SlowGuess/ACL_2020_OCR huggingface dataset:
Vitalii Zhelezniak, Aleksandar Savkov & Nils Hammerla
Babylon Health
{firstname.lastname}@babylonhealth.com
Word embedding-based similarity measures are currently among the top-performing methods on unsupervised semantic textual similarity (STS) tasks. Recent work has increasingly adopted a statistical view on these embeddings, with some of the top approaches being essentially various correlations (which include the famous cosine similarity). Another excellent candidate for a similarity measure is mutual information (MI), which can capture arbitrary dependencies between the variables and has a simple and intuitive expression. Unfortunately, its use in the context of dense word embeddings has so far been avoided due to difficulties with estimating MI for continuous data. In this work we go through a vast literature on estimating MI in such cases and single out the most promising methods, yielding a simple and elegant similarity measure for word embeddings. We show that mutual information is a viable alternative to correlations, gives an excellent signal that correlates well with human judgements of similarity and rivals existing state-of-the-art unsupervised methods.
Neural text embeddings learned from unlabeled data are a key component of modern approaches to semantic textual similarity (STS). Despite the impressive performance of large pretrained models (Kiros et al., 2015; Conneau et al., 2017; Subramanian et al., 2018; Cer et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2018; Radford, 2018; Devlin et al., 2018; Dai et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019a) on a plethora of hard NLP tasks, deep models do not currently offer a clear advantage over much simpler static word embeddings (Bengio et al., 2003; Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014; Bojanowski et al., 2017; Joulin et al., 2017) on standard unsupervised STS benchmarks (Hill et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2017; Wieting et al., 2016; Wieting and Gimpel, 2018;
Zhelezniak et al., 2019b,a,c). Instead, the main sources of improvement here have come from training on supervised paraphrastic corpora (Wieting et al., 2015, 2016; Wieting and Gimpel, 2018), designing better composition functions (Mitchell and Lapata, 2008; De Boom et al., 2016; Arora et al., 2017; Zhao and Mao, 2017; Rucklé et al., 2018; Zhelezniak et al., 2019b,c; Yang et al., 2019b) and exploring novel similarity measures between word embeddings, in particular those inspired by optimal transport (Kusner et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016), soft and fuzzy sets (Jimenez et al., 2010, 2015; Zhelezniak et al., 2019b), and statistics (Lev et al., 2015; Nikolentzos et al., 2017; Torki, 2018; Zhelezniak et al., 2019a,c).
Recently, Zhelezniak et al. (2019a,c) advocated for a new statistical perspective on word embeddings where each word embedding itself is viewed as a sample of (e.g. 300) observations from some scalar random variable. They conducted a statistical analysis of several popular pretrained word embeddings and their compositions and established that the ubiquitous cosine similarity is practically equivalent to Pearson correlation. They also demonstrated significant gains in performance when one instead uses non-parametric rank correlation coefficients (Spearman's  $\rho$ , Kendall's  $\tau$ ) and cross-covariance operators between reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) (Gretton et al., 2005), Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA)) (Cortes et al., 2012; Kornblith et al., 2019).
One prominent alternative to those correlation-based approaches is mutual information (MI), which is of great importance in information theory and statistics. In some sense, mutual information is an excellent candidate for a similarity measure between word embeddings as it can capture arbitrary dependencies between the variables and has a simple and intuitive expression. Unfortunately,
8361
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8361-8371 July 5 - 10, 2020. ©2020 Association for Computational Linguistics
its use in the context of continuous dense word representations has so far been avoided due to the difficulties in estimating MI for continuous random variables (joint and marginal densities are not known in practice).
In this work we make the first steps towards the adoption of MI as a measure of semantic similarity between dense word embeddings. We begin our discussion with how to apply MI for this purpose in principle. Next we carefully summarise the vast literature on estimation of MI for continuous random variables and identify approaches most suitable for our use case. Our chief goal here is to identify the estimators that yield elegant, almost closed-form expressions for the resulting similarity measure as opposed to complicated estimation procedures. Finally, we show that such estimators of mutual information give an excellent signal that correlates very well with human judgements and comfortably rivals existing state-of-the-art unsupervised STS approaches.
