ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022
On component-wise dissimilarity measures and metric properties in pattern recognition.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the ability of embedding methods on metabolic hypergraphs for capturing taxonomy-based features.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many real-world applications concerning pattern recognition techniques, it is of utmost importance the automatic learning of the most appropriate dissimilarity measure to be used in object comparison. Real-world objects are often complex entities and need a specific representation grounded on a composition of different heterogeneous features, leading to a non-metric starting space where Machine Learning algorithms operate. However, in the so-called unconventional spaces a family of dissimilarity measures can be still exploited, that is, the set of component-wise dissimilarity measures, in which each component is treated with a specific sub-dissimilarity that depends on the nature of the data at hand. These dissimilarities are likely to be non-Euclidean, hence the underlying dissimilarity matrix is not isometrically embeddable in a standard Euclidean space because it may not be structurally rich enough. On the other hand, in many metric learning problems, a component-wise dissimilarity measure can be defined as a weighted linear convex combination and weights can be suitably learned. This article, after introducing some hints on the relation between distances and the metric learning paradigm, provides a discussion along with some experiments on how weights, intended as mathematical operators, interact with the Euclidean behavior of dissimilarity matrices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.