Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

[D] The random feature zoo (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by doncosaco@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am trying to wrap my head around methods that use random selection of features and then fit to data solving a linear optimization problem.

I've seen a bunch of names of methods in the literature that look essentially the same. There are methods like random vector functional link which use a neural network type architecture. Similar methods were done for radial basis functions. Extreme learning machines are basically the same as these and took their ideas.

Then there are random feature methods. This branch of literature seems to begin with Rahimi and Recht. They seem to come from kernel methods and random Fourier series. Should I think of random features as an umbrella term over all the kernel setups including single layer neural network and radial basis functions?

top 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mr_stargazer@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Honestly, at this stage, many things unfortunately is a zoo..

[–] doncosaco@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

What’s tough for me is things that look the same but have different names (and the paper doesn’t say “this also goes by this different name”). I don’t know if there’s a difference I’m missing or if they’re the same methods developed separately.