semi-supervised learning with graphszhuxj/tmp/utah.pdf · •classify sentences into parse trees np...

Semi-Supervised Learning with Graphs

Xiaojin (Jerry) Zhu

School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon University

1

Semi-supervised Learning

• many problems involve classification

• classifiers need labeled data to train

• labeled data scarce, unlabeled data abundant

• Traditional classifiers cannot use unlabeled data.

My interest (semi-supervised learning): Develop classification

methods that can use both labeled and unlabeled data.

2

Motivating example 1: speech recognition

• classify sounds into words

• need sounds / word transcript pairs (labeled data) to train

• hard to obtain: transcription slow.

I 400 times real-time at phonetic level

I 10 times real-time at word level

• unlabeled data: sounds alone, easy to get.

I record the radio

I call center

• unlabeled data useful?

3

Motivating example 2: parsing

• classify sentences into parse trees

NP VP

PN VB NP PP

DET N P NP

DET N

S

I saw a falcon with a telescope

• need sentence / parse tree pairs (treebank, labeled data) to

train, hard to construct treebank (Hwa, 2003):

I English 40,000 sentences, 5 years; Chinese 4,000 sentences, 2 years

• unlabeled data: sentences without annotation, very easy to

get. Useful?

4

Motivating example 3: video surveillance

• classify images into identities

• need image / identity pairs (labeled data) to train

• typically only a few images are labeled

• unlabeled images abundant. Useful?

5

The message

Unlabeled data can improve classification.

6

Why unlabeled data might help

example: classify astronomy vs. travel articles

• articles represented by content word occurrence vectors

• article similarity measured by content word overlap

d1 d3 d4 d2

asteroid • •bright • •comet •

yearzodiac

...airport

bikecamp •

yellowstone • •zion •

7

Why labeled data alone might fail

d1 d3 d4 d2

asteroid •bright •comet

yearzodiac •

...airport •

bike •camp

yellowstone •zion •

• no overlap!

• tends to happen when labeled data is scarce

8

Unlabeled data are stepping stones

d1 d5 d6 d7 d3 d4 d8 d9 d2

asteroid •bright • •comet • •

year • •zodiac • •

...airport •

bike • •camp • •

yellowstone • •zion •

• observe direct similarity from features: d1 ∼ d5, d5 ∼ d6 etc.

• assume similar features ⇒ same label

• labels propagate via unlabeled articles, indirect similarity

9

Unlabeled data are stepping stones

• arrange l labeled and u unlabeled(=test) points in a graph

I nodes: the n = l + u points

I edges: the direct similarity Wij, e.g. number of overlapping words.(in general: a decreasing function of the distance ||xi − xj||)

• want to infer indirect similarity (with all paths)

d1

d2

d4

d3

10

One way to use labeled and unlabeled data(Zhu and Ghahramani, 2002)

• input: n× n graph weights W

labels Yl ∈ {0, 1}l

• create matrix Pij = Wij/∑

Wi.

• repeat until f converges

I clamp labeled data fl = Yl

I propagate f ← Pf

• f converges to a unique solution, the harmonic function.

0 ≤ f ≤ 1, “soft labels”

11

An electric network interpretation(Zhu, Ghahramani and Lafferty, ICML2003)

• harmonic function f is the voltage at the nodes

I edges are resistors with R = 1/W

I 1 volt battery connects to labeled nodes

• indirect similarity: similar voltage if many paths exist

+1 volt

wijR =ij

1

1

0

12

Closed form solution for the harmonic function

• define diagonal degree matrix D, Dii =∑

Wi·define graph Laplacian matrix ∆ = D −W

fu = −∆uu−1∆ulYl

• ∆ graph version of the continuous Laplacian operator

∇2 = ∂2

∂x2 + ∂2

∂y2 + ∂2

∂z2

• harmonic: ∆f = 0 with Dirichlet boundary conditions on

labeled data

• currents in-flow = out-flow at any node (Kirchoff’s law)

• average of neighbors: fu(i) =∑

j∼i Wijf(j)∑j∼i Wij

13

Text categorization with harmonic functions

accuracy

baseball PC religion

hockey Mac atheism

50 labeled articles, about 2000 unlabeled articles. 10NN graph.

14

Digit recognition with harmonic functions

• pixel-wise Euclidean distance

not similar indirectly similar

with stepping stones

15

Digit recognition with harmonic functions

accuracy

1 vs. 2 10 digits

50 labeled images, about 4000 unlabeled images, 10NN graph

16

Practical concerns about harmonic functions

• does it scale?

