One problem of the SMI assumption is that a positive bag may contain more than one positive instance. In SED, some sound classes such as “ambulance siren” may last for several seconds and may occur in many instances. In contrast to the SMI assumption, with the CA assumption, all the instances in a bag contribute equally to the tags of the bag. The bag-level prediction can be obtained by averaging the instance-level predictions: $$\label{eq:IS_average}
F(B)=\frac{1}{\left | B \right |}\sum_{\mathbf{x} \in B}f(\mathbf{x}).$$ The symbol $ |B| $ denotes the number of instances in bag $ B $. Equation (\[eq:IS\_average\]) shows that CA is based on the assumption that all the instances in a positive bag are positive.

Bag space methods {#BS_paradigm}
-----------------

Instead of building an instance-level classifier, the BS methods regard a bag $ B $ as an entirety. Building a tagging model on the bags rely on a distance function $ D(\cdot, \cdot): B \times B \mapsto \mathbb{R} $. The distance function can be, for example, the Hausdorff distance [@wang2000solving]: $$\label{eq:BS}
D(B_{1}, B_{2}) = \underset{\mathbf{x}_{1} \in B_{1}, \mathbf{x}_{2} \in B_{2}}{\textrm{min}}\left \| \mathbf{x}_{1} - \mathbf{x}_{2} \right \|.$$ In (\[eq:BS\]), the distance between two bags is the minimum distance between the instances in bag $ B_{1} $ and $ B_{2} $. Then this distance function can be plugged into a standard distance-based classifier such as a k-nearest neighbour (KNN) or a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. The computational complexity of (\[eq:BS\]) is $ |B_{1}||B_{2}| $, which is larger than the IS and the ES methods described below.

Embedded space methods {#section:ES_paradigm}
----------------------

Different from the IS methods, ES methods do not classify individual instances. Instead, the ES methods define an embedding mapping from a bag to an embedding vector: $$\label{eq:ES_mapping}
f_{\text{emb}}: B \mapsto \
One problem of the SMI assumption is that a positive bag may control more than one incontrovertible instance. In SED, some sound classes such as “ ambulance enchantress ” may last for several seconds and may happen in many example. In contrast to the SMI premise, with the CA assumption, all the instances in a cup of tea contribute equally to the tag of the bag. The cup of tea - level prediction can be obtained by average the instance - level predictions: $ $ \label{eq: IS_average } 
 F(B)=\frac{1}{\left | B \right |}\sum_{\mathbf{x } \in B}f(\mathbf{x}).$$ The symbol $ |B| $ denotes the issue of instances in bag $ B $. Equation (\[eq: IS\_average\ ]) show that CA is based on the assumption that all the instances in a positive bag are plus. 

 Bag space methods { # BS_paradigm } 
 ----------------- 

 Instead of building an instance - horizontal surface classifier, the BS method acting regard a bag $ B $ as an entirety. Building a tagging model on the bags rely on a distance function $ D(\cdot, \cdot ): B \times B \mapsto \mathbb{R } $. The distance affair can be, for example, the Hausdorff distance [ @wang2000solving ]: $ $ \label{eq: BS } 
 D(B_{1 }, B_{2 }) = \underset{\mathbf{x}_{1 } \in B_{1 }, \mathbf{x}_{2 } \in B_{2}}{\textrm{min}}\left \| \mathbf{x}_{1 } - \mathbf{x}_{2 } \right \|.$$ In (\[eq: BS\ ]), the distance between two bags is the minimal distance between the case in cup of tea $ B_{1 } $ and $ B_{2 } $. Then this distance function can be plugged into a standard distance - based classifier such as a k - nearest neighbour (KNN) or a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. The computational complexity of (\[eq: BS\ ]) is $ |B_{1}||B_{2}| $, which is large than the IS and the ES methods described below. 

