From the post:
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
The “duck test”.
Performance of machine learning algorithms, supervised or unsupervised, is often significantly enhanced when a variety of feature families, or multiple views of the data, are available. For example, in the case of web pages, one feature family can be based on the words appearing on the page, and another can be based on the URLs and related connectivity properties. Similarly, videos contain both audio and visual signals where in turn each modality is analyzed in a variety of ways. For instance, the visual stream can be analyzed based on the color and edge distribution, texture, motion, object types, and so on. YouTube videos are also associated with textual information (title, tags, comments, etc.). Each feature family complements others in providing predictive signals to accomplish a prediction or classification task, for example, in automatically classifying videos into subject areas such as sports, music, comedy, games, and so on.
We have released a dataset of over 100k feature vectors extracted from public YouTube videos. These videos are labeled by one of 30 classes, each class corresponding to a video game (with some amount of class noise): each video shows a gameplay of a video game, for teaching purposes for example. Each instance (video) is described by three feature families (textual, visual, and auditory), and each family is broken into subfamilies yielding up to 13 feature types per instance. Neither video identities nor class identities are released.
The concept of multiview learning is clear enough but the term was unfamiliar.
In that regard, you may want to read: A Survey on Multi-view Learning by Chang Xu, Dacheng Tao, Chao Xu.
In recent years, a great many methods of learning from multi-view data by considering the diversity of different views have been proposed. These views may be obtained from multiple sources or different feature subsets. In trying to organize and highlight similarities and differences between the variety of multi-view learning approaches, we review a number of representative multi-view learning algorithms in different areas and classify them into three groups: 1) co-training, 2) multiple kernel learning, and 3) subspace learning. Notably, co-training style algorithms train alternately to maximize the mutual agreement on two distinct views of the data; multiple kernel learning algorithms exploit kernels that naturally correspond to different views and combine kernels either linearly or non-linearly to improve learning performance; and subspace learning algorithms aim to obtain a latent subspace shared by multiple views by assuming that the input views are generated from this latent subspace. Though there is significant variance in the approaches to integrating multiple views to improve learning performance, they mainly exploit either the consensus principle or the complementary principle to ensure the success of multi-view learning. Since accessing multiple views is the fundament of multi-view learning, with the exception of study on learning a model from multiple views, it is also valuable to study how to construct multiple views and how to evaluate these views. Overall, by exploring the consistency and complementary properties of different views, multi-view learning is rendered more effective, more promising, and has better generalization ability than single-view learning.
Be forewarned that the survey runs 59 pages and has 9 1/2 pages of references. Not something you take home for a quick read. 😉