Post on 21-Dec-2015
transcript
Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation
Jing Gao† Wei Fan‡ Yizhou Sun†Jiawei Han†
†University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign‡IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
KDD’09 Paris, France
2/24
Information Explosion
Fan SiteDescriptions
PicturesVideos
Not only at scale, but also at available sources!
Blogs
descriptions reviews
3/24
Multiple Source Classification
Image Categorization Like? Dislike? Research Area
images, descriptions, notes, comments, albums, tags…….
movie genres, cast, director, plots…….
users viewing history, movie ratings…
publication and co-authorship network, published papers, …….
4/24
Model Combination helps!
Some areas share similar keywordsSIGMOD
SDM
ICDM
KDD
EDBT
VLDB
ICML
AAAI
Tom
Jim
Lucy
Mike
Jack
Tracy
Cindy
Bob
Mary
Alice
People may publish in relevant but different areas
There may be cross-discipline co-operations
supervised
unsupervised
Supervised or unsupervised
5/24
Motivation
• Multiple sources provide complementary information– We may want to use all of them to derive better classification
solution
• Concatenation of information sources is impossible– Information sources have different formats
– May only have access to classification or clustering results due to privacy issues
• Ensemble of supervised and unsupervised models– Combine their outputs on the same set of objects – Derive a consolidated solution– Reduce errors made by individual models– More robust and stable
7/24
Problem Formulation
• Principles– Consensus: maximize agreement among
supervised and unsupervised models– Constraints: Label predictions should be close
to the outputs of the supervised models
• Objective function
Consensus Constraints
NP-hard!
8/24
MethodologyStep 1: Group-level predictions
Step 2: Combine multiple models using local weights
How to propagate and negotiate?
How to compute local model weights?
9/24
Group-level Predictions (1)
• Groups:– similarity: percentage of common members– initial labeling: category information from supervised models
10/24
Group-level Predictions (2)
• Principles– Conditional probability estimates smooth over the graph– Not deviate too much from the initial labeling
[0.16 0.16 0.98]
[0.93 0.07 0]
Labeled nodes Unlabeled nodes
11/24
Local Weighting Scheme (1)
• Principles– If M makes more accurate prediction on x,
M’s weight on x should be higher
• Difficulties– “unsupervised” model combination—cannot
use cross-validation
12/24
Local Weighting Scheme (2)• Method
– Consensus• To compute Mi’s weight on x, use M1,…, Mi-1, Mi+1, …,
Mr as the true model, and compute the average accuracy
• Use consistency in x’s neighbors’ label predictions between two models to approximate accuracy
13/24
Experiments-Data Sets• 20 Newsgroup
– newsgroup messages categorization– only text information available
• Cora– research paper area categorization– paper abstracts and citation information available
• DBLP– researchers area prediction– publication and co-authorship network, and publication content– conferences’ areas are known
• Yahoo! Movie– user viewing interest analysis (favored movie types)– movie ratings and synopses– movie genres are known
14/24
Experiments-Baseline Methods
• Single models– logistic regression, SVM, K-means, min-cut
• Ensemble approaches– majority-voting classification ensemble – majority-voting clustering ensemble– clustering ensemble on all of the four models
15/24
Empirical Results -Accuracy
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
20 Newsgroup Cora DBLP
SC1
SC2
UC1
UC2
SME
UME
MCLA
CLSU
16/24
Conclusions• Summary
– We propose to integrate multiple information sources for better classification
– We study the problem of consolidating outputs from multiple supervised and unsupervised models
– The proposed two-step algorithm solve the problem by propagating and negotiating among multiple models
– The algorithm runs in linear time.– Results on various data sets show the improvements
17/24
Thanks!
• Any questions?
http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~jinggao3/kdd09clsu.htm
jinggao3@illinois.edu