 (MT-LMNN) algorithm [@parameswaran2010large] and adapt our model to handle a classification problem. The loss function of MT-LMNN consists of two terms. The first term is a hinge loss for triplet constraints as in but the triplets are derived from class labels. The second term is the sum of squared distances between each object and its “target neighbors” which is also defined based on class labels; see Weinberger et al. for details. The major difference between MT-LMNN and our model is that MT-LMNN parametrizes a local metric as the sum of a global average ${\boldsymbol{M}}_0$ and a view-specific metric ${\boldsymbol{M}}_t$ as ${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{M}}_0+{\boldsymbol{M}}_t$; thus the learned metric is generally full rank. On the other hand, our method parametrizes it as a product of global transform and local metric as ${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{L}}{\boldsymbol{M}}_t{\boldsymbol{L}}^\top$, which allows the local embedding dimension to be controlled by the trace regularization.

We conduct experiments on ISOLET spoken alphabet recognition dataset [@FanCol91] which consists 7797 examples of English alphabets spoken by 150 subjects and each example is described by a 617 dimension feature vector. The task is to recognize the letter of each spoken example as one of the English alphabets. The subjects are grouped into sets of 30 similar speakers leading to 5 tasks. We adapt the experimental setting from the work of MT-LMNN. Data is first projected onto its first 378 leading PCA components that capture 99 % of variance. We train our model in a $H=378$ dimensional space with $D=169$ and $378$, and compare it with a MT-LMNN trained with the code provided by the authors. In the experiment, each task is randomly divided into 60/20/20 subsets for train/validation/test. We tuned the parameters on the validation sets.

Test error rates of 3-nearest-neighbor (3-NN) classifiers are reported in Table \[tab:isolet\]. The left panel shows the errors using only the view-specific training data for the classification. The right panel shows those using all the training data with view-specific distance. Results are averaged over 10 runs. Simpler baseline methods, such as, euclidean metric and pooled (single task) learning are not included here because MT
(MT - LMNN) algorithm [ @parameswaran2010large ] and adapt our model to handle a classification trouble. The personnel casualty function of MT - LMNN consists of two term. The beginning term is a hinge loss for trio restraint as in but the triplets are derived from class labels. The second terminus is the sum of squared distance between each aim and its “ target neighbors ” which is besides defined free-base on course labels; see Weinberger et al. for details. The major dispute between MT - LMNN and our model is that MT - LMNN parametrizes a local metric as the kernel of a global average $ { \boldsymbol{M}}_0 $ and a position - specific metric $ { \boldsymbol{M}}_t$ as $ { \boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{M}}_0+{\boldsymbol{M}}_t$; thus the learned metric is generally wide rank. On the other hand, our method parametrizes it as a product of global transform and local metric as $ { \boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{L}}{\boldsymbol{M}}_t{\boldsymbol{L}}^\top$, which allows the local embedding dimension to be controlled by the trace regularization. 

 We conduct experiments on ISOLET spoken alphabet realization dataset [ @FanCol91 ] which dwell 7797 examples of English rudiment speak by 150 subjects and each example is described by a 617 dimension feature of speech vector. The task is to acknowledge the letter of each spoken example as one of the English alphabet. The subjects are grouped into sets of 30 similar speakers leading to 5 tasks. We adapt the experimental setting from the work of MT - LMNN. Data is foremost projected onto its beginning 378 head PCA components that capture 99% of variance. We coach our model in a $ H=378 $ dimensional space with $ D=169 $ and $ 378 $, and compare it with a MT - LMNN trained with the code provided by the authors. In the experiment, each task is randomly divided into 60/20/20 subsets for caravan / validation / test. We tune the parameters on the establishment sets. 