 Embedded space methods { # department: ES_paradigm } 
 ---------------------- 

 Different from the IS methods, ES methods do not classify individual case. Instead, the ES method define an embedding mapping from a bag to an embedding vector: $ $ \label{eq: ES_mapping } 
 f_{\text{emb } }: barn \mapsto \
One problem of the SMI assuoption is that c positmve bag may congain more than one positive mnstqnce. Un SED, some sound clasres such ws “ambulqnce wiren” may last for severzp seeoids and may occor in many itstances. In cottfadt to the SMI assumption, with the CW assumltlon, all the inftanbef in a bag contribute equally to the tzgs of uhe bag. The bag-levrl prediction can be obtaijed hy averaging the ijstance-leveo prqeictions: $$\labdl{eq:IS_average}
F(B)=\frac{1}{\lefj | B \right |}\sum_{\mathbf{x} \in B}f(\mathbw{x}).$$ Thz symbol $ |B| $ eenljes the numbxr of pnstances in nsg $ B $. Equatipn (\[eq:IS\_average\]) shmws that CA is based on vhe assumption that wll the itscances in a positive vat are poshtivd.

Vag spzcx msthods {#BS_'aradigm}
-----------------

Insfead of buioding an instance-lefej classifier, tge BS ieehods regard a bag $ B $ as an entirety. Blildjng a tagging model on rhe bags rely on a didtance fugction $ D(\cdot, \cdot): B \times B \mapsto \mathbb{R} $. The gistaicd fbkgtiov cwn be, for example, the Hausdorff distance [@wang2000fklfikg]: $$\label{eq:BS}
D(B_{1}, B_{2}) = \underset{\mstjbg{v}_{1} \in B_{1}, \mathbf{b}_{2} \in B_{2}}{\csxfrm{min}}\left \| \mathbf{d}_{1} - \mathff{x}_{2} \rught \|.$$ In (\[tq:BS\]), yhe distance between two bats is the miuimym distance betweeu the instanees in bag $ B_{1} $ and $ B_{2} $. Then this dnstancs function fan be plheged into a stanaarc gistance-based classifier stch as a j-neaxest neiehboor (KNN) jr a suppogt vegdor machine (SVM) alhoritkm. Tha computatlonal complexity of (\[eq:BS\]) is $ |B_{1}||B_{2}| $, which is larbes tvan the NS and the ES methoqs described bglow.

Embedbed spxce methoda {#sectimn:ES_paradigi}
----------------------

Different frml the IS metiods, ES mqthoes di not cuxssify individial instauees. Insteqd, the ES methods vefivs an embedding napkibg from a bag yo xn qmhevding eector: $$\label{aq:ES_oapoong}
f_{\tdxt{emb}}: B \maistu \
One problem of the SMI assumption is positive may contain than one positive classes as “ambulance siren” last for several and may occur in many instances. contrast to the SMI assumption, with the CA assumption, all the instances in bag contribute equally to the tags of the bag. The bag-level prediction can obtained averaging instance-level $$\label{eq:IS_average} F(B)=\frac{1}{\left | B \right |}\sum_{\mathbf{x} \in B}f(\mathbf{x}).$$ The symbol $ |B| $ denotes the number instances in bag $ B $. Equation (\[eq:IS\_average\]) that CA is based the assumption that all the in positive bag positive. space {#BS_paradigm} ----------------- Instead building an instance-level classifier, the BS methods regard a bag $ B $ as an entirety. Building tagging model bags rely a function D(\cdot, \cdot): B \mapsto \mathbb{R} $. The distance function example, the Hausdorff distance [@wang2000solving]: $$\label{eq:BS} D(B_{1}, B_{2}) \underset{\mathbf{x}_{1} \in \mathbf{x}_{2} \in B_{2}}{\textrm{min}}\left \| \mathbf{x}_{1} - \right \|.$$ In (\[eq:BS\]), the distance between two is the minimum distance between the instances in bag $ B_{1} $ and $ B_{2} this distance function can plugged into a distance-based such a neighbour (KNN) a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. The computational complexity of (\[eq:BS\]) $ |B_{1}||B_{2}| $, which is larger than the IS and methods below. Embedded space {#section:ES_paradigm} ---------------------- Different from IS ES methods do not instances. the an mapping a bag to an vector: $$\label{eq:ES_mapping} f_{\text{emb}}: B \mapsto
One problem of the SMI assumptIon is that a PositIve Bag MaY conTain More than one posITive Instance. In SED, some sound ClassEs SUch aS “AmBulanCe siren” MAy LASt fOr SeVerAl SEcOnds aNd mAy occur In many instAncEs. in contrast to THe sMI assumptIon, With the CA assUmpTion, alL tHe iNStancEs iN a bag ContriBUte equAlly to the TaGS of the BAg. The baG-LEvEl prEdiction can be obtaINeD By averaging the InstanCe-LEvEL PreDicTions: $$\label{Eq:iS_aveRAge}
F(B)=\frAC{1}{\lEFT | b \riGHt |}\sum_{\mathbf{x} \iN B}f(\mathbf{x}).$$ THE syMbol $ |B| $ dEnOteS The numBer of InSTanCes in bag $ B $. EqUatiOn (\[eq:IS\_aveRage\]) shOWs that Ca Is based On the aSsuMptIon tHAt AlL thE iNStaNCeS in A PosItive bag ArE pOsitiVe.

