\section{Introduction} \label{introduction}
Probabilistic framework is often employed to solve learning problems. One
conveniently assumes that real-world objects or phenomena are represented as
(or, in fact, reduced to) vectors $\bx$ in a suitable vector space $\XX$. The
learning task relies on finding an unknown functional dependency between $\bx$
and some outputs $y \inn \YY$. Vectors $\bx$ are assumed to be iid, \ie drawn
independently from a fixed, but unknown probability distribution $p(\bx)$. The
function $f$ is given as a fixed conditional density $p(y|\bx)$, which is also
unknown. To search for the ideal function $f^*$, a general space of hypothesis
functions $\FF = \{f\!: \XX \!\to\! \YY\}$ is considered. $f^*$ is considered
optimal according to some loss function $L\!: \XX \!\times\! \YY \!\to\!
[0,M]$, $M \g 0$, measuring the discrepancy between the true and estimated
values. The learning problem is then formulated as minimizing the true error
$\EE(f) \eq \int_{\XX \times \YY} L(y,f(\bx)) p(\bx,y) d\bx\, dy$, given a
finite iid sample, \ie the training set $\{(\bx_i,y_i)\}$, $i\eq 1,2,\ldots,n$.
As the joint probability $p(\bx,y) \eq p(\bx) p(y|\bx)$ is unknown, one,
therefore, minimizes the empirical error $\EE_{emp}(f) \eq \frac{1}{n}
\sum_{i=1}^n L(y_i,f(\bx_i))$. Additionally, a trade-off between the function
complexity and the fit to the data has to be kept, as a small empirical error
does not yet guarantee a small true error. This is achieved by adding a
suitable penalty or regularization function as proposed in the structural risk
minimization or regularization principles.

Although these principles are mathematically well-founded, they rely on very
strong, though general, assumptions. They impose a fixed (stationary)
distribution from which vectors, representing objects, are drawn. Moreover, the
training set is believed to be representative for the task. Usually, it is a
random subset of some large target set, such as a set of all objects in an
application. Such assumptions are often violated in practice, not only due to
differences in measurements caused by variability between sensors or a
difference in calibration of measuring devices, but, more importantly, due to
the lack of information on class distributions or impossibility of gathering a
representative sample. Some examples are:
\begin{itemize}
\item
In the application of face detection, the distribution of non-faces cannot be
determined, as it may be unknown for which type of images and in which
environments such a detector is going to be used.
\item
In machine diagnostics and industrial inspection some of the classes have to be
artificially induced in order to obtain sufficient examples for training.
Whether they reflect the true distribution may be unknown.
\item
In geological exploration for mining purposes, a large set of examples may be
easily obtained in one area on earth, but its distribution might be entirely
different than in another area, whose sample will not be provided due to the
related costs.
\end{itemize}
In human learning, a random sampling of the distribution of the target set does
not seem to be a plausible approach, as it is usually not very helpful to
encounter multiple copies of the same object among training examples. For
instance, in studying the difference between the paintings of Rembrandt and
Velasquez it makes no sense to consider copies of the same painting. Even very
similar ones may be superfluous, in spite of the fact that they may represent
some mode in the distribution of paintings. On the contrary, it may be better
to emphasize the tails or the borders of the distribution, especially in the
situations, where the classes seem to be hard to distinguish.

Although the probabilistic framework is applied to many learning problems,
there are many practical situations, where alternative paradigms are necessary
due to the nature of ill-sampled data or ill-defined distributions. Which may
be an appropriate model for the relation between a training set of examples and
the target set of objects to be classified\footnote{In classification problems,
$y_i$ is a class label and $L$ is the 0-1 loss, $L(y_i,f(\bx_i)) \eq
\II(y_i\!\neq \!f(\bx_i))$, where $\II$ is the indicator function. Classifiers
minimize the expected classification error (0-1 loss). } if we cannot or do not
want to assume that the distribution of the training set is an approximation of
the distribution of the target set?  This paper focusses on this aspect. Our
basic assumption is that the training sample is representative for the
\emph{domain} of the target set (all examples in the given application) instead
of being drawn from a \emph{fixed probability distribution}.

Consider a representation space, called also input space, $\XX$, endowed with
some metric $d$. This is the space, in which objects are represented as vectors
and the learning takes place. A \emph{domain} is a bounded set $\A$ in $\XX$,
\ie $\exists r\g 0 ~\forall x,z\inn \A  ~d(x,z) \lee r$. (We do not assume that
the domain is totally bounded.) This is not new as one usually expects that
classes are represented by a set of vectors in (possibly convex and) bounded
subsets of some space. Here, we will focus on vector space representations
constructed by features, dissimilarities or kernels. As the class domains are
bounded in this representation, for each class $\omega_j$, there exists some
indicator function $G_j(\bx)$ of the object\footnote{By an object we mean its
representation $\bx$ in the considered vector space.} $\bx$ such that
$G_j(\bx)\eq 1$ if $\bx$ is accepted as a member of $\omega_j$ and $G_j(\bx)\eq
0$, otherwise. Given a training set of labeled examples $\{(\bx_i,y_i)\}$,
$G_j(\bx_i)\eq 1$ if $\bx_i$ belongs to the class $\omega_j$. We will assume
that each object belongs to a single class, however, identical objects with
different labels are permitted. This allows classes to overlap.

Given the above model, several questions arise. How to design learning
procedures and how to evaluate them? Can classifiers output confidences? How to
judge whether a given training set is representative for the domain? Are any
further assumptions needed or advantageous? Can cluster analysis or feature
selection be applied? The goal of this paper is to raise interest in domain
learning. As the first step, we introduce the problem, discuss a few issues and
propose some approaches.

\section{Performance criteria} \label{performance}
Suppose a classifier $f(\bx)$ is designed that assigns objects to one of the
given classes. A labeled evaluation set or a test set $S$ is usually used to
estimate the performance of $f(\bx)$ by counting the number of incorrect
assignments. This, however, demands that the set $S$ is representative for the
distribution of the target set, which conflicts with our assumption.

For a set of objects to be representative for the class domains it may be
assumed that the objects are well spread over these domains. For the test set
$S$, it means that there is no object $\bx$ in any of the classes that has a
large distance $d(\bx,\bx^s)$ to its nearest objects $\bx^s \inn S$. Therefore,
for a domain representative test set $S$ holds that
\begin{equation}
d_{max} = \max_{\bx} ~\min_{\bx^s \in S} ~d(\bx,\bx^s)
\end{equation}
is small $\forall \bx$. The usefulness of this approach relies on the fact that
the distances as given in the input space are meaningful for the application.
Consequently, for a well-performing classifier, none of the erroneously
classified objects is far away (at the wrong side) from the decision boundary.
If the classes are separable, the test objects should also be as far away from
the decision boundary as possible. Therefore, our proposal is to follow the
worst-case scenario and to judge a classifier by the object that is the most
misleading. This will be judged by its distance to the decision boundary.

Consider a two-class problem with the labels $y \inn \{-\!1,+\!1\}$, where
$y(\bx)$ denotes the true label of $\bx$. (This notation is the consequence of
our assumption that different objects with different labels may be represented
in the same point $\bx$). Let $f(\bx)$ yield the signed distance of $\bx$ to
the decision boundary induced by the classifier. Note that the unsigned
distance of $\bx$ to the decision boundary is related to the functional form
of~$f$. Then
\begin{equation}
\eta(S|g) = \min_{\bx^s \in S} ~y(\bx^s)f(\bx^s)
\label{eq:criterion}
\end{equation}
is the signed distance to the decision boundary of the 'worst' classified
object from the test set $S$. Having introduced this, a classifier $f_1(\bx)$
is judged to be better than a classifier $f_2(\bx)$ if $\eta(S|f_1) \g
\eta(S|f_2)$. The main argument supporting this criterion follows from the fact
that if the vector space representation and the distance measure are
appropriate for the learning problem, then for small values of $\eta(S|f)$, the
test set $S$ contains objects that are similar to the objects in a wrong class.
As the data and the learning procedure are not based on probabilities, it is
difficult to make a statement about the probability of errors instead of the
seriousness of their contributions.

