↓ Skip to main content

Insights from Classifying Visual Concepts with Multiple Kernel Learning

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Insights from Classifying Visual Concepts with Multiple Kernel Learning
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0038897
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Binder, Shinichi Nakajima, Marius Kloft, Christina Müller, Wojciech Samek, Ulf Brefeld, Klaus-Robert Müller, Motoaki Kawanabe

Abstract

Combining information from various image features has become a standard technique in concept recognition tasks. However, the optimal way of fusing the resulting kernel functions is usually unknown in practical applications. Multiple kernel learning (MKL) techniques allow to determine an optimal linear combination of such similarity matrices. Classical approaches to MKL promote sparse mixtures. Unfortunately, 1-norm regularized MKL variants are often observed to be outperformed by an unweighted sum kernel. The main contributions of this paper are the following: we apply a recently developed non-sparse MKL variant to state-of-the-art concept recognition tasks from the application domain of computer vision. We provide insights on benefits and limits of non-sparse MKL and compare it against its direct competitors, the sum-kernel SVM and sparse MKL. We report empirical results for the PASCAL VOC 2009 Classification and ImageCLEF2010 Photo Annotation challenge data sets. Data sets (kernel matrices) as well as further information are available at http://doc.ml.tu-berlin.de/image_mkl/(Accessed 2012 Jun 25).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 28%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 14 56%
Engineering 3 12%
Psychology 3 12%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2011.
All research outputs
#15,239,825
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,767
of 193,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,642
of 169,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,837
of 4,364 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,364 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.