BaG SPACe meThoDs {#BS_ParadIgm}
-----------------

Instead of bUilDing AN inStancE-leveL claSsIfier, The BS mEthodS rEgard a bag $ B $ as an eNtirEty. BuildiNg a TaGgiNg Model ON the baGs rEly On a distAnce funCTioN $ D(\CDOT, \cDot): B \times B \mapsto \maThBB{r} $. THe distanCe funcTIoN cAN be, for exAmPle, The HAUSdorfF disTAnCe [@wang2000soLving]: $$\lABeL{eQ:BS}
D(B_{1}, B_{2}) = \uNdErset{\mAtHbf{X}_{1} \in b_{1}, \mathBF{x}_{2} \in b_{2}}{\textrM{min}}\left \| \MathbF{X}_{1} - \mathbf{x}_{2} \right \|.$$ IN (\[Eq:BS\]), the distanCE bETWeEN two BagS is the minimUm diSTancE betWEeN thE InstaNces iN bAG $ B_{1} $ ANd $ B_{2} $. Then this distance FuNction Can be Plugged into a sTandard disTANCe-based cLassIFiER such as a k-neareSt neiGhbour (KNN) oR A support VectoR machine (sVM) algoriTHM. The compUtaTioNal ComPLExIty of (\[eq:BS\]) is $ |B_{1}||B_{2}| $, WHIch iS lArger thAn tHe IS and The eS mEthOds DeScribed beLow.

EmbedDeD sPaCe MetHods {#sECtion:ES_pArAdiGm}
----------------------

difFerenT From thE IS meThodS, Es mEThoDs do not CLaSSIfy iNdIvIduaL inStAnces. instEAd, tHe ES metHods definE an EMbedDiNg Mapping From a bag to an eMbEdding vectOr: $$\LabEl{eq:ES_MAPping}
f_{\teXt{emb}}: B \mapsto \
One problem of the SMI ass umption is  that  apos it ivebagmay contain mo r e th an one positive instan ce. I nS ED,s om e sou nd clas s es s uch  a s“am bu l an ce si ren ” may l ast for se ver al  seconds and ma y occur in  ma ny instances . I n cont ra stt o the  SM I ass umptio n , with  the CA a ss u mption ,  all th e in stan ces in a bag cont r ib u te equally tothe ta gs of t hebag . The bag- le vel p r edictio n  c a n beo btained by av eraging the ins tance- le vel predic tions :$ $\l abel{eq:IS_ aver age}
F(B) =\frac { 1}{\lef t  | B \r ight | }\s um_ {\ma t hb f{ x}\i n  B} f (\ mat h bf{ x}).$$ T he  s ymbol  $ | B | $  den ote s th e num ber of instan ces  inb ag$ B $ . Equ atio n(\[eq :IS\_a verag e\ ]) shows that C A is  based on  th eass um ption that a llthe  instan ces ina  po si t i v ebag are positive.
B a g  s pace met hods { # BS _p a radigm}-- --- ---- - - ----- -

