Research Article

Twin Support Vector Machine for Multiple Instance Learning Based on Bag Dissimilarities

Table 2

Performance comparison of linear MIL-TWSVM with different dissimilarity score.

DatasetsMax-Hausdorff 
,
Acc ± std (%)
Min-Hausdorff 
,
Acc ± std (%)
Average-
Hausdorff 
,
Acc ± std (%)
City block 
,
Acc ± std (%)
Chi-squared 
,
Acc ± std (%)
Mahalanobis 
,
Acc ± std (%)
EMD 
,
Acc ± std (%)

Musk 1100, 100
95.56 ± 2.34
10−2, 10−3
96.67 ± 5.09
101, 101
77.78 ± 0.0
100, 103
61.11 ± 7.85
10−2, 10−2
64.48 ± 4.84
10−4, 10−4
70.03 ± 4.58
10−2, 10−2
75.58 ± 8.31
Musk 210−3, 10−4
93.02 ± 4.56
10−2, 10−1
92.85 ± 4.77
10−3, 10−1
79.84 ± 2.26
10−4, 10−1
62.46 ± 4.67
10−2, 10−3
66.67 ± 4.18
10−2, 10−1
72.34 ± 4.28
10−1, 100
74.47 ± 7.23
Mutagenesis-atoms100, 10−1
86.84 ± 1.52
10−1, 10−3
87.04 ± 2.63
10−2, 10−1
68.42 ± 0.0
10−1, 10−1
68.42 ± 0.0
10−2, 10−1
68.42 ± 0.0
10−2, 100
68.42 ± 0.0
10−3, 10−3
87.36 ± 2.57
Winter wren10−4, 10−2
96.84 ± 2.86
10−1, 10−3
97.47 ± 2.6
10−4, 10−2
89.22 ± 5.88
10−3, 100
79.67 ± 6.56
101, 10−3
84.26 ± 4.02
10−4, 10−3
76.89 ± 5.35
10−3, 10−1
94.71 ± 4.53
Brown creeper10−5, 10−3
96.01 ± 3.66
10−3, 10−4
95.88 ± 3.24
10−4, 10−1
90.89 ± 4.22
10−1, 10−3
76.38 ± 3.63
10−2, 10−4
85.43 ± 5.83
10−2, 10−3
82.67 ± 5.56
10−4, 100
93.45 ± 5.15
Elephant101, 10−3
83.88 ± 3.01
10−5, 10−1
85.56 ± 5.49
100, 100
55 ± 4.08
100, 100
50 ± 0.0
10−1, 10−1
64.16 ± 13.07
100, 100
50 ± 0.0
10−1, 10−1
74 ± 5.83
Fox10−4, 10−5
58.33 ± 1.74
10−3, 102
67.22 ± 6.7
10−4, 101
54.44 ± 3.5
10−1, 10−1
50 ± 0.0
10−2, 10−3
55 ± 0.0
10−1, 100
51.5 ± 1.97
10−7, 102
60 ± 6.32
Tiger10−4, 102
83.5 ± 2.45
10−6, 10−2
86.25 ± 5.89
10−5, 10−2
55 ± 7.28
100, 10−2
50 ± 0.0
10−3, 10−2
51.5 ± 4.27
10−1, 10−2
50 ± 0.0
10−6, 10−5
74.5 ± 6.5
eastWest10−5, 10−1
60 ± 20
10−3, 100
80 ± 24.49
10−1, 100
80 ± 24.49
10−2, 10−2
50 ± 0.0
10−1, 100
50 ± 0.0
10−4, 100
65 ± 22.9
10−3, 10−1
80 ± 24.49
westEast100, 10−2
75 ± 25
100, 100
90 ± 20
100, 10−3
85 ± 22.9
100, 100
50 ± 0.0
10−2, 100
50 ± 0.0
10−1, 10−1
75 ± 25
10−2, 10−1
75 ± 25