Skip to main content

Timeline for SVM: Number of support vectors

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 5, 2014 at 9:55 comment added Marc Claesen @DikranMarsupial Thanks for the reaction. I am aware that a large number of SVs does not guarantee an overfit, but it often is the problem when people start using the RBF kernel. I missed the fact the OP performed cross-validation, which entirely invalidated my suspicion.
Dec 5, 2014 at 9:19 answer added Dikran Marsupial timeline score: 2
Dec 5, 2014 at 9:10 comment added Dikran Marsupial @MarcClaesen A large number of support vectors does not necessarily imply over-fitting. If you optimise the hyper-parameters using CV it is quite common to get a solution with a very bland kernel and a small value of C, in which case you end up with a lot of the data being support vectors, but a smooth model. I wouldn't worry about it, the sparsity of SVMs is a nice by-product, but little more than that - I use LS-SVMs for this kind of thing, which are fully dense, but just as good in terms of generalisation.
Dec 5, 2014 at 6:32 comment added NOP And actually, no the kernel does not look like a unit matrix.
Dec 5, 2014 at 6:13 comment added NOP Probably also worth adding it is a reasonably small dataset (only ~400 examples in total, classes are also fairly uneven). I'm using leave-one-subject-out crossvaliation and getting around 93-97% on average.
Dec 5, 2014 at 6:03 comment added Marc Claesen Usually a very high number of support vectors indicates you are overfitting. I am going to guess your kernel matrix looks like the unit matrix. This is caused by using a too low bandwidth for the RBF kernel (e.g. low $\sigma$ or high $\gamma$, depending on your parameterization). What is your cross-validation performance?
Dec 5, 2014 at 5:52 review First posts
Dec 5, 2014 at 6:24
Dec 5, 2014 at 5:47 history asked NOP CC BY-SA 3.0