Various kinds of classification methods have been developed. However, most of these classical methods, such as Back-Propagation (BP), Bayesian method, Support Vector Machine(SVM), Self-Organizing Map (SOM) are arrogant. A so-called arrogance, for a human, means that his decision, which even is a mistake, overstates his actual experience. Accordingly, we say that he is a arrogant if he frequently makes arrogant decisions. Likewise, some classical pattern classifiers represent the similar characteristic of arrogance. Given an input feature vector, we say a classifier is arrogant in its classification if its veracity is high yet its experience is low. Typically, for a new sample which is distinguishable from original training samples, traditional classifiers recognize it as one of the known targets. Clearly, arrogance in classification is an undesirable attribute. Conversely, a classifier is non-arrogant in its classification if there is a reasonable balance between its veracity and its experience. Inquisitiveness is, in many ways, the opposite of arrogance. In nature, inquisitiveness is an eagerness for knowledge characterized by the drive to question, to seek a deeper understanding. The human capacity to doubt present beliefs allows us to acquire new experiences and to learn from our mistakes. Within the discrete world of computers, inquisitive pattern recognition is the constructive investigation and exploitation of conflict in information. Thus, we quantify this balance and discuss new techniques that will detect arrogance in a classifier.

Date Published: 9 April 2007
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 6576, Independent Component Analyses, Wavelets, Unsupervised Nano-Biomimetic Sensors, and Neural Networks V, 657616 (9 April 2007); doi: 10.1117/12.717895

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 6576:
Independent Component Analyses, Wavelets, Unsupervised Nano-Biomimetic Sensors, and Neural Networks V
Harold H. Szu; Jack Agee, Editor(s)