Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Collaborative Representation for Classification, Sparse or Non-sparse?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1403.1353 v1 pith:IXRMJVAK submitted 2014-03-06 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords representationclassificationnon-sparsesparseregularizationbettercollaborativefeature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Sparse representation based classification (SRC) has been proved to be a simple, effective and robust solution to face recognition. As it gets popular, doubts on the necessity of enforcing sparsity starts coming up, and primary experimental results showed that simply changing the $l_1$-norm based regularization to the computationally much more efficient $l_2$-norm based non-sparse version would lead to a similar or even better performance. However, that's not always the case. Given a new classification task, it's still unclear which regularization strategy (i.e., making the coefficients sparse or non-sparse) is a better choice without trying both for comparison. In this paper, we present as far as we know the first study on solving this issue, based on plenty of diverse classification experiments. We propose a scoring function for pre-selecting the regularization strategy using only the dataset size, the feature dimensionality and a discrimination score derived from a given feature representation. Moreover, we show that when dictionary learning is taking into account, non-sparse representation has a more significant superiority to sparse representation. This work is expected to enrich our understanding of sparse/non-sparse collaborative representation for classification and motivate further research activities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Permutation-invariant Feature Restructuring for Correlation-aware Image Set-based Recognition

    cs.CV 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An image set recognition framework that uses residual self-attention and sparse/collaborative dictionary reconstruction, and is provably permutation-invariant, achieves top scores on IJB-A, Celebrity-1000, and iLIDS-VID.

Pith tools