As a consequence, outliers should be avoided, since they cannot be detected by
statistical means. Still, objects that have large distances to all other
objects (in comparison to their nearest neighbor distances) indicate that the
domain is not well sampled. If the sampling is proper, all objects have to be
considered as equally important, as they are examples of valid representations.
Copies of the same object do not influence the learning procedures and may,
therefore, be removed.

If classes overlap such that the overlapping domain can be estimated and a
class of possible density functions is provided, then it might be possible to
determine generalization bounds for the classification error or to estimate the
expected error over the class of density functions. Both tasks are, however,
not straightforward, neither estimating the domain of the class overlap, nor
defining an appropriate class of density functions. As we only sketch the
problem, we will restrict ourselves to classifiers that maximize
criterion~\eqref{eq:criterion}.

\section{Classifier proposals}\label{classifiers}
A number of possible domain based decision functions will be introduced in this
section. We will start by presenting the domain versions of some well-known
probabilistic classifiers. It should be emphasized once again that in the
probabilistic framework, any averaging over objects or their functional
dependencies relies on their distribution. So, averaging cannot be used in
domain based learning procedures. It has to be replaced by appropriate
operators such as minimum, maximum or domain center.

Consider a vector space $\RR^m$, in which objects $\bx$ are represented \eg by
features. Let $X \eq \{\bx_1,\bx_2, \ldots,\bx_n\}$ be a training set with the
labels $Y \eq \{y_1,y_2, \ldots,y_n\}$. Assume $k$ classes
$\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_k$. If $k\eq 2$, then $y_i \inn\{-\!1,+\!1\}$ are
assumed. Let $X_j$ be a subset of $X$ containing all members of $\omega_j$.
Then, $X \eq \bigcup_{j} X_j$.

\subsection{Discriminants}\label{subs:discriminants}
Consider a two-class problem. If classes are separable by a polynomial or when
a kernel transformation is applied, a discriminant function can be found by
solving a set of linear inequalities over the training set $X$, \eg
\begin{equation}
 y_i(\bmg{\alpha}^T K(X,x_i)+\alpha_0) > 0, \quad \forall \bx_i \inn X,
\label{eq:lin_inequal}
\end{equation}
$K(X,\bx_i)$ is the column vector of all kernel values $K(\bx,\bx_i)$, $\forall
\bx \inn X$. The resulting weights $\bmg{\alpha} \inn \RR^n$ define the
classifier $f$ in the following way:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:discriminant}
\begin{split}
\text{Assign $\bx$ to~} \omega_1, \text{if~} f(\bx) &= \bmg{\alpha}^T K(X,\bx)+\alpha_0 \ge 0,\\
\text{Assign $\bx$ to~} \omega_2, \text{if~} f(\bx) &= \bmg{\alpha}^T
K(X,\bx)+\alpha_0 < 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This decision function finds a solution if the classes are separable in the
Hilbert space induced by the kernel $K$ and fails if they are not. Since no
model used to optimize the decision boundary, this decision function is
independent of the use of domains or densities.

In the traditional probabilistic approach to pattern recognition, the nearest
mean classifier (NMC) and Fisher's linear discriminant (FLD) are two frequently
used classifiers. Given class means estimated over the training set, the NMC
assigns each object to the class of its nearest mean. In a domain approach,
class means should be replaced by the class centers. These are vectors
$\bmg{\mu}_j$ in the vector space $\RR^m$ that yield the minimum distance to
the most remote object in $X_j$:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bmg{\mu}}_j = \arg\min_{\bx^* \inn \RR^m}  ~\max_{\bx \in X_j}
\|\bx-\bx^*\| \label{eq:def_center}
\end{equation}
Class centers may be found by a procedure like the Support Vector Data
Description \cite{TaxDui1999a,Tax2001}, in agreement to criterion
\eqref{eq:def_center}. Such a center is determined by  $m\!+\!1$ training
objects at most, and usually much less. An approximation can be also based on a
feature-by-feature computation. Additionally, for sufficiently large data, a
single training object may be a sufficiently good approximation of the center:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bmg{\mu}}_j = \arg\min_{\bx^* \inn X} ~\max_{\bx \in X_j} \|\bx-\bx^*\|.
\label{eq:nearest_center_estimate}
\end{equation}
This can be determined fast from the pairwise distance matrix
computed between the training examples \cite{Hochbaum85}. Given
the class centers, the Nearest Center Classifier (NCC) is now
defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{Assign $\bx$ to~} \omega_i, \text{if~}
i=\arg\min_j~\|x-\hat{\bm{\mu}_j}\|. \label{eq:ncc}
\end{equation}
This classifier is optimal (it maximizes criterion \ref{eq:criterion}) if the
class domains are hyperspheres with identical radii.

A traditional criterion for judging the goodness of a single feature
is the Fisher Criterion:
\begin{equation}
J_F = \frac{(\mu_1-\mu_2)^2}{{\sigma_1}^2+{\sigma_2}^2}
\label{eq:Fisher_crit}
\end{equation}
in which $\mu_j$ and $\sigma_j^2$ are the class means and variances,
respectively, as computed for the single feature. A domain based version is
defined by substituting the mean with the class center and the variance with
the squared class range. For the $k$-th feature, ${\sigma_j}^2$ can be then
estimated as:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\sigma}_j^2 = (\max_i(\bx_{ik})-\min_i (\bx_{ik}))^2
\label{eq:class_width}
\end{equation}
Herewith, a Fisher Linear Domain Discriminant (FLDD) can be defined by a weight
vector in the feature space for which the domain version of
\eqref{eq:Fisher_crit} is maximum. We expect that this direction will be
determined by the minimum-volume ellipsoid enclosing $X^{c}$, the pooled data
shifted by the class centers $X_j^{c} \eq \{\bx \!-\! \bmg{\mu}_j\!: \bx \inn
X_j\}$. It is defined by the positive semi-definite matrix $G$, such that
$\bx^T G \bx < 1, \forall \bx \inn X^c$. Consequently, one has:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\text{Assign $\bx$ to~} \omega_1,  \\[0.5mm]
\text{if~} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_2)^T G^{-1} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_2) \ge (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_1)^T G^{-1} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_1),\\[1mm]
\text{Assign $\bx$ to~} \omega_2,  \\[0.5mm]
\text{if~} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_2)^T G^{-1} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_2) < (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_1)^T
G^{-1} (\bx-\bmg{\mu}_1).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The FLDD can then be written as:
\begin{equation}
f(\bx) = (\bmg{\mu}_2 - \bmg{\mu}_1)^T G^{-1} \bx.
\label{eq:FLDD}
\end{equation}
This classifier is optimal according to criterion \eqref{eq:criterion} if the
two classes are described by the identical ellipsoids except for the position
of their centers. The estimation of $G$ in the problem of finding the minimum
volume ellipsoid enclosing the data $X$ is a convex optimization problem which
is only tractable in special cases \cite{BerBoy1996,BoyBer2004}. An
approximation is possible when the joint covariance matrix is used for
pre-whitening the data (which, however, conflicts with the concept of a domain
classifier) and then deriving a hypersphere instead of an ellipsoid.

As a third possibility in this section we will mention the binary decision tree
classifier based on the purity criterion \cite{Breiman84}, capturing aspects of
partitioning of examples relevant to good classification. In each node of the
tree, the feature and a threshold are determined to distinguish the largest
pure part (\ie a range belonging to just one of the classes) of the training
set.  Other more advanced ways of finding a domain based learner will be
discussed below.

\subsection{Model based, parametric decision functions}
Two of the methods described in the previous section aim at finding
discriminants by some separability criterion such as the difference in class
centers or the Fisher distance. They appear to be optimal for identically
shaped class domains, hyperspheres and, respectively, ellipsoids. Here, instead
of considering a functional form of a classifier, we will start from some class
domain models and then determine the classifier.

Class domains are defined by their boundaries. If during a training process
some objects are placed outside the domain, the boundaries have to be adjusted.
This is permitted only if the nearest objects inside the domain are close to
the boundaries or their parts (if distinguishable). 'Unreasonably far away'
objects should not play a role in positioning of the domain boundaries. They
have to be determined with respect to the demand that objects should sample the
domain well. So, the distance from the domain boundary to the nearest objects
should be comparable to the nearest neighbor distances between the objects. In
fact, this is the basic learning problem \cite{Valiant84}. A significant
difference to many later studies \cite{KulkarniZ93}, however, is that in domain
learning probabilities or densities cannot be used.