I closed form involves matrix inversion fu = −∆uu−1∆ulYl

I O(u3), e.g. millions of crawled web pages

• solution 1: use iterative methods

I the label propagation algorithm (slow)

I loopy belief propagation

I conjugate gradient

• solution 2: reduce problem size

I use a random small unlabeled subset (Delalleau et al. 2005)

I harmonic mixtures

17

Harmonic mixtures(Zhu and Lafferty, 2005)

• fit unlabeled data with a mixture model, e.g.

I Gaussian mixtures for images

I multinomial mixtures for documents

• use EM or other methods

• M mixture components, here

M = 30 � u ≈ 1000

• learn soft labels for the mixture

components, not the unlabeled

points

18

Harmonic mixtureslearn labels for mixture components

• assume mixture component labels λ1, · · · , λM

• labels on unlabeled points determined by the mixture model

I The mixture model defines responsibility R: Rim = p(m|xi)

I f(i) =∑M

m=1 Rimλm

• learn λ such that f is closest to harmonic

I convex optimization

I closed form solution λ = −(R>∆uuR

)−1R>∆ulYl

19

Harmonic mixtures

−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5−2.5

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

mixture component labels λ follow the graph

20

Harmonic mixturescomputational savings

• computation on unlabeled data

I harmonic mixtures

fu = −R(R>∆uuR︸ ︷︷ ︸M×M

)−1R>∆ulYl

I original harmonic function

fu = −(∆uu︸︷︷︸u×u

)−1∆ulYl

• harmonic mixtures O(M3), much cheaper than O(u3)

Harmonic mixtures can handle large problems.

21

From harmonic functions to kernels

• harmonic functions too specialized?

• I will show you the kernel behind harmonic function

I general, important concept in machine learning.

I used in many learning algorithms, e.g. support vector machines

I on the graph: symmetric, positive semi-definite n× n matrix

• I will then give you an even better kernel.

22

The kernel behind harmonic functions

K = ∆−1

• covariance matrix

• Kij = indirect similarity

I The direct similarity Wij may be small

I But Kij will be large if many paths between i, j

• K can be used with many kernel machines

I K + support vector machine = semi-supervised SVM

23

Kernels should encourage smooth eigenvectors

• graph spectrum ∆ =∑n

k=1 λkφkφ>k

• small eigenvalue, smooth eigenvector∑i∼j Wij(φk(i)− φk(j))2 = λk

• smooth eigenvectors good for semi-supervised learning

• kernels encourage smooth eigenvectors with large weights

Laplacian ∆ =∑

k λkφkφ>k

harmonic kernel K = ∆−1 =∑

k1λk

φkφ>k

24

General semi-supervised kernels

• ∆−1 not the only semi-supervised kernel, may not be the best

• General principle for creating semi-supervised kernels

K =∑

i r(λi)φiφ>i

• r(λ) should be large when λ is small, to encourage smooth

eigenvectors.

• Specific choices of r() lead to known kernels

I harmonic function kernel r(λ) = 1/λ

I diffusion kernel r(λ) = exp(−σ2λ)I random walk kernel r(λ) = (α− λ)p

• Is there a best r()? Yes, as measured by kernel alignment.

25

Alignment measures kernel quality

• measures kernel by its alignment to the labeled data Yl

align(K, Yl) =〈Kll, YlY

>l 〉

‖ Kll ‖ · ‖ YlY >l ‖

• extension of cosine angle between vectors

• high alignment related to good generalization performance

• leads to a convex optimization problem

26

Finding the best kernel(Zhu, Kandola, Ghahramani and Lafferty, NIPS2004)

• the order constrained semi-supervised kernel

max r align(K, Yl)subject to K =

∑i riφiφ

>i

r1 ≥ · · · ≥ rn ≥ 0

• order constraints r1 ≥ · · · ≥ rn encourage smoothness

• convex optimization

• r nonparametric

27

The order constrained kernel improvesalignment and accuracy

text categorization (religion vs. atheism), 50 labeled and 2000

unlabeled articles.

• alignment

kernel order harmonic RBF

alignment 0.31 0.17 0.04

• accuracy with support vector machines

kernel order harmonic RBF

accuracy 84.5 80.4 69.3

We now have good kernels for semi-supervised learning.

28

Other research (1)Graph hyperparameter learning

• what if we don’t know Wij?

• set up hyperparameters Wij = exp(−

∑d

(xid−xjd)2

αd

)• learn α with Bayesian evidence maximization

100

150

200

250

100

150

200

250

126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

average 7 average 9 learned α

29

Other research (2)Sequences and other structured data

(Lafferty, Zhu and Liu, 2004)

y’

x’

y

x

• what if x1 · · ·xn form sequences?

speech, natural language

processing, biosequence analysis,

etc.

• conditional random fields (CRF)

• kernel CRF

• kernel CRF + semi-supervised

kernels

30

Other research (3)Active learning

(Zhu, Lafferty and Ghahramani, 2003b)

• what if the computer can ask for labels?

