TY - GEN
T1 - Classification with positive and negative equivalence constraints
T2 - 2nd International Symposium on Brain, Vision, and Artificial Intelligence, BVAI 2007
AU - Hammer, Rubi
AU - Hertz, Tomer
AU - Hochstein, Shaul
AU - Weinshall, Daphna
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - We tested the efficiency of category learning when participants are provided only with pairs of objects, known to belong either to the same class (Positive Equivalence Constraints or PECs) or to different classes (Negative Equivalence Constraints or NECs). Our results in a series of cognitive experiments show dramatic differences in the usability of these two information building blocks, even when they are chosen to contain the same amount of information. Specifically, PECs seem to be used intuitively and quite efficiently, while people are rarely able to gain much information from NECs (unless they are specifically directed for the best way of using them). Tests with a constrained EM clustering algorithm under similar conditions also show superior performance with PECs. We conclude with a theoretical analysis, showing (by analogy to graph cut problems) that the satisfaction of NECs is computationally intractable, whereas the satisfaction of PECs is straightforward. Furthermore, we show that PECs convey more information than NECs by relating their information content to the number of different graph colorings. These inherent differences between PECs and NECs may explain why people readily use PECs, while many of them need specific directions to be able to use NECs effectively.
AB - We tested the efficiency of category learning when participants are provided only with pairs of objects, known to belong either to the same class (Positive Equivalence Constraints or PECs) or to different classes (Negative Equivalence Constraints or NECs). Our results in a series of cognitive experiments show dramatic differences in the usability of these two information building blocks, even when they are chosen to contain the same amount of information. Specifically, PECs seem to be used intuitively and quite efficiently, while people are rarely able to gain much information from NECs (unless they are specifically directed for the best way of using them). Tests with a constrained EM clustering algorithm under similar conditions also show superior performance with PECs. We conclude with a theoretical analysis, showing (by analogy to graph cut problems) that the satisfaction of NECs is computationally intractable, whereas the satisfaction of PECs is straightforward. Furthermore, we show that PECs convey more information than NECs by relating their information content to the number of different graph colorings. These inherent differences between PECs and NECs may explain why people readily use PECs, while many of them need specific directions to be able to use NECs effectively.
KW - Categorization
KW - Expectation Maximization
KW - Rule learning
KW - Similarity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48349090788&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-540-75555-5_25
DO - 10.1007/978-3-540-75555-5_25
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontobookanthology.conference???
AN - SCOPUS:48349090788
SN - 3540755543
SN - 9783540755548
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 264
EP - 276
BT - Advances in Brain, Vision, and Artificial Intelligence - Second International Symposium, BVAI 2007, Proceedings
Y2 - 10 October 2007 through 12 October 2007
ER -