Formally, the problem may be stated as follows. Let $D_j(\bx,\bmg{\theta})\eq
0$ be some parametric domain description (with the parameters $\bmg{\theta}$
for the class $\omega_j$ and let $X_j$ be a set of examples from $\omega_j$.
Then, $\bmg{\theta}$ should be chosen such that the maximum distance from the
domain boundary to its nearest neighbor in the training set is minimized under
the condition that all training objects are inside the domain at some suitable
distance $\delta$ to the border:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:model_crit}
\begin{array}{ll}
\min_{\bmg{\theta}} & \max_{\bx^*} ~\min_{\bx \in X_j} ~\|\bx^* -\bx\|,\\[1mm]
\text{s.t.}         & (a) ~ D(\bx^*,\bmg{\theta})\eq 0,  \\[1mm]
\text{s.t.}         & (b) ~D_j(\bx,\bmg{\theta}) < 0, ~~\forall \bx \inn X_j \\[1mm]
                    & (c) ~\|\bx^* - \bx\| > \delta, ~~\forall \bx \inn X_j
\end{array}
\end{equation}
This is a nonlinear optimization. As indicated above, such problems are
intractable already for simple domains like arbitrary ellipsoids
\cite{BoyBer2004}. The challenge, therefore, is to find approximate and
feasible solutions. Examples can be found in the area of one-class classifiers
\cite{Tax2001,Scholkopf01}. A very problematic issue, however, is the
constraint (c) in \eqref{eq:model_crit} indicating that the domain border
should fit loosely, but in a restricted way around the training examples in the
feature space. The difficulty arises as $\|\bx^* - \bx\| \g \delta$ is a
non-convex constraint, hence the entire formulation is
non-convex\footnote{Convex optimization deals with a well-behaved set of
problems that have advantageous theoretical properties such as the duality
theory and for which efficient algorithms exist. This is not true for
non-convex problems.}. In domain learning, new algorithms have to be designed
to solve the formulated problems.

Once class domains have been found, the problem of a proper class assignment
arises if objects get multiple memberships or if they are rejected by all
classes. If a unique decision is demanded in such cases, a discriminant has to
be determined, as discussed in section \ref{subs:discriminants}. Alternatively,
during classification, the distances to all domain boundaries have to be found
and the smallest, in the case of reject, or the largest, in the case of
multiple acceptance,  has to be used for the final decision. Again, the
criterion \eqref{eq:criterion} is used.

\subsection{Model based, non-parametric decision functions}
Instead of estimating the parameters of some postulated model, such a model
might be also directly constructed from the training set, in analogy to the
kernel density (Parzen) estimators \cite{Parzen62} in statistical learning. For
a domain description, the sum of kernel functions, however, may be replaced by
a maximum, or, equivalently, by the union of the kernel domains. In order to
restrict the class domains, the kernel domain should be bounded. Let
$\Phi(\bx,\bx_i,h)$ define the domain for a kernel associated with $\bx_i$, \eg
all points within a hypersphere with the radius $h$, then the domain estimate
for the class $\omega_j$ is:
\begin{equation}
  D_j(\bx,h) = \bigcup_{\bx_i \in X_j} \{\Phi(\bx,\bx_i,h)\}.
\end{equation}
The value of the kernel width $h$ can be estimated by the leave-one-out
procedure. $h$ is found as the smallest value for which all training objects
belong to the domain which is estimated by all training objects except the one
to be classified. This width is equal to the largest nearest neighbor distance
found in the training set:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:kernel_width}
    \hat{h} = \max_i ~\min_{l\neq i}~\|\bx_i-\bx_l\|.
\end{equation}
Also in this case it is not straightforward how the distance to the domain
boundary should be computed.

\subsection{Neural networks}
The iterative way neural networks are trained make them suitable for domain
learning. Traditionally, the weights of a neural network are chosen to minimize
the mean square error over the training set \cite{Bishop95}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neural_net1}
  \hat{\bmg{\theta}} = \arg\min_{\bmg{\theta}}
 ~\frac{1}{n} \sum_{\bx \in X}(\textrm{net}(\bx,\bmg{\theta})-t(\bx))^2,
\end{equation}
where $\textrm{net}(\bx,\bmg{\theta})$ is the network output for $\bx$ and
$t(\bx)$ is the target, which is $y(\bx)$ here. As the network function is
nonlinear, training is done in small steps following a gradient descent
approach. The summation over the training examples, however, conflicts with the
domain learning idea. If it is replaced by the maximum operator, the network
will be updated such that the 'worst' object, \ie the object closest to the
domain of the other class, makes as smallest error as possible (it is as close
as possible to the decision border):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:neural_net2}
  \hat{\bmg{\theta}} = \arg\min_{\bmg{\theta}}
  ~\max_{\bx\in X} ~(\textrm{net}(\bx,\bmg{\theta})-t(\bx))^2
\end{equation}
A severe drawback, however, is that instead of optimizing the distance to the
decision boundary in the input space, the largest deviation in the network
output space is optimized. Unless the network is linear, such as a traditional
perceptron, this will yield a significantly different neural net.

\subsection{Support vector machines}
The key principle behind the support vector machine (SVM), the structural risk
minimization leading to the maximum margin classifier, makes it an ideal
candidate for domain learning. Thanks to the reproducing property of kernels,
in the case of non-overlapping classes, the SVM is a maximum margin hyperplane
in a Hilbert space induced by the specified kernel \cite{Vapnik}. The margin is
determined only by support vectors. These are the boundary objects, \ie the
objects closest to the decision boundary $f(\bx,\bmg{\theta})$
\cite{Cristianini00,Vapnik}. As such, the SVM is independent of class density
models:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:svm}
   f(\bx,\bmg{\theta}) =
   \arg \max_{\bmg{\theta}} ~\min_{\bx \in X} ~y(\bx) f(\bx,\bmg{\theta}).
\end{equation}
Multiple copies of the same object added to the training set do not contribute
to the construction of the SVM, as they do for classifiers based on some
probabilistic model. Moreover, the SVM is also not affected if objects which
are further away from the decision boundary are disregarded or if objects of
the same class are added there. This decision function is, thereby, truly
domain based.

For nonlinear classifiers $f(\bx,\bmg{\theta})$ defined on nonlinear kernels,
the SVM has, however, a similar drawback as the nonlinear neural network. The
distances to the decision boundary are computed in the output Hilbert space
defined by the kernel and not in the input space. A second problem is that the
soft-margin formulation \cite{Cristianini00}, the traditional solution to
overlapping classes is not domain based. The optimization problem for a linear
classifier $f(\bx) = \bw^T \bx + w_0$ is rewritten into:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:svm_overlap}
\begin{array}{ll}
 \min_{\bw} & ||\bw||^2 + \sum_{\bx_i \in X} \xi(\bx_i),\\[0.5mm]
 s.t. & y_i f(\bx_i) \ge 1 - \xi(\bx_i), \\[0.5mm]
      & \xi(\bx_i) \ge 0\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
in which the term $\sum_{\bx_i \in X} \xi(\bx_i)$ is an upper bound of the
misclassification error on the training set, hence it is responsible for
minimizing \emph{a sum of error contributions}. Adding a copy of an erroneously
assigned object will affect the sum and, thereby, will influence the sought
optimum $\bw$. The result is, thereby, dependent on the distribution of
objects, not just on their domain. For a proper domain based solution,
formulation \eqref{eq:svm} should be solved as it is for the case of
overlapping domains, resulting in the {\em negative margin support vector
machine}. This means that the distance of the furthest away misclassified
object should be minimized. As the signed distance is negative, the negative
margin is obtained. In the probabilistic approach this classifier is unpopular
as it will be sensitive to outliers. As explained in the introduction, in
domain learning, the existence of outliers should be neglected. This implies
that, if they exist, they should be removed before, as they can only be
detected on distribution information.

