I read an interesting article in last week's Economist about a method of classifying artworks by looking at a large set of quantifiable factors. As usual when I read things like this, I was thinking in my mind how to apply this to sports betting, namely classifing winners.
From the article:Replace the word "artwork" with "teams in games" and "artists" with "winners" and you can see why this was interesting. Through a little research I found the original paper and I got very excited when I read that he only used 513 artworks total (that's only about 256 games) and got these results:All told, the computer identified 4,027 different numerical descriptors. Once their values had been established for each of the 513 artworks that had been fed into it, it was ready to do the analysis.
Dr Shamir’s aim was to look for quantifiable ways of distinguishing between the work of different artists. If such things could be established, it might make the task of deciding who painted what a little easier. Such decisions matter because, even excluding deliberate forgeries, there are many paintings in existence that cannot conclusively be attributed to a master rather than his pupils, or that may be honestly made copies whose provenance is now lost.
To look for such distinguishing features, Dr Shamir programmed the computer to use a statistical method that scores the strength of the distance between the values of two or more descriptors for each pair of artists. As a result, he was able to rank each of the 4,027 descriptors by how useful it was at discriminating between artists.
Src: http://www.economist.com/node/21524699
Pretty good results. The source code for the algorithm he used is called WND-CHARM and was originally written for classifying biological images. Available here: http://www.scfbm.org/content/3/1/13Each classifier was tested 50 times such that in each run the
images were randomly allocated for training and test sets. The automatic classification between the paintings of Van
Gogh and Pollock using low-level image content descriptors was accurate in just 92% of the cases, while the
accuracy of the two-way classifiers between Pollock and Monet or Pollock and Renoir was 100% in both cases [38].
The classification accuracy was also perfect when classifying Pollock and other painters such as Dali.
Src: http://vfacstaff.ltu.edu/lshamir/publications/vangogh_pollock%20_final.pdf
All I ask is that if you make something of this you'll share your results!