2 Background: Statistical Approaches to Word Embeddings
Suppose we are given a word embedding matrix  $\mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times D}$ , where  $N$  is the vocabulary size and  $D$  is the embedding dimension (commonly  $D = 300$ ). Ultimately, the matrix  $\mathbf{W}$  is simply a table of some numbers and just like any dataset, it is subject to a statistical analysis. There are essentially two ways we can proceed: we can either choose to view  $\mathbf{W}$  as  $N$  observations from  $D$  random variables or we can instead consider  $\mathbf{W}^T$  and view it as  $D$  observations from  $N$  random variables. The first approach allows us to study 'global' properties of the word embedding space (e.g. via PCA, clustering, etc.) and defines 'global' similarity structures, such as Mahalanobis distance, Fisher kernel (Lev et al., 2015), etc.
In the second approach we study the distribution  $P(W_{1},W_{2},\ldots ,W_{N})$ , where a word embedding  $\mathbf{w}_i$  is a sample of  $D (= 300)$  observations from some scalar random variable  $W_{i}$  corresponding to the word  $w_{i}$  (Zhelezniak et al., 2019a,c). The 'local' similarity between two words  $w_{i}$  and  $w_{j}$  is then encoded in the dependencies between the corresponding random variables  $W_{i},W_{j}$ . Since the distribution  $P(W_{i},W_{j})$  is unknown, we estimate these dependencies based on the sample  $\mathbf{w}_i,\mathbf{w}_j$ . Certain dependencies can be captured by Pearson, Spearman and Kendall correlation coefficients between
word embeddings  $\widehat{\rho}(\mathbf{w}_i, \mathbf{w}_j)$ , where the choice of the coefficient depends on the statistics of each word embedding model (Zhelezniak et al., 2019a).
Conveniently, correlations can also be used to measure semantic similarity between two sets of words (e.g. phrases and sentences) if one considers the correlations between random vectors  $\mathbf{X} = (X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{l_{x}})$  and  $\mathbf{Y} = (Y_1,Y_2,\dots ,Y_{l_y})$  where scalar random variables  $X_{i}$  correspond to the words in the first sentence and  $Y_{j}$  to the words in the second sentence. This, for example, can be done by first pooling (e.g. mean- or max-pooling) random vectors into scalar variables  $X_{\mathrm{pool}}$  and  $Y_{\mathrm{pool}}$  and then estimating univariate correlations  $\operatorname {corr}(X_{\mathrm{pool}},Y_{\mathrm{pool}})$  as before. Alternatively, we can measure correlations between random vectors directly using norms of cross-covariance matrices/operators (e.g. the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (Gretton et al., 2005)). Both approaches are known to give excellent results on standard STS benchmarks (Zhelezniak et al., 2019c). A viable alternative to correlations is mutual information (MI), which can detect any kind of dependence between random variables, but which has so far not been explored for this problem.
3 Mutual Information between Dense Word Embeddings
We operate within the previous setting where we consider two sentences  $x = x_{1}x_{2}\ldots x_{l_{x}}$  and  $y = y_{1}y_{2}\ldots y_{l_{y}}$ . Our goal now is to estimate the mutual information  $\mathbf{I}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$  between the corresponding random vectors  $\mathbf{X} = (X_{1},X_{2},\dots ,X_{l_{x}})$  and  $\mathbf{Y} = (Y_{1},Y_{2},\dots ,Y_{l_{y}})$
$$
\mathrm {I} (\mathbf {X}; \mathbf {Y}) = \iint p _ {\mathbf {X Y}} (x, y) \log \frac {p _ {\mathbf {X Y}} (x , y)}{p _ {\mathbf {X}} (x) p _ {\mathbf {Y}} (y)} \mathrm {d} x \mathrm {d} y, \tag {1}
$$
