Plataniotis KN, Venetsanopoulos AN. A survey of multilinear subspace learning for tensor data. Pattern Recogn 2011;44(7):1540–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sanguansat P. 2010. Higher-order random projection for tensor object recognition. In: 2010 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT). IEEE, p. 615–619.

  13. Signoretto M, Dinh QT, De Lathauwer L, Suykens JA. Learning with tensors: a framework based on convex optimization and spectral regularization. Mach Learn 2014;94(3):303–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tao D, Li X, Hu W, Maybank S, Wu X. 2005. Supervised tensor learning. In: 5th IEEE international conference on data mining, IEEE, p. 8.

  15. Guo X, Huang X, Zhang L, Zhang L, Plaza A, Benediktsson JA. Support tensor machines for classification of hyperspectral remote sensing imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 2016;54(6):3248–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wimalawarne K, Tomioka R, Sugiyama M. Theoretical and experimental analyses of tensor-based regression and classification. Neural Comput 2016;28(4):686–715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hao Z, He L, Chen B, Yang X. A linear support higher-order tensor machine for classification. IEEE Trans Image Process 2013;22(7):2911–2920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Signoretto M, De Lathauwer L, Suykens JA. A kernel-based framework to tensorial data analysis. Neural Netw 2011;24(8):861–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Balcan M-F, Blum A, Srebro N. A theory of learning with similarity functions. Mach Learn 2008;72 (1-2):89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Lathauwer L, De Moor B, Vandewalle J. A multilinear singular value decomposition. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 2000;21(4):1253–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ragusa E, Gianoglio C, Gastaldo P, Zunino R. A digital implementation of extreme learning machines for resource-constrained devices, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs.

  22. Hofmann T, Schölkopf B, Smola AJ. Kernel methods in machine learning. Ann Stat. 2008;36:1171–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cichocki A, Mandic D, De Lathauwer L, Zhou G, Zhao Q, Caiafa C, Phan HA. Tensor decompositions for signal processing applications: from two-way to multiway component analysis. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2015;32(2):145–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Golub GH, Van Loan CF. Matrix computations, Vol 3. Baltimore: JHU Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Peeters T, Rodrigues P, Vilanova A, ter Haar Romeny B. 2009. Analysis of distance/similarity measures for diffusion tensor imaging. In: Visualization and Processing of Tensor Fields, Springer, p. 113–136.

  26. Landauer TK. Latent semantic analysis. New York: Wiley Online Library; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Harshman RA. Foundations of the parafac procedure: models and conditions for an “explanatory” multimodal factor analysis.

  28. Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, p. 1097–1105.

  29. Leibe B, Schiele B. 2003. Analyzing appearance and contour based methods for object categorization. In: 2003 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2003. Proceedings., vol 2, IEEE, p. II–409.

  30. Belhumeur PN, Hespanha JP, Kriegman DJ. Eigenfaces vs. fisherfaces: recognition using class specific linear projection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1997;19(7):711–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nilsback M-E, Zisserman A. 2006. A visual vocabulary for flower classification. In: 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, vol 2, IEEE, p. 1447–1454.

  32. Schuldt C, Laptev I, Caputo B. 2004. Recognizing human actions: a local SVM approach. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on pattern recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004, vol 3, IEEE, p. 32–36.

  33. Kim T-K, Cipolla R. Canonical correlation analysis of video volume tensors for action categorization and detection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2009;31(8):1415–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rodriguez-Lujan I, Fonollosa J, Vergara A, Homer M, Huerta R. On the calibration of sensor arrays for pattern recognition using the minimal number of experiments. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 2014;130:123–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cai D, He X, Hu Y, Han J, Huang T. 2007. Learning a spatially smooth subspace for face recognition. In: Computer vision and pattern recognition, 2007. CVPR’07. IEEE Conference on, IEEE, 2007, p. 1–7.

  36. Wang Q-F, Cambria E, Liu C-L, Hussain A. Common sense knowledge for handwritten chinese text recognition. Cogn Comput 2013;5(2):234–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cambria E, Hussain A. Sentic album: content-, concept-, and context-based online personal photo management system. Cogn Comput 2012;4(4):477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tran H-N, Cambria E, Hussain A. Towards gpu-based common-sense reasoning: using fast subgraph matching. Cogn Comput 2016;8(6):1074–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Cambria.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not required as no human or animals were involved.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Appendix:

Appendix:

Unfolding is the process of reordering the elements of a tensor \(\mathcal {T} \in \mathit {R}^{I_{1} \times I_{2} \times .... \times I_{N}} \) into a matrix \(\mathcal {T} \in \mathit {R}^{P \times Q}\), where P × Q = I1 × I2 × ... × IN .

The mode-n unfolding of \(\mathcal {T}\), \(\mathcal {T}_{(n)}\), defines a specific instance of such a procedure [20]. Accordingly, \(\mathcal {T}_{(n)} \in \mathit {R}^{I_{n} \times I_{1}I_{2} I_{n-1}I_{n + 1}...I_{N}}\) and the reordering process follows the scheme exemplified in Fig. 9. In the example, a third-order tensor \(\mathcal {T}\) is unfolded in the matrices \(\mathcal {T}_{(1)}\), \(\mathcal {T}_{(2)}\), and \(\mathcal {T}_{(3)}\). The mode-1 unfolding \(\mathcal {T}_{(1)}\) is obtained by first partitioning the original tensor according to the slices \(\mathcal {T} (:,:,i3)\). Then, the eventual matrix is created by placing side-by-side the slices in the original order. Likewise, \(\mathcal {T}_{(2)}\) and \(\mathcal {T}_{(3)}\) are obtained by partitioning the original tensor according to the slices \(\mathcal {T} (:,i_{2},:)\) and \(\mathcal {T} (i_{1},:,i3)\), respectively. Such scheme can be easily extended to a generic tensor of order N.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Unfolding of a third-order tensor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ragusa, E., Gastaldo, P., Zunino, R. et al. Learning with Similarity Functions: a Tensor-Based Framework. Cogn Comput 11, 31–49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-018-9590-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-018-9590-9

Keywords

Navigation