\section{Evaluation procedure}\label{eval_proc}
In the previous section a number of possible domain based classifiers has been
discussed, inspired by well known probabilistic procedures. This is just an
attempt to illustrate the key points of domain learning approaches. Some of
them are feasible, like the nearest center rule and the maximum error neural
network. Others seem to be almost intractable as the question of determining
multidimensional domains that fit around a given set of points lead to hard
optimization problems. Dropping the assumption that the probability
distribution of the objects is representative for the distribution of the
target objects to be classified is apparently very significant. The consequence
is that the statistical approach has to be replaced by an estimate of the shape
of the class domains.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{exp22}
\vspace*{-1mm} \caption{Example of the projection of a small set of objects on
a nonlinear decision boundary.} \vspace*{-2mm} \label{fig:project_ex}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The problem of defining consistent classification procedures is not the only
one in domain learning. As it was already noticed, for a proper optimization,
the distance from the objects to the decision boundary or to the domain
boundary should be determined \emph{in the input space}. Here, the original
object representation is defined for the application, so the distances measured
in this space are related in a meaningful way to the differences between
objects. This relation does not hold for the \emph{output space} of nonlinear
decision functions. Still, well-performing classifiers may be obtained. The
question, however, arises how evaluation and a comparison of classifiers that
establish different nonlinearities,\eg a linear classifier, a neural network
and a support vector machine should be done.

The only way various classification functions can be compared is in their
common input space, as their output spaces may differ. In the introduction,
criterion \eqref{eq:criterion} was adopted stating that the performance of a
domain based classifier is determined by the classification of the most
difficult example. It is determined by the distance in the input space from
that object to the decision boundary. For linear classifiers the computation of
this distance is straightforward. For analytical nonlinear classifiers the
computation of this distance is not trivial, but might be defined based on some
optimization procedure over the decision boundary. For arbitrary decision
function, there is no way to derive this distance directly. In order to compare
classifiers of various nature we propose the following heuristic procedure
based on a stochastic approximation of the distance of an object to the
decision boundary:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $f$ be a classifier found in the input space $\RR^m$.
Given an independent test set $S$, generate a large set of objects $R \in
\RR^m$ that lie in the neighborhood of the test examples.
\item Label the objects in $S$ and $R$ by the classifier $f$.
\item For each object $\bx_s$ in $S$ find the $k$ nearest objects
$\bx^i_r$ in $R$ that are assigned different labels.
\item Enrich this set $\{\bx^i_r, i\eq 1,2,\ldots,k\}$ by interpolation.
\item Use successive bisection to find the points $\bx^i_c$ that are on the
lines between $\bx_s$ and all $\bx^i_r$ such that they are almost on the
decision boundary induced by $f$.
\item Find the point $\bx_c$ in $\{\bx^i_c\}$ that is nearest to $\bx_s$.
\item Use the distance $d(\bx_s,\bx_c)$ between $\bx_s$ and $\bx_c$ as a measure
for the confidence in the classification of $\bx_s$. If the true label of
$\bx_s$ is known the distance to $\bx_c$ may be given a sign: positive for a
correct label, negative for an incorrect one.
\item Use
\begin{equation}
e_S = min_{\bx_s \in S} d(\bx_s,\bx_c) \label{eq:perf}
\end{equation}
as a performance measure for the evaluated classifier $f$ given the test set
$S$.
\end{enumerate}
This proposed procedure has to be further evaluated. An example of the result
of the projection of a small test set on a given classifier is shown in
fig.\,\ref{fig:project_ex}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{exp11}
\vspace*{-1mm} \caption{Five domain based classifiers on artificial data. The
three support objects of the linear Negative Margin SVM are indicated by
circles. } \vspace*{-2mm} \label{fig:art_data_ex}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Example}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.0cm]{exp30}
\vspace*{-1mm} \caption{Learning curves for the five domain based classifiers.
As classes overlap, the performance \eqref{eq:perf} is negative. Higher
performance indicates better results.} \vspace*{-2mm} \label{learning_curves}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We implemented the following domain based classifiers:
\begin{description}
    \item[Nearest Center,] NCC, based on \eqref{eq:def_center}.
    \item[Domain Fisher] based on
    \eqref{eq:FLDD}, using an heuristic estimate of $G$ by pre-whitening the data
    followed by the NCC to determine the class centers.
    \item[Decision Tree] using the purity criterion.

    \item[Negative Margin SVM] using a linear kernel. As the
    optimization problem is not quadratic, we implemented this
    classifier using boosting \cite{Schapire02}.
    \item[Negative Margin SVM] using a 3rd order polynomial kernel.
\end{description}
Two slightly overlapping artificial banana shaped classes are generated in two
dimensions. Fig.\,\ref{fig:art_data_ex} shows an example for $50$ objects per
class. The decision boundaries for the above mentioned classifiers are also
presented there.

The following experiment is performed using a fixed test set of $200$ examples
per class. Training sets of the cardinalities up to $50$ objects per class are
generated, such that smaller sets are contained in the larger ones. For each
training set the above classifiers are determined and evaluated using the
procedure discussed in section \ref{eval_proc}. This is repeated $10$ times and
the performances is averaged.

Fig.\,\ref{learning_curves} presents the results as a function of the
cardinality of the training set. These are the learning curves of five
classifiers showing an increasing performance as a function of the training
size. As the classes slightly overlap, the performance \eqref{eq:perf} is
negative. This is caused by the fact that the 'worst' classified object in the
test set is erroneously labeled and is, thereby on the wrong side of the
decision boundary.

The curves indicate that our implementation of the Domain Fisher
Discriminant is bad, at least for these data. This might be
understood that it is sensitive for all class boundary points, to
all sides. Enlarging the dataset may yield more disturbances. The
simpler Nearest Center classifier performs much better and is
about similar to the linear SVM. The nonlinear SVM as well as the
Decision Tree yield very good results. Our evaluation procedure
should bad for overlapping training sets classified by the
Decision Tree, as small regions separated out in different classes
disturb the procedure. They are, however, not detected if there
size is really small. The probability that inside such a region a
point is generated (compare the procedure discussed in section
\ref{eval_proc} may be too small.

\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusion}
Traditional ways of learning are inappropriate or inaccurate if
training sets are only representative for the domain, but not for
the distribution of the target objects. In this paper, a number of
domain based classifiers have been discussed. Instead of
minimizing the expected number of classification errors, the
minimum distance to the decision boundary is proposed as a
criterion. This is difficult to compute for arbitrary nonlinear
classifiers. A heuristic procedure based on generating points
close to the decision boundary is proposed for classifier
evaluation.

This paper is restricted to an introduction to domain learning. It
formulates the problem, points towards possible solutions and
gives some examples. A first series of domain based classifiers
has been implemented. Much research has to be done to make the
domain based classification approach ready for applications. As
there is a large need for novel approaches in this area, we
believe that an important new theoretical direction for further
investigation is identified.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the Dutch Organization for Scientific
Research (NWO).

\bibliographystyle{mlapa}


\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Bars are a common feature of spiral galaxies, with
near-IR imaging revealing that the majority have some bar structure in
their central regions, while strong bars are seen in about one-third
of spirals \citep{knap00, mari07}.  Much
theoretical and observational effort has recently been devoted to the
possible role of bars in driving morphological change in their host
galaxies.  In particular, tidal torques from bars are thought to
lead to central concentration of disk gas, with the resulting star
formation causing the build-up of `pseudobulges' \citep[][and references therein]{korm04}.  However, the strongest evidence for
this process is from theoretical simulations, and the
direct observational evidence is not yet compelling.  A central issue
is the lifetime and duty cycle of bars: is a barred galaxy always a
barred galaxy, and if not, how long does the bar phase endure?
Theoretical results are not clear.

One aspect of this question is the long-term stability of bars in the presence of a central mass concentration such as a super-massive black hole.  The most comprehensive study into this question, by \citet{shen04} found that bars are robust to the effects of plausible central masses (up to several per cent of the disk mass), a result that was confirmed by the models of \citet{deba06}.  Some other studies contradict this conclusion, with models that indicate a possible role for central mass concentrations in dissolving bars rapidly \citep{bour02,bour05,hozu05,hozu12}.