where  $p_{\mathbf{X}\mathbf{Y}}(x,y)$  is the joint density of  $\mathbf{X}$  and  $\mathbf{Y}$  and  $p_{\mathbf{X}}(x) = \int_{\mathcal{Y}}p_{\mathbf{X}\mathbf{Y}}(x,y)\mathrm{d}y$  and  $p_{\mathbf{Y}}(y) = \int_{\mathcal{X}}p_{\mathbf{X}\mathbf{Y}}(x,y)\mathrm{d}x$  are the marginal densities. Unfortunately, these theoretical quantities are not available to us and we must somehow estimate  $\widehat{\mathbf{I}} (\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$  directly from the word embeddings  $\widehat{\mathbf{X}} = (\mathbf{x}_{(1)},\mathbf{x}_{(2)},\dots ,\mathbf{x}_{(l_x)})$  and  $\widehat{\mathbf{Y}} = (\mathbf{y}_{(1)},\mathbf{y}_{(2)},\dots ,\mathbf{y}_{(l_y)})$ . Luckily, there is a vast literature on how to estimate mutual information between continuous random variables based on the sample. The first class of methods partitions the supports  $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}$  into a finite number of bins of equal or unequal (adaptive) size and estimates  $\widehat{\mathbf{I}} (\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$
based on discrete counts in each bin (Moddemeijer, 1989; Fraser and Swinney, 1986; Darbellay and Vajda, 1999; Reshef et al., 2011; Ince et al., 2016). While such methods are easy to understand conceptually, they might suffer from the curse of dimensionality (especially when sentences are long) and in some sense violate our desire for an elegant closed-form similarity measure. The next class of methods constructs kernel density estimates (KDE) and then numerically integrates such approximate densities to obtain MI (Moon et al., 1995; Steuer et al., 2002). These methods might require a careful choice of kernels and the bandwidth parameters and also violate our simplicity requirement. The third class of methods that has recently gained popularity in the deep learning community is based on neural-network-based estimation of various bounds on mutual information (e.g. by training a critic to estimate the density ratio in (1)) (Suzuki et al., 2008; Alemi et al., 2017; Belghazi et al., 2018; Hjelm et al., 2019; Poole et al., 2019). Such estimators are usually differentiable and scale well to high dimensions and large sample sizes (Belghazi et al., 2018). However, in our case the sample size (e.g. 300) and dimensionality are not too large (at least for short phrases and sentences), and thus training a separate neural network for a simple similarity computation is hardly justified. This leaves us with the last class of methods that estimates mutual information from the  $k$ -nearest neighbour statistics (Kriskov et al., 2004; Ver Steeg and Galstyan, 2013; Ver Steeg, 2014; Ross, 2014; Gao et al., 2015; Gao et al., 2018). These approaches are not without problems (Gao et al., 2015) and inherit the weaknesses of kNN in large dimensions but are very simple to implement. In particular, we focus on the Kraskov-Stögbauer-Grassberger (KSG) estimator (Kriskov et al., 2004) which admits a particularly elegant expression for the resulting similarity measure.
3.1 The KSG Similarity Measure
It can be verified that the mutual information is given by  $\mathrm{I}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y}) = \mathrm{H}(\mathbf{X}) + \mathrm{H}(\mathbf{Y}) - \mathrm{H}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$  i.e. the difference between the sum of marginal entropies and the joint entropy. Thus, in order to estimate MI, it is sufficient to be able to estimate various entropies in the above equation. In their seminal work, Kozachenko and Leonenko (1987) show how to estimate such differential entropies based on the nearest neighbour statistics. Concretely, these methods approximate the log-density
Algorithm 1 Kraskov-Stögbauer-Grassberger (KSG) Similarity Measure
Require: Word embeddings for the first sentence  $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{l_x\times D}$
Require: Word embeddings for the second sentence  $\mathbf{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^{l_y \times D}$
Require: The number of nearest neighbours  $k < D$  (default  $k = 3$ )
Ensure: Similarity measure  $KSG$
$$
