Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.

Published byClarissa Boone Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1

2  Introduction  Network data  Traditional VS Networked data Classification  Collective Classification  ICA  Problem  Our Method  Collective Inference With Ambiguous Node (CIAN)  Experiments  Conclusion 2

3  traditional data:  instances are independent of each other  network data:  instances are maybe related to each other  application:  emails  web page  paper citation independent related 3

4 4

5  traditional VS network data classification 5 F D G E C B H A 1 2 F D G E C B H A 1 2 B Class: 1 2 : Class 1

6  To classify interrelated instances using content features and link features. 6 1 +2 A 1 B C D E 2 1 1 0 0 1/2 1/2 0 1 2 link featureclass1class2class3 Binary Count Proportion 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1/2 1/2 0 D:E: We use :

7  ICA : Iterative Classification Algorithm 7 Initial : Training local classifier use content features to predict unlabel instances Iterative { for predict each unlabeled instance { set unlabeled instance ’s link feature use local classifier to predict unlabeled instance } } step1 step2

8 8 Training data: 2/3 0 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 3 A: 1 2 2 A E 1 1 B 1 C D F 1 G 3 H 2 1 2 3 3 Class : 1 2 3 unlabel data: training data: 1/2 1/2 0 1/4 1/2 1/4 2 2 B: 3 I

9  label the wrong class  judge the label with difficulty  make a mistake 9 2 1 1 A B 2 2 D C E F G content feature a.b. womanmanage≤20age>20 0101 class non-smokingsmoking 12 1 1 or 2 ? 1

10 10 1 1 1 A unlabel data: training data: 1 1 1 C 1 2 22 A True class : B 1 C 1 2 D Training data 2/3 1/3 0 A: 1 1 E F G B 2 H - Ambiguous C: 1 I 2 J

11  Make a new prediction for neighbors of unlabeled instance  Use probability to compute link feature  Retrain the CC classifier 11

12  compute link feature  use probability 12 A 1 2 3 ( 1, 80%) ( 2, 60%) ( 3, 70%) Our method: Class 1 : 80/(80+60+70) Class 2 : 60/(80+60+70) Class 3 : 70/(80+60+70) General method : Class 1 : 1/3 Class 2 : 1/3 Class 3 : 1/3

13 13 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 C 2 2 E F G B 2 H - Ambiguous 22 A True class : B 1 C D To predict unlabeled instance ’s neighbors again. ( 1, 70%) ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 70%) ( 2, 60%) ( 2, 80%) predict again 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 C 2 2 E F G B 2 H - Noise D ( 1, 70%) ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 70%) ( 2, 90%) ( 2, 80%) predict again B is ambiguous node. B is noise node.

14  To predict unlabeled instance ’s neighbors again  first iteration needs to predict again  difference between original and predict label : ▪ This iteration doesn’t to adopt ▪ Next iteration need to predict again  similarity between original and predict label : ▪ Average the probability ▪ Next iteration doesn’t need to predict again 14 A 12 ( 1, 80%) ( 2, 60%) ( 2, 80%)( 2, 60%) ( 2, 70%) ( 2, 60%) 1 new prediction B C Example:

15 15 2 w x y 3 z 1 ( 1, 60%) ( 2, 70%) ( 3, 60%) ( 2, 80%) ( 2, 70%) new prediction ( 2, 75%) ( 3, 60%) ( ?, ??%) link feature Class 1Class 2Class 3 original0.3150.3680.315 Method A0.270.4050.324 Method B00.6920.307 Method C00.5550.444 x: Method A : (1, 50%) Method B : (2, 60%) Method C : (1, 0%) 2 x’s True label : 2 x is ambiguous ( or noise) node: Method B >Method C > Method A x is not ambiguous ( or noise) node: Method A >Method C > Method B Method A & Method B is too extreme. So we choose the Method C. not adopt change class not change class -Ambiguous

16 16 Accuracy

17  Retrain CC classifier 17 ( 3, 70%) 1 + A B C D E 2 1 1 +2 A 3 B C D E 2 1 ( 1, 90%) ( 2, 60%) ( 2, 70%) ( 1, 80%) retrain Initial ( ICA )

