Learning Ensembles ofFirst-Order Clauses for Recall-Precision Curves
A Case Study inBiomedical Information Extraction
Mark Goadrich, Louis Oliphant and Jude ShavlikDepartment of Computer Sciences
University of Wisconsin – Madison USA6 Sept 2004
Talk Outline Link Learning and ILP Our Gleaner Approach Aleph Ensembles Biomedical Information Extraction Evaluation and Results Future Work
ILP Domains Object Learning
Trains, Carcinogenesis
Link Learning Learning binary predicates
Link Learning Large skew toward negatives
500 relational objects 5000 positive links means 245,000 negative links
Difficult to measure success Always negative classifier is 98% accurate ROC curves look overly optimistic
Enormous quantity of data 4,285,199,774 web pages indexed by Google PubMed includes over 15 million citations
Our Approach Develop fast ensemble algorithms focused
on recall and precision evaluation Key Ideas of Gleaner
Keep wide range of clauses Create separate theories for different recall ranges
Evaluation Area Under Recall Precision Curve (AURPC) Time = Number of clauses considered
Gleaner - Background Focus evaluation on positive examples
Recall =
Precision =
Rapid Random Restart (Zelezny et al ILP 2002) Stochastic selection of starting clause Time-limited local heuristic search We store variety of clauses (based on recall)
FNTP
TP
FPTP
TP
Gleaner - LearningP
reci
sion
Recall
Create B Bins Generate Clauses Record Best Repeat for K seeds
Gleaner - Combining Combine K clauses per bin
If at least L of K clauses match, call example positive
How to choose L ? L=1 then high recall, low precision L=K then low recall, high precision
Our method Choose L such that ensemble recall matches bin b Bin b’s precision should be higher than any clause in it
We should now have set of high precision rule sets spanning space of recall levels
How to use GleanerP
reci
sion
Recall
Generate Curve User Selects Recall Bin Return Classifications
With Precision Confidence
Recall = 0.50Precision = 0.70
Aleph Ensembles We compare to ensembles of theories Algorithm (Dutra et al ILP 2002)
Use K different initial seeds Learn K theories containing C clauses Rank examples by the number of theories
Need to balance C for high performance Small C leads to low recall Large C leads to converging theories
Aleph Ensembles (100 theories)
0 . 0 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 2 0
0 . 3 0
0 . 4 0
0 . 5 0
0 . 6 0
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0
N u m b e r o f C l a u s e s U s e d P e r T h e o r y
Te
sts
et
AU
RP
C
Biomedical Information Extraction Given: Medical Journal abstracts tagged
with protein localization relations Do: Construct system to extract protein
localization phrases from unseen text
NPL3 encodes a nuclear protein with an RNA recognition motif and similarities to a family of proteins involved in RNA metabolism.
Biomedical Information Extraction Hand-labeled dataset (Ray & Craven ’01)
7,245 sentences from 871 abstracts Examples are phrase-phrase combinations
1,810 positive & 279,154 negative
1.6 GB of background knowledge Structural, Statistical, Lexical and Ontological In total, 200+ distinct background predicates
More info on dataset by Jude Shavlik later
Evaluation Metrics Two dimensions
Area Under Recall-Precision Curve (AURPC)
All curves standardized to cover full recall range
Averaged AURPC over 5 folds
Number of clauses considered
Rough estimate of time Both are “stop anytime”
parallel algorithms
Recall
Pre
cisi
on
1.0
1.0
AURPC Interpolation Convex interpolation in RP space?