\begin{array}{l} \mathbf {Z} \leftarrow \operatorname {S T A C K \_ R O W S} (\mathbf {X}, \mathbf {Y}) \\ \left| \left| \mathbf {z} ^ {i} - \mathbf {z} ^ {j} \right| \right| _ {\mathcal {Z}} \leftarrow \max  \left(\left| \left| \mathbf {x} ^ {i} - \mathbf {x} ^ {j} \right| \right| \mathcal {X}, \left| \left| \mathbf {y} ^ {i} - \mathbf {y} ^ {j} \right| \right| y\right) \\ i, j = 1, \dots , D \\ \# \leftarrow \text {s e t c a r d i n a l i t y} \\ \mathbf {f o r} \mathbf {z} ^ {d}, d = 1, \dots , D \mathbf {d o} \\ \epsilon [ d ] \leftarrow | | \mathbf {z} ^ {d} - \mathbf {z} ^ {d _ {k}} | |, \mathbf {z} ^ {d _ {k}} = k \text {- N N} \mathbf {z} ^ {d} \\ n _ {x} [ d ] \leftarrow \# \left\{\mathbf {x} ^ {d ^ {\prime}}: | | \mathbf {x} ^ {d} - \mathbf {x} ^ {d ^ {\prime}} | | _ {\mathcal {X}} <   \epsilon [ d ] \right\} \\ n _ {y} [ d ] \leftarrow \# \left\{\mathbf {y} ^ {d ^ {\prime}}: | | \mathbf {y} ^ {d} - \mathbf {y} ^ {d ^ {\prime}} | | _ {\mathcal {Y}} <   \epsilon [ d ] \right\} \\ d ^ {\prime} \in \{1, \dots D \} \setminus \{d \} \\ \end{array}
$$
$\psi (x)\gets$  digamma function
$$
\begin{array}{l} S \leftarrow \sum_ {d = 1} ^ {D} \left(\psi \left(n _ {x} [ d ] + 1\right) + \psi \left(n _ {y} [ d ] + 1\right)\right) \\ \operatorname {K S G} \leftarrow \psi (D) + \psi (k) - S \\ \end{array}
$$
at a point by a uniform density in a e.g. Euclidean or Chebyshev norm ball containing its  $k$ -nearest neighbours. Kraskov et al. (2004) modify this idea to construct their famous KSG estimator of mutual information given by
$$
\begin{array}{l} \operatorname {K S G} (\mathbf {X}; \mathbf {Y}) = \psi (D) + \psi (k) - \\ \sum_ {d = 1} ^ {D} \left(\psi \left(n _ {x} [ d ] + 1\right) + \psi \left(n _ {y} [ d ] + 1\right)\right), \tag {2} \\ \end{array}
$$
where  $D$  is the embedding dimension,  $k$  is the number of nearest neighbours,  $\psi (x) = \Gamma '(x) / \Gamma (x)$  is the digamma function and  $n_x[d], n_y[d]$  are certain nearest neighbour statistics. These statistics are obtained by counting the number of neighbours that fall within less than  $\epsilon [d]$  from  $\mathbf{x}^d$  and  $\mathbf{y}^d$  in the marginal spaces  $\mathbf{X}$  and  $\mathbf{Y}$  respectively, where  $\epsilon [d]$  is the distance from  $\mathbf{z}^d = (\mathbf{x}^d,\mathbf{y}^d)$  to its  $k$ -nearest neighbour in the joint space  $(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ . We illustrate how the estimator can be applied to measure similarity between sets of word embeddings in Algorithm 1 and refer the reader to Kraskov et al. (2004) for its full derivation and justification as well as an alternative version.
8363
Similarity	STS	12	13	14	15	16
Popular approaches
USE (Transf.)	63.8	63.1	66.0	77.1	76.4
BERT Small	50.8	50.4	54.0	62.9	63.8
BERT Large	51.0	47.2	51.8	58.0	62.7
WMD	54.8	47.0	57.7	65.8	63.2
SoftCard	54.8	50.6	58.1	66.5	65.9
DynaMax	61.3	61.7	66.9	76.5	74.7
MeanPool+COS	58.8	58.8	63.4	69.1	68.3
SIF+PCA	58.1	67.2	66.5	73.8	73.0
Correlation-based Approaches
MaxPool+SPR	61.4	63.8	68.0	75.8	75.9
CKA Gaussian	60.8	64.6	68.0	76.4	73.8
CKA dCorr	60.9	63.4	67.8	76.2	73.4
Mutual Information (KSG)
KSG k = 3	59.9	61.6	67.8	76.7	74.7
KSG k = 10	60.4	61.5	68.3	77.0	75.1
MaxPool+KSG 10	59.5	60.2	67.5	75.0	74.1
We now explore the empirical performance of the KSG similarity measure on a standard suite of Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) benchmarks (Agirre et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) and report Spearman correlation between the system and human scores. Our focus here is on fastText vectors (Bojanowski et al., 2017) trained on Common Crawl (600B tokens), as previous literature suggests that among unsupervised vectors fastText yields the best performance for all tasks and similarity measures (Conneau et al., 2017; Perone et al., 2018; Zhelezniak et al., 2019a,b,c). We defer evaluations and significance analysis on all 24 STS subtasks for other word vectors (word2vec and GloVe) to the Appendix. Our evaluations are run in the SentEval toolkit (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) and our code is available on GitHub<sup>1</sup>. Note that we do not report results on the STS13 SMT subtask as it is no longer publicly available.
Table 1: Average Spearman correlation between system and human scores on STS 12-16 tasks. FastText is used for all methods that rely on word embeddings. Similarity measures based on Mutual Information (KSG) perform on par with correlation-based measures and other popular methods from the literature.