Simulations by
\citet{bere07} and \citet{curi08} show that bars can be stable for at
least 5 and 10~Gyr respectively, while \citet{comb90} find characteristic bar lifetimes of a
Hubble time or more. Other studies \citep[e.g.][]{lang14} suggest that bars may be induced by external phenomena such as galaxy -- galaxy tidal interactions, which would predict a broad spread of bar ages.

Observationally,
\citet{pere09} and  \citet{pere11} have attempted to address this question using
optical spectroscopy to determine ages and metallicities along bars in 20
nearby early-type barred galaxies, finding a wide range in luminosity-weighted ages of
the stellar populations.  However, the age of the stellar
population is not simply related to the age of the bar itself, and indeed
\citet{wozn07} presents models predicting significant age differences within
a given bar due to trapping of young stars at orbital resonances. Thus,
 we suggest here a complementary technique, based on the influence of
the bar on the star formation (SF) activity in its surrounding environment,
rather than within the bar itself.

This paper builds on the results of a recent H$\alpha$ spectroscopic study of 15 nearby barred galaxies \citep[][henceforth JP15]{jame15}. These galaxies had previously been identified \citep{jame09} as having a specific pattern of emission in continuum-subtracted narrow-band H$\alpha$ imaging, with a pronounced dip in this emission in the radial range swept out by the bar.  This region was termed the `star formation desert' (SFD), a terminology we follow in the present paper. This behaviour is clearly apparent in the H$\alpha$ images presented for the 4 galaxies in the present study, in Figs.~1--4, all showing regions devoid of H$\alpha$ emission over a radial range that corresponds closely with the bar extent.
This characteristic SF pattern is confirmed by other indicators, e.g. three of the galaxies studied here (all except for NGC~2712) have GALEX ultra-violet light profiles presented by \citet{gild07}, all of which show distinctive peaks or plateaus of red far-UV -- near-UV colours in the radial range corresponding to the SFD.  Further confirmation comes from \citet{hako15} who demonstrate a deficit of core-collapse supernovae in barred galaxies over the radial ranges corresponding to SFDs, again confirming the suppression of SF in these regions.

Note that, in adopting a functional definition of the regions studied in terms of star-formation properties, we deliberately side-step the thorny terminological and classification issues of whether we are studying bulges, outer bulges, pseudo-bulges, disks, lenses or `barlenses'.

The deep long-slit optical spectroscopy presented in JP15 shows that most of these SFD regions do in fact have diffuse H$\alpha$ line emission, at a very low level that is not picked up by narrow-band imaging. However, such emission was found always to have [NII]/H$\alpha$ line ratios very different from those found from star-formation regions; this and the extended diffuse morphology led us to conclude that the emission is not powered by SF, but more probably by post-Asymptotic Giant Branch stars or shocks from the bar. Such emission was also found, using rather different methods, in galaxies studied by \citet{sing13}. This suppression of SF over intermediate radial ranges was anticipated by \citet{reyn98}, who proposed bar-induced shocks as an efficient method for producing such suppression effects.

In this paper, we attempt to constrain the longevity of bar activity by an analysis of the SFD regions of 4 of the galaxies studied in JP15.  We present additional H$\beta$ long-slit spectroscopic observations for these galaxies, and compare measured absorption line strengths with predictions from population synthesis models to constrain the time since the cessation of SF activity.  One important aspect of this analysis is a robust and self-consistent treatment of the effects of line emission on observed absorption-line strengths, given our finding of near-ubiquitous but low-level line emission in these regions.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Section~\ref{sec:gal_obs} contains a description of the observed galaxies and their main properties, and lists the new spectroscopic observations used in this analysis.  In Section~\ref{sec:dat_red} we describe the data reduction that was performed to extract absorption line strengths from long-slit spectroscopy.  The data analysis presented in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} includes a description of the iterative procedure adopted to correct line indices for the effects of line emission, and presents the theoretical population synthesis models with which the corrected indices are compared. Section~\ref{sec:discussion} contains the discussion of the main results in terms of stellar population ages and their consequences for our understanding of bar activity.  The main conclusions are summarised in Section~\ref{sec:conc_fut_work}.

\section{Galaxy sample and observations}
\label{sec:gal_obs}

\begin{table*}
 \begin{minipage}{140mm}
  \caption{Properties of the observed galaxies.}
  \begin{tabular}{llrccrr}
  \hline
 Name      &  Classn.   &   Velocity    & Distance &  Inclination  &   Galaxy PA &  Bar PA  \\
           &            & ~~km~s$^{-1}$  &   Mpc    & $^{\circ}$    & $^{\circ}~~~$ & $^{\circ}$~~~ \\
   \hline
NGC~2543   &  SB(s)b    &  2471      & 38.6 &    55       &    45~~~   &   90~~~  \\
NGC~2712   &  SB(r)b    &  1815      & 31.2 &    57       &   178~~~   &   28~~~  \\
NGC~3185   &  (R)SB(r)a &  1217      & 23.4 &    47       &   130~~~   &  113~~~  \\
NGC~3351   &  SB(r)b    &   778      & 10.2 &    47       &    13~~~   &  110~~~  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:gals_props}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc2543R_slit.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc2543Ha_slit.ps}
\caption{NGC~2543, showing $R$-band (upper frame) and continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ (lower frame) images. North is up and east to the left, and the image covers an area of 200~arcsec by 172~arcsec.}
\label{fig:U4273}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc2712R_slit.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc2712Ha_slit.ps}
\caption{NGC~2712, showing $R$-band (upper frame) and continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ (lower frame) images. North is up and east to the left, and the image covers an area of 200~arcsec by 172~arcsec.}
\label{fig:U4708}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=180]{ngc3185R_slit.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=180]{ngc3185Ha_slit.ps}
\caption{NGC~3185, showing $R$-band (upper frame) and continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ (lower frame) images. North is up and east to the left, and the image covers an area of 200~arcsec by 172~arcsec.}
\label{fig:N3185}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc3351R_slit.ps}
\includegraphics[width=75mm,angle=0]{ngc3351Ha_slit.ps}
\caption{NGC~3351, showing $R$-band (upper frame) and continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ (lower frame) images. North is up and east to the left, and the image covers an area of 266~arcsec by 214~arcsec.}
\label{fig:N3351}
\end{figure}

The galaxies studied here are 4 low-redshift, strongly-barred galaxies, all of which are viewed at moderate angles of inclination.  Three are of type SBb, and one is classified as SBa. The main properties of the galaxies are listed in Table~\ref{tab:gals_props}, including distances (column 4) which are derived from a Virgo-infall corrected recession velocity for the most distant galaxy (NGC~2543), and from velocity-independent distance indicators such as Cepheid variables or type Ia supernovae for the other three.  Columns 5--7 in Table~\ref{tab:gals_props} list the galaxy inclination to the line-of-sight, the position angle of the galaxy major axis, and the position angle of the bar, measured from our own $R$-band imaging, in that order.

Two sets of spectroscopic observations are used in the analysis of these galaxies.  One set was taken with the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) in the red end of the optical spectrum, specifically targeting the region including the H$\alpha$ line and the nearby [NII] lines.  The reduction and analysis of these spectra were described fully in JP15 and so will not be discussed further here. Spectra were extracted for two SFD regions in each of the four galaxies discussed here.  All eight of these regions showed evidence for low-level diffuse emission in the H$\alpha$ 6563~\AA\ and [NII] 6584~\AA\ lines, and in every case the ratios of the emission strength in these two lines were inconsistent with SF as the excitation mechanism.  The [NII]/H$\alpha$ ratios all lay in the range 0.51 -- 1.77, after application of a conservative correction for underlying H$\alpha$ absorption, whereas similarly corrected spectra from SF regions in the full galaxy sample showed a mean ratio of 0.330$\pm$0.013. Thus the conclusion from JP15 is that these SFD regions have strongly, and probably completely, suppressed SF activity, but that they do have diffuse line emission from some other source, which must be taken into account when interpreting absorption-line strengths in the present analysis.