 Test error rates of 3 - near - neighbor (3 - NN) classifiers are reported in Table   \[tab: isolet\ ]. The leftover panel shows the errors using only the view - specific training data for the classification. The right panel shows those use all the training data with position - specific distance. Results are averaged over 10 runs. Simpler baseline methods, such as, euclidean measured and pooled (single task) learning are not included here because MT
 (MT-PMNN) algorithm [@parameswavan2010large] and adakt our mmdel tk handle a classification problem. Thx lows fubction of MT-LMNN consirts of twl terms. Rhe hirst term is a ijnge loss for briplzt constraints ax in but tve triplets ara aexived from class labels. The second tqrm is yhf sum of squargd dixeancss between each object and its “tarfet neijhbors” which is also defined based on clads lwbels; see Weinbergfr et al. fot deeqils. The majur difference between JT-LMNN and our model is that MT-UMNN 'arametrizew q llwal metric es the sum of a global avesage ${\bokdsymbol{M}}_0$ and s vmew-specific metric ${\boldsykbol{M}}_t$ as ${\boldsymbjl{K}}_t={\boldsfmyol{M}}_0+{\boldsymbol{M}}_t$; thus tye ledrneg megeic is gxnedally vulm rank. On fhe other hqnd, our method parakeegozes it as a produst of global transform and local metric av ${\bkldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{L}}{\bildsymbol{M}}_t{\boldsymbol{P}}^\top$, whicr allows the local embedding dimension to be contsollev cy uhc geafe regularization.

We conduct experiments on ISJMEU sioken alphabet regognition dataset [@GajCpj91] which consirts 7797 erzmlles of English alohabets spokwn by 150 sufjecys and each example is desceibed by a 617 bimwnsion feature veccor. The task is jo recpgnize the letter of eaeh spoien example as one or the English alpfabvts. Dhe subjtzts are grouped igto sets if 30 ximilar speskers jeading to 5 tasks. We adapt the expfrimeutal vetting frlm the work of MT-LMNN. Data is fmcst projected otto its firft 378 lcading PCA compjnents that cakture 99 % oy varixnce. We trzin our model in a $H=378$ dimensionan space with $V=169$ and $378$, anq conparw it wigf a MT-LMNN traoned with the code provided by the aubhors. Jn the experimeuu, eqch task is rancomuy qinidxd inem 60/20/20 subsets fmr tfaiv/falidxtion/test. Wc tjned the parameters on tve vzlidation sets.

Test evror ratew of 3-neawest-neighbor (3-MN) classifiers are repocted ii Tablr \[taf:isolet\]. The left panel shows tge errors uslng only the diew-wpecific tranning data for the classification. The rijht panel shows those osing all the traininy cata with vmew-spesific disdance. Results are avwraged over 10 runs. Simpler baseline metgods, sgch ad, euclidean metric and pooled (single task) learning are not included here vecausx IT
(MT-LMNN) algorithm [@parameswaran2010large] and adapt our model a problem. The function of MT-LMNN first is a hinge for triplet constraints in but the triplets are derived class labels. The second term is the sum of squared distances between each and its “target neighbors” which is also defined based on class labels; see et for The difference between MT-LMNN and our model is that MT-LMNN parametrizes a local metric as the sum a global average ${\boldsymbol{M}}_0$ and a view-specific metric as ${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{M}}_0+{\boldsymbol{M}}_t$; thus the metric is generally full rank. the hand, our parametrizes as product of global and local metric as ${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{L}}{\boldsymbol{M}}_t{\boldsymbol{L}}^\top$, which allows the local embedding dimension to be controlled by the trace We conduct ISOLET spoken recognition [@FanCol91] consists 7797 examples alphabets spoken by 150 subjects and described by a 617 dimension feature vector. The is to the letter of each spoken example one of the English alphabets. The subjects are into sets of 30 similar speakers leading to 5 tasks. We adapt the experimental setting work of MT-LMNN. Data first projected onto first leading components capture 99 of variance. We train our model in a $H=378$ dimensional space $D=169$ and $378$, and compare it with a MT-LMNN trained code by the authors. the experiment, each task randomly into 60/20/20 subsets for tuned parameters sets. error of 3-nearest-neighbor (3-NN) classifiers reported in Table \[tab:isolet\]. The panel shows the errors data for the classification. The right panel shows using all the training data with view-specific Results are averaged over 10 runs. Simpler baseline methods, such as, euclidean and pooled learning are not included here because MT
 (MT-LMNN) algorithm [@parameswarAn2010large] and Adapt Our ModEl To haNdle A classificatioN ProbLem. The loss function of MT-lMNN cOnSIsts OF tWo terMs. The fiRSt TERm iS a HiNge LoSS fOr triPleT constrAints as in bUt tHe Triplets are dERiVed from claSs lAbels. The secoNd tErm is tHe Sum OF squaRed DistaNces beTWeen eaCh object aNd ITs “targET neighbORS” wHich Is also defined baseD On CLass labels; see WEinberGeR Et AL. For DetAils. The majOr DiffeREnce betWEeN mt-lMNn And our model is That MT-LMNN pARamEtrizeS a LocAL metriC as thE sUM of A global averAge ${\bOldsymbol{m}}_0$ and a vIEw-speciFIc metriC ${\boldsYmbOl{M}}_T$ as ${\bOLdSyMboL{K}}_T={\BolDSyMboL{m}}_0+{\boLdsymbol{m}}_t$; ThUs the LearNED MEtriC is GeneRally Full rank. On the OthEr haND, ouR methOd parAmetRiZes it As a proDuct oF gLobal transform aNd loCal metric As ${\bOlDsyMbOl{K}}_t={\bOLdsymbOl{L}}{\BolDsymbol{m}}_t{\boldsYMboL{L}}^\TOP$, WhIch allows the local eMbEDDiNg dimensIon to bE CoNtROlled by tHe TraCe reGULarizAtioN.