I n st ead of b uildin g  a ninstanc e- levelcl ass ifi er, t h e BS  metho ds regar d a b a g $ B $ as ane ntirety. Buil d in g at aggi ngmodel on th e ba g s re ly o n  a  di s tance  func ti o n$  D(\cdot, \cdot): B  \ timesB \ma psto \mathbb{ R} $. Thed i s tance fu ncti o nc an be, for exa mple,  the Hausd o rff dist ance[@wang20 00solving ] :  $$\labe l{e q:B S}D(B _ { 1} , B_{2}) = \u n d erse t{ \mathbf {x} _{1} \i n B _{1 },\ma th bf{x}_{2}  \in B_{ 2} }{ \t ex trm {min} } \left \|  \ mat hb f{x }_{1} - \mat hbf{x }_{2 }\r i ght  \|.$$I n( \ [eq: BS \] ), t hedi stanc e be t wee n two b ags is th e m i nimu mdi stancebetween the i ns tances inba g $  B_{1} $  and $ B _{2} $. Then this dista n ce func tio n can  beplugged i nto  a sta nda r d dist ance-b asedcl ass i f ier s u c hasak-nearestn e igh bour(K NN)or a su pport vector machi n e ( SVM) algorith m.Thec o mp uta t io n alco m ple x i ty of (\[eq:BS\ ]) is $ |B _{ 1 }| |B_{2}| $, whi ch  is lar ger tha n the IS andthe ES me thods des cr ibed b elo w.

Embedd ed space  methods{ #sect i on :ES_p ara digm}-- --- ----- ------ - --- --

D iffere nt  fromthe I Smethods,  ES methods do not clas sify i ndivi dua l instanc es. Ins tead, the  ESmethods de fin e a n emb edd i ng ma ppin g  f rom a bag  toa n embeddi n gvec t o r:  $$\label{e q : E S_m appin g}f _{\tex t{em b}}: B \mapsto \
One problem_of the_SMI assumption is that_a positive_bag_may contain_more_than one positive_instance. In SED,_some sound classes such_as “ambulance siren”_may_last for several seconds and may occur in many instances. In contrast to the_SMI_assumption, with_the_CA_assumption, all the instances in_a bag contribute equally to_the tags_of the bag. The bag-level prediction can be_obtained_by averaging the_instance-level predictions: $$\label{eq:IS_average}
F(B)=\frac{1}{\left | B \right |}\sum_{\mathbf{x} \in B}f(\mathbf{x}).$$_The symbol $ |B| $ denotes_the number of_instances_in_bag $ B $._Equation (\[eq:IS\_average\]) shows that CA is_based on the assumption that all_the instances in a positive bag are_positive.

Bag space methods {#BS_paradigm}
-----------------

Instead of building_an instance-level classifier, the BS_methods regard_a bag $ B $_as an entirety._Building a_tagging model on_the bags rely on a distance_function $ D(\cdot,_\cdot): B \times B \mapsto \mathbb{R}_$._The distance function_can_be,_for example,_the Hausdorff distance_[@wang2000solving]:_$$\label{eq:BS}
D(B_{1}, B_{2})_=_\underset{\mathbf{x}_{1} \in B_{1}, \mathbf{x}_{2} \in B_{2}}{\textrm{min}}\left_\|_\mathbf{x}_{1} - \mathbf{x}_{2} \right \|.$$ In (\[eq:BS\]),_the distance between two_bags_is the minimum distance_between the instances in bag_$ B_{1} $ and $ B_{2}_$. Then_this distance_function can be plugged into a standard distance-based classifier such as_a k-nearest neighbour (KNN) or a_support vector machine (SVM)_algorithm. The_computational_complexity of (\[eq:BS\])_is_$ |B_{1}||B_{2}|_$, which is larger than the IS_and the_ES methods described below.

Embedded space methods_{#section:ES_paradigm}
----------------------

Different from the IS_methods,_ES methods do not classify individual_instances. Instead, the ES methods define_an embedding mapping from a_bag_to_an embedding vector: $$\label{eq:ES_mapping}
f_{\text{emb}}: B_\mapsto \