\begin{table*}
 \begin{minipage}{140mm}
  \caption{Details of the long-slit spectroscopic observations taken with the INT and WHT.
}
  \begin{tabular}{lrccrccccrc}
  \hline
 Name      & Bar PA      &  Date   & Int time     &  Slit PA     & AM    & R$_{\rm MAX}$ & Date     & Int time & Slit PA      & AM\\
           & $^{\circ}$~~ &  INT    &    s         & $^{\circ}$~~~ &       &  kpc         & WHT      &   s      & $^{\circ}$~~~ &   \\
   \hline
NGC~2543   &   90~~ &  20140204  &   1$\times$1200   &   0~~ & 1.01       &  4.5  &  20101227  & 5$\times$1200 &   0~~ & 1.02-1.13 \\
NGC~2712   &   28~~ &  20140207  &   3$\times$1200   & 170~~ & 1.04-1.05  &  3.3  &  20101227  & 5$\times$1200 & 170~~ & 1.04-1.05 \\
NGC~3185   &  113~~ &  20140204  &   3$\times$1200   & 140~~ & 1.01       &  3.3  &  20101227  & 3$\times$1200 & 150~~ & 1.01 \\
NGC~3351   &  110~~ &  20140205  &   3$\times$1200   &  20~~ & 1.05-1.06  &  2.5  &  20101227  & 4$\times$1200 &  20~~ & 1.05-1.12\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:gals_obs}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}

Additional spectroscopy, presented here for the first time, was taken using the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) with the Intermediate Dispersion Spectrograph and Imaging System (ISIS), in long-slit spectroscopy mode, on the night of 27 December 2010. The total exposure times were 1.0 - 1.7 hours per galaxy, as listed in column 10 of Table~\ref{tab:gals_obs}.
ISIS was used with the R600B grating and a
1.5$^{\prime\prime}$ wide slit, giving a spectral resolution of
$\sim$ 2.5~\AA\ at the wavelength of the H$\beta$ 4861~\AA\ line which was the primary goal of the WHT spectroscopy. This resolution is sufficient to determine the spectral indices we require,
from directly-measured equivalent width (EW) values within the bandpasses defined
by \citet{trag98}, as described in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.

Columns 5 and 10 of Table~\ref{tab:gals_obs} give the position angle (PA) on the sky of the slit for the INT and WHT observations respectively. For three of the four galaxies, the PA used was identical for the two sets of observations, while for the other,
NGC~3185, the slit PA differed by 10 degrees. It should also be noted that the spectra were not observed at the parallactic angle, and so atmospheric dispersion will lead to some differential flux loss as a function of wavelength.  The majority of the analysis presented here is based on EW measurements which are entirely unaffected by atmospheric dispersion effects, but the emission line correction described in Section~\ref{sec:analysis} does rely on H$\alpha$ to H$\beta$ emission line ratios and will be somewhat affected. However, it is important to note that all observations were taken at low airmass, with a maximum value of 1.13 and most observations being below airmass 1.06, so these atmospheric dispersion effects will be very small. For all observations with both the INT and WHT, the slit was positioned to pass directly through the nuclear peak of continuum emission as seen on the acquisition TV of the telescope.

\section{Data reduction}
\label{sec:dat_red}

Data reduction followed standard long-slit CCD spectroscopy procedures of bias subtraction, flat fielding, wavelength and flux calibration, and will not be described in detail here.  Flat fielding made use of tungsten arc spectra, while wavelength calibration was provided by copper-neon$+$copper-argon emission-line lamp spectra which were always taken immediately before or after the spectrum which they calibrated, at the same telescope pointing angle, to avoid differential flexure effects. Spectrophotometric standard star observations from the same night were used to provide a flux calibration.

For each of the four galaxies, two spectra were extracted, one from each side of the nucleus, by co-adding spectral information from appropriate parts of the slit.  The selection of these regions was described in JP15; the H$\beta$ spectra from the WHT were extracted in exactly the same way, using identical slit regions (although, given the slightly different slit PA for NGC~3185, the regions of the galaxy observed for the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ spectra are slightly offset).  These regions were defined to lie completely within the SFD of each galaxy, i.e. the radial range swept out by the bar and the slit regions are indicated by the black bars shown on the continuum-subtracted H$\alpha$ images in Figs. 1--4.  In all cases, no emission is apparent along the chosen slit positions in these H$\alpha$ images.  The spectra from opposite sides of the nucleus in each galaxy could have been co-added to improve signal-to-noise.  This was not done, partly to enable the investigation of spectral variation within galaxies, and partly because of data reduction complications resulting from velocity differences between these regions caused by galaxy rotation.  Thus, the end result of the basic data analysis was 8 flux-calibrated, sky-subtracted spectra for the SFD regions of the 4 barred galaxies, covering the spectral region around the H$\beta$ stellar absorption feature, and matching the 8 H$\alpha$-region spectra already described in Section~\ref{sec:gal_obs}.

\section{Data analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}

\subsection{Calculation of absorption line indices}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{SSP_spec.ps}
\caption{
Simulated spectra showing the variation in the strength of the
H$\beta$ absorption feature for solar metallicity simple stellar populations, showing the extreme depth of the feature in young and intermediate-age stellar populations and hence the sensitivity of H$\beta$ spectroscopy to small fractional admixtures of such populations.}
\label{fig:SSP_spec}
\end{figure}

In order to derive useful properties, principally ages, from our spectra, we performed comparisons with theoretical spectra taken from the BaSTI stellar population synthesis data base \citep{piet04,perc09}. In all cases, the procedures adopted were identical for the observed and theoretical spectra, and involved direct integration of spectral flux.  EW values were measured using the LECTOR programme of A. Vazdekis\footnote{See http://www.iac.es/galeria/vazdekis/index.html} in bandpasses defined by \citet{trag98}.  Since the analysis was principally aimed at constraining ages of stellar populations, the most important index used was H$\beta$.  The strong dependence of this feature on stellar population age is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SSP_spec}, which clearly illustrates the monotonic decline in H$\beta$ strength with increasing age of a simple (single-age and single metallicity) stellar population (SSP), over the age range 50~Myr -- 4~Gyr.
However, since H$\beta$ strength shows some dependence on metallicity, the Mgb index was also determined for all spectra to break a possible age-metallicity degeneracy when interpreting index strengths.

\subsection{Comparison with simple stellar population models}

For the initial comparison, we used SSP models to provide a useful reference point, while acknowledging that these poorly represent the extended and potentially complex SF histories of bright spiral galaxies.  The models used assumed scaled-solar element abundance ratios with total heavy element abundances ranging from well below to just above solar, and covered ages from 50~Myr to 14~Gyr.  The predicted H$\beta$ and Mgb index strengths for these SSPs are represented by the grid in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_sspgrid}, which shows the restricted age range of 1 -- 14~Gyr.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{SFD_sspgrid.ps}
\caption{
A grid of indices from BaSTI stellar population models, showing the strong
correlation of H$\beta$ EW with age of a simple
stellar population.
The grid points and overlaid data points correspond to equivalent
widths of the appropriate features using the wavelength ranges defined
in Trager et al. (1998).
The data points are determined from spectra taken
in the `desert'
regions on opposite sides of the nucleus of the 4 barred galaxies
(solid square, NGC~2543; open square, NGC~2712; open circle, NGC~3185; solid circle, NGC~3351) and the H$\beta$ index strengths have been corrected for the presence of diffuse line emission.  SSP ages are indicated to the right of the figure; the metallicities used in calculating the grid points are [Fe/H] $=$ --1.27, --0.96, --0.66, --0.31, +0.06 and +0.4, from left to right.
}
\label{fig:SFD_sspgrid}
\end{figure}

The observed spectra yielded H$\beta$ EWs covering the range 0.974 -- 2.334~\AA\, with the full set of values being listed in column 2 of Table~\ref{tab:hb_indices}. Such EWs are only compatible with SSPs of age$>$3~Gyr, regardless of metallicity, as is apparent from the model grid in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_sspgrid}. The lowest values of H$\beta$ EW are formally inconsistent with any model predictions, even for the oldest SSPs. Such low values motivate the study of contamination by emission lines, which can potentialy `fill in' the H$\beta$ absorption feature, leading to significant over-estimates of population ages.