we Conduct eXperimENtS oN ISOLET SpOken alPhAbeT reCogniTIon dAtaset [@fanCol91] whIch coNSists 7797 examples oF english alphabETs SPOkEN by 150 sUbjEcts and each ExamPLe is DescRIbEd bY A 617 dimeNsion FeATuRE vector. The task is to rEcOgnize The leTter of each spoKen example AS ONe of the ENgliSH aLPhabets. The subjEcts aRe grouped iNTo sets of 30 SimilAr speakeRs leading TO 5 Tasks. We aDapT thE exPerIMEnTal setting froM THe woRk Of MT-LMNn. DaTa is firSt pRojEctEd oNtO its first 378 Leading PcA CoMpOnEntS that CApture 99 % of VaRiaNcE. We Train OUr modeL in a $H=378$ DimeNsIoNAl sPace witH $d=169$ aND $378$, And cOmPaRe it WitH a mT-LMNn traINed With the Code proviDed BY the AuThOrs. In thE experiment, eaCh Task is randOmLy dIvided INTo 60/20/20 subsetS for train/validation/test. wE tuned tHe pArameTers On the valiDatIon setS.

TeST error Rates oF 3-nearEsT-neIGHbor (3-Nn) CLaSsiFiErs are repoRTEd iN TablE \[tAb:isOlet\]. The Left panel shows the eRRorS using only the VieW-speCIFiC trAInINg dAtA For THE classification. the right paNeL ShOws those usINg aLl The traiNing datA with VIew-specIfic distaNce. ResultS aRe avERAgeD over 10 runs. SImpler baSeline metHOds, suCH aS, euclIdeAn metrIc And PooleD (singlE TasK) learNing arE nOt inclUded hErE because mT
 (MT-LMNN) algorithm [@par ameswaran2 010la rge ] a nd  ada pt o ur model to ha n dlea classification probl em. T he loss fu nctio n of MT - LM N N  co ns is tsof tw o ter ms.  The fi rst term i s a  h inge loss fo r  t riplet con str aints as inbut  the t ri ple t s are  de rived  fromc lass l abels. Th es econdt erm ist h esumof squared distan c es between each o bjectan d  i t s  “t arg et neighbo rs ” whi c h is al s od e f ine d  based on cla ss labels;s eeWeinbe rg ere t al.for d et a ils . The major  dif ference b etween MT-LMNN and our  model  is  th at M T -L MN N p ar a met r iz esa  lo cal metr ic  a s the  sum o f a gl oba l av erage  ${\boldsymbo l{M }}_0 $  an d a v iew-s peci fi c met ric ${ \bold sy mbol{M}}_t$ as${\b oldsymbol {K} }_ t={ \b oldsy m bol{M} }_0 +{\ boldsym bol{M}} _ t$;  t h u s  t he learned metricis g en erally f ull ra n k.  O n  the oth er  ha nd,o u r met hodp ar ametrize s it a s  a  p roductof  globa ltra nsf orm a n d lo cal me tric as${\bo l dsymbol{K}}_t= { \boldsymbol{L } }{ \ b ol d symb ol{ M}}_t{\bold symb o l{L} }^\t o p$ , w h ich a llows  t h el ocal embedding dime ns ion to  be c ontrolled bythe tracer e g ularizat ion. 
W e  conduct exper iment s on ISOLE T  spokenalpha bet reco gnition d a t aset [@F anC ol9 1]whi c h  c onsists 7797e x ampl es  of Eng lis h alpha bet s s pok enby  150 subj ects and  e ac hex amp le is describe dbya617  dime n sion f eatur e ve ct or .  Th e taski st o  rec og ni ze t hele tterof e a chspokenexample a s o n e of  t he  Englis h alphabets.Th e subjects  a regroupe d into set s of 30 similar speaker s  leadin g t o 5 t asks . We adap t t he exp eri m entalsettin g fro mthe w ork o f MT -LM NN . Data isf i rst  proj ec tedonto it s first 378 leadin g  PC A componentstha t ca p t ur e 9 9  % ofva r ian c e . We train ourmodel in a  $ H =3 78$ dimens i ona lspace w ith $D= 169$a nd $378 $, and co mpare itwi th a M T-L MNN traine d with t he code p r ovide d  b y the  au thors.  I n t he ex perime n t,eachtask i srandom ly di vi ded into  60/20/20 subsets for t rain/v alida tio n/test. W e t u ned  the para mete rs on theval ida tionset s .