Similarity	Time complexity
WMD	O(m2D + m3log m)
WMD (relaxed)	O(m2D)
SoftCard	O(m2D)
DynaMax	O(m2D)
MaxPool+SPR	O(mD + Dlog D)
MaxPool+KSG	O(mD + D3/2)
CKA	O(mD2)
KSG	O(mD2)
Table 2: Computational complexity of some word embedding-based methods, where  $m$  is the length of the longer sentence and  $D$  is the word embedding dimension.
The number of nearest neighbours for KSG that is known to work well in practice on a variety of datasets is  $k = 3$  (Kriskov et al., 2004; Khan et al., 2007). This value seems to strike a good balance between the bias and variance of the estimator. We also run experiments for  $k = 10$  to show that KSG is not very sensitive to this hyperparameter, at least in our setting. As an interesting addition, we also run KSG ( $k = 10$ ) for max-pooled scalar random variables (MaxPool+KSG 10). We compare KSG to the following approaches from the literature: Universal Sentence Encoder (Transformer) (Cer et al., 2018), BERT (penultimate layer, mean-pooling) (Devlin et al., 2018), Word Mover's Distance (WMD) (Kusner et al., 2015), soft cardinality (Jimenez et al., 2010, 2015) with cosine similarity and the softness parameter  $p = 1$ , DynaMax-Jaccard (Zhelezniak et al., 2019b), mean-pooling with cosine similarity (MeanPool+COS) and Smooth Inverse Frequency (SIF) + PCA (Arora et al., 2017). Next we compare KSG with the following top-performing correlations: max-pooling with Spearman correlation (MaxPool+SPR), Centered Kernel Alignment (Gaussian kernel with median estimation for  $\sigma^2$ ) and distance correlation (Zhelezniak et al., 2019c). The evaluation results are given in Table 1.
In summary, we can see that similarity measures based on mutual information (KSG) perform on par with top correlation-based measures and other leading methods from the literature. Moreover, KSG between pooled variables (MaxPool) is faster and performs only slightly worse than multivariate KSG.
https://github.com/babylonhealth/corrsim
8364
In this work we explored how to apply mutual information (MI) as a semantic similarity measure for continuous dense word embeddings. We have summarised the vast literature on estimating MI for continuous random variables from the sample and singled out a simple and elegant KSG estimator which is based on elementary nearest-neighbour statistics. We showed empirically that this estimator and mutual information in general can be an excellent candidate for a similarity measure between dense word embeddings.
We would like to thank Adam Bozson and the four anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback and suggestions.
Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Claire Cardie, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Weiwei Guo, Inigo Lopez-Gazpio, Montse Maritxalar, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, Larraitz Uria, and Janyce Wiebe. 2015. Semeval-2015 task 2: Semantic textual similarity, english, spanish and pilot on interpretability. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pages 252-263. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Claire Cardie, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Weiwei Guo, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, and Janyce Wiebe. 2014. Semeval-2014 task 10: Multilingual semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014), pages 81-91. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Eneko Agirre, Carmen Banea, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, Rada Mihalcea, German Rigau, and Janyce Wiebe. 2016. Semeval-2016 task 1: Semantic textual similarity, monolingual and cross-lingual evaluation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pages 497-511. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, and Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. Semeval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics – Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 385–393. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Eneko Agirre, Daniel Cer, Mona Diab, Aitor Gonzalez-Agirre, and Weiwei Guo. 2013. *sem 2013 shared task: Semantic textual similarity. In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), Volume 1: Proceedings of the Main Conference and the Shared Task: Semantic Textual Similarity, pages 32-43. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Alex Alemi, Ian Fischer, Josh Dillon, and Kevin Murphy. 2017. Deep variational information bottleneck. In ICLR.
Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A Simple but Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Sentence Embeddings. International Conference on Learning Representations.
Mohamed Ishmael Belghazi, Aristide Baratin, Sai Rajeshwar, Sherjil Ozair, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Devon Hjelm. 2018. Mutual information neural estimation. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 531-540, Stockholmssan, Stockholm Sweden. PMLR.
Yoshua Bengio, Rjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Jauvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1137-1155.
Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:135-146.
Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. Universal sentence encoder for english. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 169-174. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. 2018. Senteval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018). European Language Resource Association.
Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 670-680. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, and Afshin Rostamizadeh. 2012. Algorithms for learning kernels based on centered alignment. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(Mar):795-828.
8365