• smart queries: not necessarily the most ambiguous points

01

a 0.5

B 0.4

• active learning + semi-supervised learning, fast algorithm

31

Related work in semi-supervised learning

based on different assumptions

method assumptions references

graph similar feature, same label this talk

mincuts (Blum and Chawla, 2001)

normalized Laplacian (Zhou et al., 2003)

regularization (Belkin et al., 2004)

mixture model, EM generative model (Nigam et al., 2000)

transductive SVM low density separation (Joachims, 1999)

co-training feature split (Blum and Mitchell, 1998)

Semi-supervised learning has so far received relatively little attention in statisticsliterature.

32

Some key contributions

• harmonic function formulations for semi-supervised learning

• solving large scale problems with harmonic mixtures

• semi-supervised kernels by spectral transformation of the

graph Laplacian

• kernelizing conditional random fields

• combining active learning and semi-supervised learning

33

Summary

Unlabeled data can improve classification.

The methods have reached the stage where we canapply them to real-world tasks.

34

Future Plans

• continue the research on semi-supervised learning

I structured data

I ranking

I clustering

I explore different assumptions

• application to human language tasks

I speech recognition: acoustic and language modeling

I document categorization

I information extraction

I sentiment analysis

I social networks

35

Future Plans

• explore novel machine learning approaches for

I text mixed with other modalities, e.g. images

I speech and multimodal user interfaces

I graphics

I robotics

• collaboration

36

Thank You

37

References

M. Belkin, I. Matveeva and P. Niyogi. Regularization and Semi-supervisedLearning on Large Graphs. COLT 2004.A. Blum and S. Chawla. Learning from Labeled and Unlabeled Data usingGraph Mincuts. ICML 2001.A. Blum, T. Mitchell. Combining Labeled and Unlabeled Data with Co-training.COLT 1998.O. Delalleau, Y. Bengio, N. Le Roux. Efficient Non-Parametric FunctionInduction in Semi-Supervised Learning. AISTAT 2005.R. Hwa. A Continuum of Bootstrapping Methods for Parsing Natural Languages.2003.T. Joachims, Transductive inference for text classification using support vectormachines. ICML 1999.K. Nigam, A. McCallum, S Thrun, T. Mitchell. Text Classification from Labeledand Unlabeled Documents using EM. Machine Learning. 2000.D. Zhou, O. Bousquet, T.N. Lal, J. Weston, B. Schlkopf. Learning with Localand Global Consistency. NIPS 2003.X. Zhu, J. Lafferty. Harmonic Mixtures. 2005. submitted.X. Zhu, Jaz Kandola, Z. Ghahramani, J. Lafferty. Nonparametric Transforms of

38

Graph Kernels for Semi-Supervised Learning. NIPS 2004.J. Lafferty, X. Zhu, Y. Liu. Kernel Conditional Random Fields: Representationand Clique Selection. ICML 2004.X. Zhu, Z. Ghahramani, J. Lafferty. Semi-Supervised Learning Using GaussianFields and Harmonic Functions. ICML 2003.X. Zhu, J. Lafferty, Z. Ghahramani. Combining Active Learning and Semi-Supervised Learning Using Gaussian Fields and Harmonic Functions. ICML2003 workshop.X. Zhu, Z. Ghahramani. Learning from Labeled and Unlabeled Data with LabelPropagation. CMU-CALD-02-106, 2002.

39

40

41

42

The probabilistic model behind harmonic function

• define a random field p(f) ∝ exp (−E(f))

• energy E(f) =∑

i∼j Wij(fi − fj)2 = f>∆f

• low energy means good label propagation

E(f) = 4 E(f) = 2 E(f) = 1

• if f ∈ {0, 1} discrete, standard Markov random fields

(Boltzmann machines), inference hard

43

The probabilistic model behind harmonic functionGaussian random fields(Zhu, Ghahramani and Lafferty, ICML2003)

• continuous relaxation f ∈ R ⇒ Gaussian random field

• Gaussian random field p(f) is a n-dimensional Gaussian with

precision (inverse covariance) matrix ∆.

p(f) ∝ exp (−E(f)) = exp(−f>∆f

)• harmonic functions are the mean of Gaussian random fields

• Gaussian random fields = Gaussian processes on finite data

44

A random walk interpretationof harmonic functions

• harmonic function fi = P (hit label 1 | start from i)

I random walk from node i to j with probability Pij

I stop if we hit a labeled node

• indirect similarity: random walks have same fate

1

0

i

45

Graph spectrum ∆ =∑n

i=1 λiφiφ>i

46

Learning component label with EM

−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5−2.5

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Labels for the components do not follow the graph.(Nigam et al., 2000)

47