Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Random Spanning Trees and the Prediction of Weighted Graphs

2012, arXiv (Cornell University)

Abstract

We investigate the problem of sequentially predicting the binary labels on the nodes of an arbitrary weighted graph. We show that, under a suitable parametrization of the problem, the optimal number of prediction mistakes can be characterized (up to logarithmic factors) by the cutsize of a random spanning tree of the graph. The cutsize is induced by the unknown adversarial labeling of the graph nodes. In deriving our characterization, we obtain a simple randomized algorithm achieving in expectation the optimal mistake bound on any polynomially connected weighted graph. Our algorithm draws a random spanning tree of the original graph and then predicts the nodes of this tree in constant expected amortized time and linear space. Experiments on real-world datasets show that our method compares well to both global (Perceptron) and local (label propagation) methods, while being generally faster in practice.

References (37)

  1. N. Alon, C. Avin, M. Koucký, G. Kozma, Z. Lotker, and M.R. Tuttle. Many random walks are faster than one. In Proc. of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures, pages 119-128. Springer, 2008.
  2. M. Belkin, I. Matveeva, and P. Niyogi. Regularization and semi-supervised learning on large graphs. In Proc. of the 17th Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pages 624-638. Springer, 2004.
  3. Y. Bengio, O. Delalleau, and N. Le Roux. Label propagation and quadratic criterion. In Semi-Supervised Learning, pages 193-216. MIT Press, 2006.
  4. A. Blum and S. Chawla. Learning from labeled and unlabeled data using graph mincuts. In Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19-26. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.
  5. A. Blum, J. Lafferty, M. Rwebangira, and R. Reddy. Semi-supervised learning using ran- domized mincuts. In Proc. of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 97-104, 2004.
  6. Table 1: RCV1-10 -Average error rate and F-measure on 4 classes.
  7. A. Broder. Generating random spanning trees. In Proc. of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 442-447. IEEE Press, 1989.
  8. N. Cesa-Bianchi, C. Gentile, and F. Vitale. Fast and optimal prediction of a labeled tree. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory. Omnipress, 2009.
  9. N. Cesa-Bianchi, C. Gentile, F. Vitale, and G. Zappella. Random spanning trees and the pre- diction of weighted graphs. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (27th ICML), 2010.
  10. N. Cesa-Bianchi, C. Gentile, F. Vitale, and G. Zappella. Active learning on trees and graphs. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Learning Theory (23rd COLT), 2010.
  11. H. Chang and D.Y. Yeung. Graph Laplacian kernels for object classification from a sin- gle example. In Proc. IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2011-2016. IEEE Press, 2006.
  12. J. Fakcharoenphol and B. Kijsirikul. Low congestion online routing and an improved mistake bound for online prediction of graph labeling. CoRR, abs/0809.2075, 2008. 48.35 0.61 47.85 0.61 44.78 0.65 41.12 0.68
  13. *WTA+NWRST 23.
  14. Table 2: RCV1-100 -Average error rate and F-measure on 4 classes.
  15. A.-C. Gavin et al. Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature, 415(6868):141-147, 2002.
  16. A. Goldberg and X. Zhu. Seeing stars when there aren't many stars: Graph-based semi- supervised learning for sentiment categorization. In HLT-NAACL 2006 Workshop on Textgraphs: Graph-based algorithms for Natural Language Processing, 2004.
  17. M. Herbster. Exploiting cluster-structure to predict the labeling of a graph. In Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 54-69. Springer, 2008.
  18. M. Herbster and G. Lever. Predicting the labelling of a graph via minimum p-seminorm interpolation. In Proc. of the 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory. Omnipress, 2009.
  19. M. Herbster and M. Pontil. Prediction on a graph with the Perceptron. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21, pages 577-584. MIT Press, 2007.
  20. M. Herbster, M. Pontil, and L. Wainer. Online learning over graphs. In Proc. of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 305-312. ACM Press, 2005.
  21. Table 3: USPS-10 -Average error rate and F-measure on 10 classes.
  22. M. Herbster, G. Lever, and M. Pontil. Online prediction on large diameter graphs. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22, pages 649-656. MIT Press, 2009.
  23. M. Herbster, M. Pontil, and S. Rojas-Galeano. Fast prediction on a tree. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22, pages 657-664. MIT Press, 2009.
  24. T. Ito, T. Chiba, R. Ozawa, M. Yoshida, M. Hattori, and Y. Sakaki. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(8):4569-4574, 2001.
  25. N.J. Krogan et al. Global landscape of protein complexes in the yeast Saccharomyces cere- visiae. Nature, 440:637-643, 2006.
  26. R. Lyons and Y. Peres. Probability on trees and networks. Manuscript, 2009.
  27. G. Pandey, M. Steinbach, R. Gupta, T. Garg, and V. Kumar. Association analysis-based transformations for protein interaction networks: a function prediction case study. In Proc. of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 540-549. ACM Press, 2007.
  28. Table 4: USPS-100 -Average error rate and F-measure on 10 classes.
  29. Yahoo! Research (Barcelona) and Laboratory of Web Algo- rithmics (Univ. of Milan). Web Spam Collection. URL barcelona.research.yahoo.net/webspam/datasets/.
  30. A. Ruepp. The FunCat, a functional annotation scheme for systematic classification of pro- teins from whole genomes. Nucleic Acids Research, 32(18):5539-5545, 2004.
  31. D.A. Spielman and N. Srivastava. Graph sparsification by effective resistances. In Proc. of the 40th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 563-568. ACM Press, 2008.
  32. H. Shin K. Tsuda and B. Schölkopf. Protein functional class prediction with a combined graph. Expert Systems with Applications, 36:3284-3292, 2009.
  33. P. Uetz et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein-protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature, 6770(403):623-627, 2000.
  34. F. Vitale, N. Cesa-Bianchi, C. Gentile, and G. Zappella. See the tree through the lines: the Shazoo algorithm. In Proc. of the 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1584-1592. Curran Associates, 2012.
  35. Table 5: KROGAN -Average error rate and F-measure on 17 classes.
  36. D.B. Wilson. Generating random spanning trees more quickly than the cover time. In Proc. of the 28th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 296-303. ACM Press, 1996.
  37. X. Zhu, Z. Ghahramani, and J. Lafferty. Semi-supervised learning using Gaussian fields and harmonic functions. In ICML Workshop on the Continuum from Labeled to Unlabeled Data in Machine Learning and Data Mining, 2003.