Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Gideon Dror

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

5 papers
1 author row

Possible papers

5

JMLR Journal 2010 Journal Article

Model Selection: Beyond the Bayesian/Frequentist Divide

  • Isabelle Guyon
  • Amir Saffari
  • Gideon Dror
  • Gavin Cawley

The principle of parsimony also known as "Ockham's razor" has inspired many theories of model selection. Yet such theories, all making arguments in favor of parsimony, are based on very different premises and have developed distinct methodologies to derive algorithms. We have organized challenges and edited a special issue of JMLR and several conference proceedings around the theme of model selection. In this editorial, we revisit the problem of avoiding overfitting in light of the latest results. We note the remarkable convergence of theories as different as Bayesian theory, Minimum Description Length, bias/variance tradeoff, Structural Risk Minimization, and regularization, in some approaches. We also present new and interesting examples of the complementarity of theories leading to hybrid algorithms, neither frequentist, nor Bayesian, or perhaps both frequentist and Bayesian! [abs] [ pdf ][ bib ] &copy JMLR 2010. ( edit, beta )

JMLR Journal 2009 Journal Article

Hash Kernels for Structured Data

  • Qinfeng Shi
  • James Petterson
  • Gideon Dror
  • John Langford
  • Alex Smola
  • S.V.N. Vishwanathan

We propose hashing to facilitate efficient kernels. This generalizes previous work using sampling and we show a principled way to compute the kernel matrix for data streams and sparse feature spaces. Moreover, we give deviation bounds from the exact kernel matrix. This has applications to estimation on strings and graphs. [abs] [ pdf ][ bib ] &copy JMLR 2009. ( edit, beta )

NeurIPS Conference 2006 Conference Paper

A Humanlike Predictor of Facial Attractiveness

  • Amit Kagian
  • Gideon Dror
  • Tommer Leyvand
  • Daniel Cohen-or
  • Eytan Ruppin

This work presents a method for estimating human facial attractiveness, based on supervised learning techniques. Numerous facial features that describe facial geometry, color and texture, combined with an average human attractiveness score for each facial image, are used to train various predictors. Facial attractiveness ratings produced by the final predictor are found to be highly correlated with human ratings, markedly improving previous machine learning achievements. Simulated psychophysical experiments with virtually manipulated images reveal preferences in the machine's judgments which are remarkably similar to those of humans. These experiments shed new light on existing theories of facial attractiveness such as the averageness, smoothness and symmetry hypotheses. It is intriguing to find that a machine trained explicitly to capture an operational performance criteria such as attractiveness rating, implicitly captures basic human psychophysical biases characterizing the perception of facial attractiveness in general.

NeurIPS Conference 2004 Conference Paper

Result Analysis of the NIPS 2003 Feature Selection Challenge

  • Isabelle Guyon
  • Steve Gunn
  • Asa Ben-Hur
  • Gideon Dror

The NIPS 2003 workshops included a feature selection competi- tion organized by the authors. We provided participants with five datasets from different application domains and called for classifica- tion results using a minimal number of features. The competition took place over a period of 13 weeks and attracted 78 research groups. Participants were asked to make on-line submissions on the validation and test sets, with performance on the validation set being presented immediately to the participant and performance on the test set presented to the participants at the workshop. In total 1863 entries were made on the validation sets during the development period and 135 entries on all test sets for the final competition. The winners used a combination of Bayesian neu- ral networks with ARD priors and Dirichlet diffusion trees. Other top entries used a variety of methods for feature selection, which combined filters and/or wrapper or embedded methods using Ran- dom Forests, kernel methods, or neural networks as a classification engine. The results of the benchmark (including the predictions made by the participants and the features they selected) and the scoring software are publicly available. The benchmark is available at www. nipsfsc. ecs. soton. ac. uk for post-challenge submissions to stimulate further research. 1 Introduction Recently, the quality of research in Machine Learning has been raised by the sus- tained data sharing efforts of the community. Data repositories include the well known UCI Machine Learning repository [13], and dozens of other sites [10]. Yet, this has not diminished the importance of organized competitions. In fact, the proliferation of datasets combined with the creativity of researchers in designing experiments makes it hardly possible to compare one paper with another [12]. A number of large conferences have regularly organized competitions (e. g. KDD, CAMDA, ICDAR, TREC, ICPR, and CASP). The NIPS workshops offer an ideal forum for organizing such competitions. In 2003, we organized a competition on the theme of feature selection, the results of which were presented at a workshop on feature extraction, which attracted 98 participants. We are presently preparing a book combining tutorial chapters and papers from the proceedings of that work- shop [9]. In this paper, we present to the NIPS community a concise summary of our challenge design and the findings of the result analysis. 2 Benchmark design We formatted five datasets (Table 1) from various application domains. All datasets are two-class classification problems. The data were split into three subsets: a training set, a validation set, and a test set. All three subsets were made available at the beginning of the benchmark, on September 8, 2003. The class labels for the validation set and the test set were withheld. The identity of the datasets and of the features (some of which were random features artificially generated) were kept secret. The participants could submit prediction results on the validation set and get their performance results and ranking on-line for a period of 12 weeks. By December 1st, 2003, which marked the end of the development period, the participants had to turn in their results on the test set. Immediately after that, the validation set labels were revealed. On December 8th, 2003, the participants could make submissions of test set predictions, after having trained on both the training and the validation set. Some details on the benchmark design are provided in this Section.

NeurIPS Conference 1998 Conference Paper

Vertex Identification in High Energy Physics Experiments

  • Gideon Dror
  • Halina Abramowicz
  • David Horn

In High Energy Physics experiments one has to sort through a high flux of events, at a rate of tens of MHz, and select the few that are of interest. One of the key factors in making this decision is the location of the vertex where the interaction, that led to the event, took place. Here we present a novel solution to the problem of finding the location of the vertex, based on two feedforward neu(cid: 173) ral networks with fixed architectures, whose parameters are chosen so as to obtain a high accuracy. The system is tested on simu(cid: 173) lated data sets, and is shown to perform better than conventional algorithms.