18 18 1 1 1 A B 1 1 1 C 2 -Ambiguous 2 1 ( 2, 60%) ( 1, 80%) 2 ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 80%) ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 70%) predict again ( 2, 60%) ( 1, 60%) D 22 A True label: B 1 C Training data E F G 1/2 1/2 0 Our: 2 unlabel data: training data: B: ( 1, 60%) ( 2, 80%) 2 ICA:

19 19 1 1 1 A B 1 1 1 C 2 - Noise 2 1 ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 80%) 2 ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 80%) ( 2, 80%) ( 1, 70%) predict again ( 2, 70%) ( 1, 70%) D 22 A True label: B 1 C Training data E F G 1/2 1/2 0 Our: 2 unlabel data: training data: B: ( 1, 60%) ( 2, 80%) 2 ICA:

20  CIAN : Collective Inference With Ambiguous Node 20 Initial : Training local classifier use content features to predict unlabel instances Iterative { for predict each unlabel instance { for nb unlabeled instance ’s neighbors{ if(need to predict again) (class label, probability ) = local classifier(nb) } set unlabel instance ’s link feature (class label, probability ) = local classifier(A) } retrain local classifier } step1 step2 step3 step4 step5

21 21 CharacteristicsCoraCiteSeerWebKB- texas WebKB- washington Instances 27083312187230 Class labels 7655 Link number 47325429328446 Content features 143337031703 Link features 7655

22 22 CharacteristicsCoraCiteSeerWebKB- texas WebKB- washington Instances 27083312187230 Max ambiguous nodes (NB) 4295905250 Max ambiguous nodes (SVM) 3563652031 Training data 15002000100120 Iteration 5555 fixed argument ‧ Compare with CO 、 ICA 、 CIAN

23  1. misclassified nodes  Proportion of misclassified nodes (0%~30%, 80%)  2. ambiguous nodes  NB vs SVM  3. misclassified and Ambiguous nodes  Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes (0%~30%, 80%)  4. iteration & stable  number of iterations 23

24  Cora 24 0% 4.52.5 10% 3.23.3 20% 2.73.9 30% 2.34.2

25  CiteSeer 25 0% 3.60.2 10% 1.91.3 20% 1.31.8 30% 1.22.1

26  WebKB-texas 26 0% 1.40.3 10% 1.50.9 20% 11.5 30% 0.42

27  WebKB-washington 27 0% 1.50.9 10% 1.4 20% 11.9 30% 0.82.2

28  80% of misclassified nodes 28

29  Cora 29 Max ambiguous nodes : 429Max ambiguous nodes : 356

30  CiteSeer 30 Max ambiguous nodes : 590Max ambiguous nodes : 365

31  WebKB-texas 31 Max ambiguous nodes : 52 Max ambiguous nodes : 20

32  WebKB-washington 32 Max ambiguous nodes : 33 Max ambiguous nodes : 31

33 CharacteristicsCoraCiteSeerWebKB- texas WebKB- washington Instances 27083312187230 Max ambiguous nodes (NB) 4295905250 Max ambiguous nodes (SVM) 3563652031 The same ambiguous nodes 1571641517 The proportion of the same ambiguous nodes (NB) 36.5%27.7%28.8%34% The proportion of the same ambiguous nodes (SVM) 44.1%44.9%75%54.8% 33 ‧ How much the same ambiguous nodes between NB and SVM?

34  Cora 34 10% 6.31.5 20% 6.72 30% 6.72.3

35  CiteSeer 35 10% 2.20.9 20% 1.11.7 30% 2.22.3

36  WebKB-texas 36 10% 1.81 20% 1.81.4 30% 1.43

37  WebKB-washington 37 10% 0.51.8 20% 1.22.4 30% 1.85.2

38  80% of misclassified and ambiguous nodes 38

39 39 ‧ When the accuracy of ICA is lower than CO ?

40  Cora 40

41  CiteSeer 41

42  WebKB-texas 42

43  WebKB-washington 43

Download ppt "Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1."

Similar presentations

PEBL: Web Page Classification without Negative Examples Hwanjo Yu, Jiawei Han, Kevin Chen- Chuan Chang IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING,

PEBL: Web Page Classification without Negative Examples Hwanjo Yu, Jiawei Han, Kevin Chen- Chuan Chang IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING,
Learning Relational Probability Trees Jennifer Neville David Jensen Lisa Friedland Michael Hay Presented by Andrew Tjang.

