Search

Interactive model steering helps people incrementally build machine learning models that are tailored to their domain and task. Existing visual analytic tools allow people to steer a single model (e.g., assignment attribute weights used by a dimension reduction model). However, the choice of model is critical in such situations. What if the model chosen is suboptimal for the task, dataset, or question being asked? What if instead of parameterizing and steering this model, a different model provides a better fit? This paper presents a technique to allow users to inspect and steer multiple machine learning models. The technique steers and samples models from a broader set of learning algorithms and model types. We incorporate this technique into a visual analytic prototype, BEAMES, that allows users to perform regression tasks via multimodel steering. This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of BEAMES via a use case, and discusses broader implications for multimodel steering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graphical abstract Highlights • Hyper spectral imaging was used to get many spectra in a short time. • The identification of eight paper types was done by using machine learning. • Even papers with very similar spectra could be distinguished with high accuracy. • For 68,400 spectra per sample, the accuracy was 87.8%. Abstract Paper is non-uniform; thus, it is difficult to ascertain whether the slight differences in near-infrared absorption spectra are caused by the difference in paper type or the paper's non-uniformity. We used near-infrared hyperspectral imaging to measure the spectra of many different points quickly for eight different paper samples. Next, we analysed the data using machine learning and constructed a model to ascertain whether the differences in the spectra are due to the difference in paper type or the paper's non-uniformity. Even papers with very similar spectral shapes were distinguished with high accuracy with this method. As the number of spectra used to construct the classification model increased, the accuracy of the classification model increased. With 6840 spectra per sample, the accuracy exceeded 85%, and with 68,400 spectra per sample, the accuracy for identification was 87.8%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] • Micro-NIR spectrometer was proposed to identify the paper types. • Four machine learning algorithms were discussed in both Micro-NIR and ATR-FTIR. • The performance of Micro-NIR model was better than ATR-FTIR. Quick identification of paper types for customs is extremely crucial. Although there are a variety of researches focus on the discrimination of paper, these techniques either require complex preprocessing or large-scale instruments, which are not suitable for customs environments. In this study, we predicted the type of customs paper by using a Micro-NIR spectrometer, and compared the results with Attenuated Total Reflection-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR). Four different classification algorithms, including linear and non-linear classifiers: K-nearest neighbor (KNN), soft independent modeling of class analogy (SIMCA), partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), and least squares-support vector machine (LS-SVM) were employed to classify the type of paper. 20 groups of datasets were selected by Monte Carlo sampling. For Micro-NIR data, the performances of KNN and LS-SVM were outstanding than SIMCA and PLS-DA, with the average accuracies 96.06% and 98.91%, respectively. The outcome of SIMCA and PLS-DA were similar, with the average accuracies 93.00% and 93.97%. Based on the standard derivation, the best stability of models was LS-SVM (1.06%), followed by PLS-DA (1.12%), KNN (1.22%) and SIMCA (3.07%). Compared with ATR-FTIR, the effects of Micro-NIR were better, which were embodies in the better KNN and SIMCA models, and the comparable LS-SVM model. The result demonstrated that the Micro-NIR combined with machine learning algorithms was an effective method to classify the type of customs paper efficiently and quickly, even better than ATR-FTIR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Algorithm performance evaluation is so entrenched in the machine learning community that one could call it an addiction. Like most addictions, it is harmful and very difficult to give up. It is harmful because it has serious limitations. Yet, we have great faith in practicing it in a ritualistic manner: we follow a fixed set of rules telling us the measure, the data sets and the statistical test to use. When we read a paper, even as reviewers, we are not sufficiently critical of results that follow these rules. Here, we will debate what are the limitations and how to best address them. This article may not cure the addiction but hopefully it will be a good first step along that road. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]