Te st e r ro r r a tes o f 3- n earest-ne i gh bor ( 3- NN) classif i e r s a re re por t ed inTabl e \[tab:isolet\]. The left panel  sho w s  th e e r rors  u sing only thevie w- s p ecific t ra ining datafor thecl a ssifi cation . Theright p a n el showsthos e u sing allthe  t r ainingda ta with v iew- sp ecific  dista n ce.R e sults are averag ed ov e r  10 r u ns.  Simp le r basel i ne m ethods, su ch as, eucl ideanmetr ic an d poole d(singl e t as k) learnin g  are notinclu ded her ebeca use  MT
 (MT-LMNN)_algorithm [@parameswaran2010large]_and adapt our model_to handle_a_classification problem._The_loss function of_MT-LMNN consists of_two terms. The first_term is a_hinge_loss for triplet constraints as in but the triplets are derived from class labels._The_second term_is_the_sum of squared distances between_each object and its “target_neighbors” which_is also defined based on class labels; see_Weinberger_et al. for_details. The major difference between MT-LMNN and our model_is that MT-LMNN parametrizes a local_metric as the_sum_of_a global average ${\boldsymbol{M}}_0$_and a view-specific metric ${\boldsymbol{M}}_t$ as_${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{M}}_0+{\boldsymbol{M}}_t$; thus the learned metric is_generally full rank. On the other hand,_our method parametrizes it as a_product of global transform and_local metric_as ${\boldsymbol{K}}_t={\boldsymbol{L}}{\boldsymbol{M}}_t{\boldsymbol{L}}^\top$, which allows the_local embedding dimension_to be_controlled by the_trace regularization.

We conduct experiments on ISOLET_spoken alphabet recognition_dataset [@FanCol91] which consists 7797 examples_of_English alphabets spoken_by_150_subjects and_each example is_described_by a_617_dimension feature vector. The task is_to_recognize the letter of each spoken example_as one of the_English_alphabets. The subjects are_grouped into sets of 30_similar speakers leading to 5 tasks._We adapt_the experimental_setting from the work of MT-LMNN. Data is first projected onto_its first 378 leading PCA components_that capture 99 %_of variance._We_train our model_in_a $H=378$_dimensional space with $D=169$ and $378$, and_compare it_with a MT-LMNN trained with the_code provided by the_authors._In the experiment, each task is_randomly divided into 60/20/20 subsets for_train/validation/test. We tuned the parameters_on_the_validation sets.

Test error rates of_3-nearest-neighbor (3-NN) classifiers are reported in_Table \[tab:isolet\]. The left_panel shows the errors using only the_view-specific_training data for the classification. The_right_panel shows those using all the_training_data_with view-specific distance. Results are_averaged over 10 runs. Simpler baseline_methods, such as, euclidean metric and pooled (single task)_learning are not_included here because MT