Phoneme and sentence-level ensembles for speech recognition

We address the question of whether and how boosting and bagging can be used for speech recognition. In order to do this, we compare two different boosting schemes, one at the phoneme level and one at the utterance level, with a phoneme-level bagging scheme. We control for many parameters and other choices, such as the state inference scheme used. In an unbiased experiment, we clearly show that the gain of boosting methods compared to a single hidden Markov model is in all cases only marginal, while bagging significantly outperforms all other methods. We thus conclude that bagging methods, which have so far been overlooked in favour of boosting, should be examined more closely as a potentially useful ensemble learning technique for speech recognition

Localized Regression

The main problem with localized discriminant techniques is the curse of dimensionality, which seems to restrict their use to the case of few variables. This restriction does not hold if localization is combined with a reduction of dimension. In particular it is shown that localization yields powerful classifiers even in higher dimensions if localization is combined with locally adaptive selection of predictors. A robust localized logistic regression (LLR) method is developed for which all tuning parameters are chosen data¡adaptively. In an extended simulation study we evaluate the potential of the proposed procedure for various types of data and compare it to other classification procedures. In addition we demonstrate that automatic choice of localization, predictor selection and penalty parameters based on cross validation is working well. Finally the method is applied to real data sets and its real world performance is compared to alternative procedures

The Theory Behind Overfitting, Cross Validation, Regularization, Bagging, and Boosting: Tutorial

In this tutorial paper, we first define mean squared error, variance, covariance, and bias of both random variables and classification/predictor models. Then, we formulate the true and generalization errors of the model for both training and validation/test instances where we make use of the Stein's Unbiased Risk Estimator (SURE). We define overfitting, underfitting, and generalization using the obtained true and generalization errors. We introduce cross validation and two well-known examples which are $K$-fold and leave-one-out cross validations. We briefly introduce generalized cross validation and then move on to regularization where we use the SURE again. We work on both $\ell_2$ and $\ell_1$ norm regularizations. Then, we show that bootstrap aggregating (bagging) reduces the variance of estimation. Boosting, specifically AdaBoost, is introduced and it is explained as both an additive model and a maximum margin model, i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM). The upper bound on the generalization error of boosting is also provided to show why boosting prevents from overfitting. As examples of regularization, the theory of ridge and lasso regressions, weight decay, noise injection to input/weights, and early stopping are explained. Random forest, dropout, histogram of oriented gradients, and single shot multi-box detector are explained as examples of bagging in machine learning and computer vision. Finally, boosting tree and SVM models are mentioned as examples of boosting.Comment: 23 pages, 9 figure

Generating Compact Tree Ensembles via Annealing

Tree ensembles are flexible predictive models that can capture relevant variables and to some extent their interactions in a compact and interpretable manner. Most algorithms for obtaining tree ensembles are based on versions of boosting or Random Forest. Previous work showed that boosting algorithms exhibit a cyclic behavior of selecting the same tree again and again due to the way the loss is optimized. At the same time, Random Forest is not based on loss optimization and obtains a more complex and less interpretable model. In this paper we present a novel method for obtaining compact tree ensembles by growing a large pool of trees in parallel with many independent boosting threads and then selecting a small subset and updating their leaf weights by loss optimization. We allow for the trees in the initial pool to have different depths which further helps with generalization. Experiments on real datasets show that the obtained model has usually a smaller loss than boosting, which is also reflected in a lower misclassification error on the test set.Comment: Comparison with Random Forest included in the results sectio