\subsection{Correction for line emission within absorption features}

In JP15, we presented an analysis of these 4 galaxies which showed evidence for low-level diffuse emission lines, including H$\alpha$, throughout their SFD regions. Thus there must also be associated H$\beta$ emission, and the filling-in problem mentioned above must be occurring at some level.  However, the relative weakness of H$\beta$ emission compared with H$\alpha$, coupled with the strength of H$\beta$ absorption and the relatively poor spectral resolution of our WHT spectroscopy mean that no H$\beta$ emission is directly apparent in the reduced spectra of the SFD regions. In addition, the restricted spectral range covered by our data and the lack of contiguous coverage between the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ spectral regions make it difficult to fit a model to the continuum spectrum and hence directly decouple continuum and emission-line contributions, as is frequently done elsewhere.  Instead, we adopt an iterative procedure of corrections to the measured H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ emission and absorption feature strengths to produce a self-consistent solution, as described below.  Iteration is needed as underlying absorption affects the measured H$\alpha$ line flux, while the H$\beta$ emission line flux affects the H$\beta$ absorption strength.

This iterative correction is implemented as follows.  First the H$\beta$ absorption EW is determined by direct integration on the observed spectrum in the bandpass defined by \citet{trag98} as described above.  The Mgb EW is derived in the same way, and the resulting index values are used to identify the closest matching SSP model spectrum.  This model spectrum is then used to derive an estimate of the H$\alpha$ absorption EW, which for practical purposes we define in a narrow 8~\AA\ passband.  This EW is then combined with the measured continuum flux density from the observed spectrum to derive a flux correction for the H$\alpha$ emission line, which was originally measured in a passband of width 8~\AA\ (JP15).  The corrected H$\alpha$ emission line flux is then used to predict the strength of the H$\beta$ emission line, assuming the widely-adopted Case B H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio of 2.85 \citep[e.g.][]{broc71,humm87}, although this assumption is examined further below. The H$\beta$ absorption EW is then corrected for the effect of this predicted emission line, and the new EW used as the basis for the next stage of iteration. In practice, the process converged after 2 or 3 iterations.  The total sizes of the resulting corrections to the measured H$\beta$ EW
 values were between 0.18 and 0.62~\AA, which increased the strength of the H$\beta$ feature by between 13 and 32 per cent.  These corrected H$\beta$ indices are used in the discussion in the remainder of this paper, and are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_sspgrid} and subsequent figures. The measured H$\beta$ absorption indices, after emission-line correction, are listed in column 3 of Table~\ref{tab:hb_indices}.

\begin{table*}
 \begin{minipage}{140mm}
  \caption{Measured H$\beta$ absorption line indices, before and after emission-line correction.}
  \begin{tabular}{lcc}
  \hline
Galaxy and region &  H$\beta$, no corr.   &  H$\beta$, corrected  \\
                  &    \AA                &    \AA                \\
   \hline
NGC~2543, SFD1    &  2.334    &  2.876 \\
NGC~2543, SFD2    &  1.921    &  2.544 \\
NGC~2712, SFD1    &  1.778    &  2.195 \\
NGC~2712, SFD2    &  1.812    &  2.326 \\
NGC~3185, SFD1    &  0.974    &  1.237 \\
NGC~3185, SFD2    &  1.233    &  1.527 \\
NGC~3351, SFD1    &  1.362    &  1.541 \\
NGC~3351, SFD2    &  1.244    &  1.429 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:hb_indices}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}

The intrinsic H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ emission line ratio of 2.85 that was adopted above is used widely in the literature, but generally for regions ionized by hot stars. \citet{ho93}, following \citet{ferl83}, prefer a higher ratio of 3.1 for Low Ionization Nuclear Emission-line Region (LINER) type sources, noting that H$\alpha$ emission strength is boosted in regions dominated by collisional excitation.  Given that the SFD regions in these barred galaxies show LINER-like [NII]/H$\alpha$ ratios (JP15), these higher H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratios may be more appropriate here.  Adopting a ratio of 3.1 reduces the emission-line correction by about 10 per cent, resulting in corrected EW values that are lower by between 0.014 and 0.050~\AA. Extinction will also act to increase the effective H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio, thus weakening this correction and decreasing the corrected absorption EW.  Extinction in these SFD regions is largely unconstrained, but we note that they are visually smooth and show no evidence of patchy dust obscuration, and so we apply no extinction correction.

Given the significant uncertainties in this emission-line correction process, we assume that it contributes an error equal to 50 per cent of the size of the final correction.  This error is much larger than, for example, the changes that would result from adopting any of the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ intrinsic emission line ratios resulting from different stellar and non-stellar processes investigated by \citet{ferl83} and listed in their Table~3.

The absorption-corrected H$\beta$ indices, combined with Mgb metallicity-sensitive indices, are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_sspgrid}.  This shows that the index strengths are matched by SSPs with ages ranging between 3 and 14~Gyr. Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_sspgrid} also indicates that the stellar populations appear to have moderately sub-solar metallicities, with most of the SFD points lying between [Fe/H] of +0.06 and --0.66.  This is slightly surprising for regions towards the centres of intrinsically luminous spiral galaxies, where metallicities similar to solar or somewhat higher might be expected. Given the shape of the SSP age-metallicity grid, shifting the points to somewhat higher metallicities would result in somewhat younger mean ages, but it is still clear that most of the measured points would indicate old stellar populations in these SFD regions, with equivalent SSP ages of several billion years.

\subsection{Extended SF histories with a defined truncation epoch}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{truncspec.ps}
\caption{
Simulated spectra showing the variation in the strength of the
H$\beta$ absorption feature as a function of the time since SF
activity was truncated, for solar metallicity populations.}
\label{fig:trunc_spec}
\end{figure}

One limitation of the above analysis was the comparison with SSP models, which will poorly represent the properties of any components of a real galaxy, where SF histories are likely to be temporally extended and complex.  In this section, we attempt to include, at least to first order, the effects of a more realistic SF history.  We do this by
calculating index strengths from stellar populations with
SF rates that are constant in time over an
interval starting 13~Gyr ago, and ending at a truncation epoch which
we vary from 4~Gyr to 50~Myr ago.  While such a model is clearly a simplification of the true history, this assumption gives a one-parameter set of models which is better suited to the specific question we address here than are, for example, the mass- and luminosity-weighted effective ages of stellar populations resulting from the more sophisticated full spectrum fitting of \citet{sanc11}.

Figure~\ref{fig:trunc_spec}
shows examples of the
modeled spectra, using the BaSTI models and spectral library \citep{perc09}.  The figure shows the decreasing depth of the
H$\beta$ feature as the truncation epoch is pushed back from 50~Myr
(top spectrum) to 4~Gyr (bottom).  This is the same trend in H$\beta$ strength with age as is shown in the SSP models (Fig.~\ref{fig:SSP_spec}), but with EW values overall being lower due to the effects of the oldest stars which are present in all models.
The grid of the H$\beta$ index vs
the Mgb index shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_emcorpluserrors}
quantifies the
variation in H$\beta$ with the epoch of last SF, showing
particularly strong variation over the range 0.1 - 2~Gyr.  This is
well matched to the requirements for discriminating between the
theoretical possibilities outlined in the introduction; if bars typically persist
for only a few rotations, the observations should populate the upper
part of the grid shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_emcorpluserrors}, whereas a continuation of
the current SF pattern for several Gyr should lead to an old
population in the SFD regions, populating the bottom of the diagram.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm,angle=0]{SFD_emcorpluserrors.ps}
\caption{
A grid of indices from BaSTI stellar population models, showing the strong
correlation of H$\beta$ EW with time since truncation
of SF activity.
The grid points and overlaid data points correspond to equivalent
widths of the appropriate features using the same wavelength ranges,
defined in Trager et al. (1998).
The data points are determined from spectra taken
in the SFD
regions on opposite sides of the nucleus of 4 barred galaxies
(Solid square, NGC~2543; open square, NGC~2712; open circle, NGC~3185; solid circle, NGC~3351), and the H$\beta$ index strengths have been corrected for the presence of diffuse line emission.
The dashed line at the bottom of the plot corresponds to SSPs of age 14~Gyr.
}
\label{fig:SFD_emcorpluserrors}
\end{figure}

These observations have yielded age estimates for the two SFD regions in each
of the four barred
galaxies, shown in Fig.
\ref{fig:SFD_emcorpluserrors}.  All eight regions indicate that SF has
been curtailed for at least the last 1~Gyr, and hence that bars are
likely to be long-lived features.  However, significant differences are evident in the ages revealed by our spectroscopic analysis, with the SFD regions in two galaxies (NGC~3185 and NGC~3351) having very old populations, while NGC~2543 and NGC~2712 have evidence for more recent truncation of SF, within the last $\sim$2~Gyr. We discuss the consequences of these findings in the next section.

