Heterogeneous Consensus Learning via Decision Propagation and Negotiation

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

6/24

Consensus Learning

7/24

Related Work

• Ensemble of Classification Models– Bagging, boosting, ……– Focus on how to construct and combine weak classifiers

• Ensemble of Clustering Models– Derive a consolidated clustering solution

• Semi-supervised (transductive) learning

• Link-based classification– Use link or manifold structure to help classification

– One unlabeled source

• Multi-view learning– Construct a classifier from multiple sources

8/24

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!

9/24

MethodologyStep 1: Group-level predictions

Step 2: Combine multiple models using local weights

How to propagate and negotiate?

How to compute local model weights?

10/24

Group-level Predictions (1)

• Groups:– similarity: percentage of common members– initial labeling: category information from supervised models

11/24

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

12/24

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

13/24

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

– Random• Assign equal weights to all the models

consensus random

14/24

Algorithm and Time Complexity

Compute similarity and local consistency

for each pairs of groups

for each group

iterate f steps

Compute probability estimates based on the weighted average of neighbors

Compute local weights

for each example

for each model

Combine models’ predictions using local weights

O(s2)

O(fcs2)

O(rn)

linear in the number of examples!

15/24

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

16/24

Experiments-Baseline Methods

• Single models– 20 Newsgroup:

• logistic regression, SVM, K-means, min-cut

– Cora• abstracts, citations (with or without a labeled set)

– DBLP• publication titles, links (with or without labels from conferences)

– Yahoo! Movies• Movie ratings and synopses (with or without labels from movies)

• Ensemble approaches– majority-voting classification ensemble – majority-voting clustering ensemble– clustering ensemble on all of the four models

17/24

Experiments-Evaluation Measures

• Classification Accuracy– Clustering algorithms: map each cluster to th

e best possible class label (should get the best accuracy the algorithm can achieve)

• Clustering quality– Normalized mutual information– Get a “true” model from the groudtruth labels– Compute the shared information between th

e “true” model and each algorithm

18/24

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

19/24

Empirical Results-NMI

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

20 Newsgroup Cora DBLP

SC1

SC2

UC1

UC2

SME

UME

MCLA

CLSU

20/24

Empirical Results-

DBLP data

21/24

Empirical Results-Yahoo! Movies

22/24

Empirical Results-Scalability

23/24

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

• Follow-up Work– Algorithm and theory– Applications

24/24

Thanks!

• Any questions?

http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~jinggao3/kdd09clsu.htm

jinggao3@illinois.edu

Office: 2119B