Precision interpolation is counterintuitive Example: 1000 positive & 9000 negative
TP FP TP Rate FP Rate Recall Prec
500 500 0.50 0.06 0.50 0.50
1000 9000 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10
Example Counts RP CurvesROC Curves
750 4750 0.75 0.53 0.75 0.14
AURPC Interpolation
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Recall
Pre
cis
ion
Correct Interpolation Incorrect Interpolation
Experimental Methodology Performed five-fold cross-validation Variation of parameters
Gleaner (20 recall bins) # seeds = {25, 50, 75, 100} # clauses = {1K, 10K, 25K, 50K, 100K, 250K, 500K}
Ensembles (0.75 minacc, 35,000 nodes) # theories = {10, 25, 50, 75, 100} # clauses per theory = {1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50}
Results: Testfold 5 at 1,000,000 clauses
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 . 0
R e c a l l
Pre
cis
ion
Ensembles
Gleaner
Results: Gleaner vs Aleph Ensembles
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 5
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 5
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 5
0 . 3 0
0 . 3 5
0 . 4 0
0 . 4 5
0 . 5 0
1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
N u m b e r o f C la u s e s G e n e r a t e d ( L o g a r i t h m ic S c a le )
Te
sts
et
AU
RP
C
G le a n e r A le p h E n s e m b le s
Conclusions Gleaner
Focuses on recall and precision Keeps wide spectrum of clauses Good results in few cpu cycles
Aleph ensembles ‘Early stopping’ helpful Require more cpu cycles
AURPC Useful metric for comparison Interpolation unintuitive
Future Work Improve Gleaner performance over time Explore alternate clause combinations Better understanding of AURPC Search for clauses that optimize AURPC Examine more ILP link-learning datasets Use Gleaner with other ML algorithms
Take-Home Message Definition of Gleaner
One who gathers grain left behind by reapers
Gleaner and ILP Many clauses constructed and evaluated in ILP
hypothesis search We need to make better use of those that aren’t
the highest scoring ones
Thanks, Questions?
Acknowledgements USA NLM Grant 5T15LM007359-02 USA NLM Grant 1R01LM07050-01 USA DARPA Grant F30602-01-2-0571 USA Air Force Grant F30602-01-2-0571 Condor Group David Page Vitor Santos Costa, Ines Dutra Soumya Ray, Marios Skounakis, Mark Craven
Dataset available at (URL in proceedings)ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/machine-learning/shavlik-group/datasets/IE-protein-location
Deleted Scenes Aleph Learning Clause Weighting Sample Gleaner Recall-Precision Curve Sample Extraction Clause Gleaner Algorithm
Director Commentaryon off
Aleph - Learning Aleph learns theories of clauses
(Srinivasan, v4, 2003) Pick a positive seed example and saturate Use heuristic search to find best clause Pick new seed from uncovered positives
and repeat until threshold of positives covered
Theory produces one recall-precision point Learning complete theories is time-consuming Can produce ranking with theory ensembles
Clause Weighting Single Theory Ensemble
rank by how many clauses cover examples
Weight clauses using tuneset statistics CN2 (average precision of matching clauses) Lowest False Positive Rate Score Cumulative
F1 score Recall Precision Diversity
Clause Weighting
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 5
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 5
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 5
0 . 3 0
0 . 3 5
0 . 4 0
0 . 4 5
P r e c i s i o n E q u a l R a n k e d L i s t C N 2W e ig h t in g S c h e m e s
AU
RP
C
Biomedical Information Extraction
NPL3 encodes a nuclear protein with …
verbnoun article adj noun prep
sentence
prepphrase
…verb
phrasenoun
phrasenoun
phrase
alphanumeric marked location
Sample Extraction Clause
P = Protein, L = Location, S = Sentence 29% Recall 34% Precision on testset 1
S
C B
Aarticle
containsalphanumeric
containsalphanumeric
Pnoun
Lnoun
containsmarkedlocation
contains nobetween halfX verb
Gleaner Algorithm Create B equal-sized recall bins For K different seeds
Generate rules using Rapid Random Restart Record best rule (precision x recall)
found for each bin For each recall bin B
Find threshold L of K clauses such thatrecall of “at least L of K clauses match examples”= recall for this bin
Find recall and precision on testset using each bin’s “at least L of K” decision process
Further Results
0 . 0 0
0 . 0 5
0 . 1 0
0 . 1 5
0 . 2 0
0 . 2 5
0 . 3 0
0 . 3 5
0 . 4 0
0 . 4 5
0 . 5 0
1 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
N u m b e r o f C la u s e s G e n e r a t e d ( L o g a r it h m ic S c a le )
Te
sts
et
AU
RP
C
G le a n e r A le p h E n s e m b le s E n s e m b le s 1 K