Learning Relational Probability Trees Jennifer Neville David Jensen Lisa Friedland Michael Hay Presented by Andrew Tjang.
Sparsification and Sampling of Networks for Collective Classification

Sparsification and Sampling of Networks for Collective Classification
Co Training Presented by: Shankar B S DMML Lab 05-11-2007.

Co Training Presented by: Shankar B S DMML Lab
Ensemble Learning Reading: R. Schapire, A brief introduction to boosting.

Ensemble Learning Reading: R. Schapire, A brief introduction to boosting.
+ Multi-label Classification using Adaptive Neighborhoods Tanwistha Saha, Huzefa Rangwala and Carlotta Domeniconi Department of Computer Science George.

+ Multi-label Classification using Adaptive Neighborhoods Tanwistha Saha, Huzefa Rangwala and Carlotta Domeniconi Department of Computer Science George.
On-line learning and Boosting

On-line learning and Boosting
Data Mining Classification: Alternative Techniques

Data Mining Classification: Alternative Techniques
Universal Learning over Related Distributions and Adaptive Graph Transduction Erheng Zhong †, Wei Fan ‡, Jing Peng*, Olivier Verscheure ‡, and Jiangtao.

Universal Learning over Related Distributions and Adaptive Graph Transduction Erheng Zhong †, Wei Fan ‡, Jing Peng*, Olivier Verscheure ‡, and Jiangtao.
Semi-supervised Learning Rong Jin. Semi-supervised learning  Label propagation  Transductive learning  Co-training  Active learning.

Semi-supervised Learning Rong Jin. Semi-supervised learning  Label propagation  Transductive learning  Co-training  Active learning.
Relational Learning with Gaussian Processes By Wei Chu, Vikas Sindhwani, Zoubin Ghahramani, S.Sathiya Keerthi (Columbia, Chicago, Cambridge, Yahoo!) Presented.

Relational Learning with Gaussian Processes By Wei Chu, Vikas Sindhwani, Zoubin Ghahramani, S.Sathiya Keerthi (Columbia, Chicago, Cambridge, Yahoo!) Presented.
Multiple Criteria for Evaluating Land Cover Classification Algorithms Summary of a paper by R.S. DeFries and Jonathan Cheung-Wai Chan April, 2000 Remote.

Multiple Criteria for Evaluating Land Cover Classification Algorithms Summary of a paper by R.S. DeFries and Jonathan Cheung-Wai Chan April, 2000 Remote.
Co-Training and Expansion: Towards Bridging Theory and Practice Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, Ke Yang Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science.

Co-Training and Expansion: Towards Bridging Theory and Practice Maria-Florina Balcan, Avrim Blum, Ke Yang Carnegie Mellon University, Computer Science.
Ensemble Learning: An Introduction

Ensemble Learning: An Introduction
Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation Jing Gao † Wei Fan ‡ Yizhou Sun † Jiawei Han † †University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation Jing Gao † Wei Fan ‡ Yizhou Sun † Jiawei Han † †University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation Jing Gao† Wei Fan‡ Yizhou Sun†Jiawei Han† †University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation Jing Gao† Wei Fan‡ Yizhou Sun†Jiawei Han† †University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Oregon State University – CS539 PRMs Learning Probabilistic Models of Link Structure Getoor, Friedman, Koller, Taskar.

Oregon State University – CS539 PRMs Learning Probabilistic Models of Link Structure Getoor, Friedman, Koller, Taskar.
Co-training LING 572 Fei Xia 02/21/06. Overview Proposed by Blum and Mitchell (1998) Important work: –(Nigam and Ghani, 2000) –(Goldman and Zhou, 2000)

Co-training LING 572 Fei Xia 02/21/06. Overview Proposed by Blum and Mitchell (1998) Important work: –(Nigam and Ghani, 2000) –(Goldman and Zhou, 2000)
Semi-supervised Learning Rong Jin. Semi-supervised learning  Label propagation  Transductive learning  Co-training  Active learing.

Semi-supervised Learning Rong Jin. Semi-supervised learning  Label propagation  Transductive learning  Co-training  Active learing.
Online Stacked Graphical Learning Zhenzhen Kou +, Vitor R. Carvalho *, and William W. Cohen + Machine Learning Department + / Language Technologies Institute.

Online Stacked Graphical Learning Zhenzhen Kou +, Vitor R. Carvalho *, and William W. Cohen + Machine Learning Department + / Language Technologies Institute.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google