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

When discussing the implications of these implied SF histories, it is important to stress that we are studying the radial range which lies in the heart of the star-forming disk in unbarred galaxies, as illustrated by Fig.~1 of JP15. This is a key point for this analysis, and has not been addressed in previous studies of stellar populations and SF histories of barred galaxies. To make this point more quantitative, we have estimated the
fraction of total SF that might be expected in an unbarred galaxy in the radial range covered by the extracted SFD slit spectra for each of the 4 galaxies studied. This was done using averaged H$\alpha$ profiles for  unbarred galaxies of the same Hubble $T$-type (Sb or Sa), taken from \citet{jame09}. The resulting fractions are: for NGC~2543, 33 per cent; for NGC~2712, 26 per cent; for NGC~3185, 37 per cent; and for NGC~3351, 15 per cent, with the smaller value for the last galaxy being due to its shorter bar.  Thus it is clearly not the case that we are simply determining the age of the old stellar population expected in bulge regions of galaxies; these observations cover a radial range that in unbarred but otherwise similar galaxies is characterised by disk regions with very vigorous SF activity.

The first finding from our spectroscopic analysis is that the stellar populations in SFD regions can be very old.  This is in agreement with the findings of \citet{sanc11} for four different barred galaxies, although their analysis methods were quite different.  Old stellar populations have also been found {\em within} bars by some studies \citep{pere07, pere09, delo12, delo13}, in general agreement with our results, but note that in this case it is not clear how to relate these ages to the bar age (an old population could have been assembled into a bar morphology very recently).

However, one of our galaxies is consistent with SF having been truncated only 1~Gyr ago, and another between 1 and 2 Gyr ago.  Thus we find a significant range in stellar population properties, even within a small sample of four early-type barred galaxies.  One advantage of the analysis method adopted is that we get two measurements of the SFD stellar populations within each galaxy, on opposite sides of the nucleus.  Given that the reduction of each region is completely independent of all the others (so that, for example, all of the parameters defining the emission-line correction are locally-derived and not averaged across both galaxy regions), it is reassuring to note that the line indices measured are entirely consistent for all of the pairs of spectra within individual galaxies. Thus, we do not find any indications of variation in stellar population properties within any of these four galaxies.  That is not true for the range of index strengths across the full sample of four galaxies, which is much larger than would be expected from measurement errors alone, indicating real differences in population ages or truncation epochs between these galaxies.

The galaxy sample studied here is too small for any formal statistical analysis, but it is instructive to look for correlations between SFD population ages and other galaxy properties.  The youngest population is found for the SFD of NGC~2543 (the two points lying on the 1~Gyr truncation age in Fig.~\ref{fig:SFD_emcorpluserrors}); this is classified as an SBb, with quite vigorous SF in the disk outside the SFD region.  The second youngest is found in NGC~2712, another SBb with very strong disk SF, that is morphologically very similar to NGC~2543.  There is then a significant jump to greater SFD age for NGC~3351, which is also classified as SBb.  The oldest population age is found for NGC~3185, the one galaxy in this sample classified as SBa, and the one that shows weakest (but still clearly detected) disk SF in its H$\alpha$ image (Fig.~\ref{fig:N3185}, lower frame).

Figures 1--4 show that these spectra sample regions that are significantly offset from the main bar axis.  However, there is some variation in this offset, with two galaxies observed with the slit perpendicular to the bar (NGC~2543 and NGC~3351) while NGC~2712 and NGC~3185 were observed at smaller angular offsets of 38$^{\circ}$ and 27$^{\circ}$ respectively.  This is potentially significant, given that the bar models of \citet{wozn07} and \citet{aume15} suggest that significant numbers of young stars may be trapped within the bar. However, there is no sign of such effects in the present sample, and indeed the youngest SFD population is found for NGC~2543, one of the cases where the slit was perpendicular to the bar and no contribution from the bar light can be expected.  Given the small size of the present sample, and the lack of spectra taken very close to the bar axis, we cannot make any strong statements about the predictions of \citet{wozn07} and \citet{aume15}, but this is an important question for future studies of this type.

While we confirm the result of JP15 that the SFD regions of the four galaxies studied have heavily suppressed SF rates, all four galaxies have strong emission-line peaks at their bar centres.  The observations presented in JP15 include the central regions of all four galaxies, although central properties were not discussed in that paper. The observed [NII]/H$\alpha$ central-region line ratios are consistent with expectations for SF in the nucleus of one galaxy (NGC~2543), in central rings in two others (NGC~2712 and NGC~3185), and in both nucleus and central ring for the remaining galaxy (NGC~3351). This confirms the general finding of other studies \citep[e.g.][]{pere00, coel11, elli11} that bars can efficiently induce SF in the central regions of their host galaxies, and we show here that such SF can co-exist with the SFD phenomenon.

Many studies have discussed the possibility of radial migration of stars.  This was first introduced as an effect that is driven by spiral arm patterns at their corotation resonances \citep{sell02,rosk08,loeb11}. Other studies have explored the possible effects of bar--spiral arm coupling on radial migration \citep{deba06, brun11, minc11, minc12, dima13}, although the evidence for strong bar-driven migration is not widely accepted \citep{rosk12}, and \citet{sanc14} argue against strong radial mixing in their study of metallicity gradients in barred and unbarred galaxies. If such radial mixing {\em does} occur, it would complicate the interpretation of the results presented here.  However, any mixing of the young stellar populations from either the central SF peak or the surrounding SF ring into the SFD region would only strengthen the general result we find here, of long-suppressed SF activity within the SFD region itself.

One obvious extension of the analysis presented here would be to look at the stellar populations in the disk outside the SFD, but between HII regions, to determine the characteristic age of the non-star-forming disk population.  This was attempted with the present long-slit data, but did not prove feasible, as any line-free regions were very small and of such low surface brightness that it was impossible to fit any absorption line features in any such disk regions.  This demonstrates the unique nature of the SFD regions as extensive, relatively high surface brightness areas that are free of ongoing star formation.  The analysis of outer disk regions might be possible using integral field units, through the co-addition of spectra covering large areas with the removal of all those showing line emission.

As noted in JP15, the analysis presented here only applies to a particular type of bar, that is
characteristic of early-type spirals and is not found in late types.
Future areas of study include extending this type of analysis to such
later type strongly barred galaxies, to determine whether the bimodality
in bar types noted by, e.g., \citet{nair10} and \citet{hako14} is reflected
in the associated stellar populations. It would also be useful to apply the
methods of the present study to the stellar population found within the
body of the bar itself.  Future studies might also be able to constrain radial
migration effects by looking for age gradients in the outer parts of the SFD, as the star-forming ring is approached.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc_fut_work}

The principal conclusions of this study are as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item We confirm the SF pattern found in our earlier study, for four strongly-barred galaxies, with a central peak and an outer ring both showing strong activity, and an intermediate `desert' where SF is strongly suppressed.
\item It is important to correct appropriately for low-level diffuse line emission, identified in all four of these galaxies; failure to do this results in significantly overestimated population ages.
\item We derive two independent estimates of SFD ages per galaxy, which are internally consistent for each of the four galaxies.
\item Overall we find old stellar populations in SFD regions, indicate that SF was truncated at least several dynamical times ago.
\item However, there is a large range in ages or truncation epochs found across the sample of four galaxies, not consistent with expectations from measurement errors alone.
\item Further work is required to extend this analysis to statistically significant samples of galaxies, covering a wider range of galaxy types, and to constrain complicating effects such as radial migration of stars.
\end{itemize}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The William Herschel and Isaac Newton Telescopes are operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
SMP acknowledges the award of Visiting Researcher status by Liverpool John Moores University.