File size: 77,959 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 | {
"paper_id": "P13-1034",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:33:02.523224Z"
},
"title": "Scaling Semi-supervised Naive Bayes with Feature Marginals",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Lucas",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Northwestern University",
"location": {
"addrLine": "2133 Sheridan Road Evanston",
"postCode": "60208",
"region": "IL"
}
},
"email": "mlucas@u.northwestern.edu"
},
{
"first": "Doug",
"middle": [],
"last": "Downey",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Northwestern University",
"location": {
"addrLine": "2133 Sheridan Road Evanston",
"postCode": "60208",
"region": "IL"
}
},
"email": "ddowney@eecs.northwestern.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods augment standard machine learning (ML) techniques to leverage unlabeled data. SSL techniques are often effective in text classification, where labeled data is scarce but large unlabeled corpora are readily available. However, existing SSL techniques typically require multiple passes over the entirety of the unlabeled data, meaning the techniques are not applicable to large corpora being produced today.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P13-1034",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods augment standard machine learning (ML) techniques to leverage unlabeled data. SSL techniques are often effective in text classification, where labeled data is scarce but large unlabeled corpora are readily available. However, existing SSL techniques typically require multiple passes over the entirety of the unlabeled data, meaning the techniques are not applicable to large corpora being produced today.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In this paper, we show that improving marginal word frequency estimates using unlabeled data can enable semi-supervised text classification that scales to massive unlabeled data sets. We present a novel learning algorithm, which optimizes a Naive Bayes model to accord with statistics calculated from the unlabeled corpus. In experiments with text topic classification and sentiment analysis, we show that our method is both more scalable and more accurate than SSL techniques from previous work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Semi-supervised Learning (SSL) is a Machine Learning (ML) approach that utilizes large amounts of unlabeled data, combined with a smaller amount of labeled data, to learn a target function (Zhu, 2006; Chapelle et al., 2006) . SSL is motivated by a simple reality: the amount of available machine-readable data is exploding, while human capacity for hand-labeling data for any given ML task remains relatively constant. Experiments in text classification and other domains have demonstrated that by leveraging unlabeled data, SSL techniques improve machine learning performance when human input is limited (e.g., (Nigam et al., 2000; Mann and McCallum, 2010) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 200,
"text": "(Zhu, 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 223,
"text": "Chapelle et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 612,
"end": 632,
"text": "(Nigam et al., 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 657,
"text": "Mann and McCallum, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "However, current SSL techniques have scalability limitations. Typically, for each target concept to be learned, a semi-supervised classifier is trained using iterative techniques that execute multiple passes over the unlabeled data (e.g., Expectation-Maximization (Nigam et al., 2000) or Label Propagation (Zhu and Ghahramani, 2002) ). This is problematic for text classification over large unlabeled corpora like the Web: new target concepts (new tasks and new topics of interest) arise frequently, and performing even a single pass over a large corpus for each new target concept is intractable.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 264,
"end": 284,
"text": "(Nigam et al., 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 332,
"text": "(Zhu and Ghahramani, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we present a new SSL text classification approach that scales to large corpora. Instead of utilizing unlabeled examples directly for each given target concept, our approach is to precompute a small set of statistics over the unlabeled data in advance. Then, for a given target class and labeled data set, we utilize the statistics to improve a classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Specifically, we introduce a method that extends Multinomial Naive Bayes (MNB) to leverage marginal probability statistics P (w) of each word w, computed over the unlabeled data. The marginal statistics are used as a constraint to improve the class-conditional probability estimates P (w|+) and P (w|\u2212) for the positive and negative classes, which are often noisy when estimated over sparse labeled data sets. We refer to the technique as MNB with Frequency Marginals (MNB-FM).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In experiments with large unlabeled data sets and sparse labeled data, we find that MNB-FM is both faster and more accurate on average than standard SSL methods from previous work, including Label Propagation, MNB with Expectation-Maximization,, and the recent Semisupervised Frequency Estimate (SFE) algorithm (Su et al., 2011) . We also analyze how MNB-FM improves accuracy, and find that surprisingly MNB-FM is especially useful for improving classconditional probability estimates for words that never occur in the training set.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 311,
"end": 328,
"text": "(Su et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The paper proceeds as follows. We formally define the task in Section 2. Our algorithm is defined in Section 3. We present experimental results in Section 4, and analysis in Section 5. We discuss related work in Section 6 and conclude in Section 7 with a discussion of future work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We consider a semi-supervised classification task, in which the goal is to produce a mapping from an instance space X consisting of T -tuples of non-negative integer-valued features w = (w 1 , . . . , w T ), to a binary output space Y = {\u2212, +}. In particular, our experiments will focus on the case in which the w i 's represent word counts in a given document, in a corpus of vocabulary size T .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We assume the following inputs:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A set of zero or more labeled documents",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "D L = {(w d , y d )|d = 1, . . . , n}, drawn i.i.d.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "from a distribution P (w, y) for w \u2208 X and y \u2208 Y.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 A large set of unlabeled documents D U = {(w d )|d = n + 1, . . . , n + u} drawn from the marginal distribution P (w) = y P (w, y).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The goal of the task is to output a classifer f : X \u2192 Y that performs well in predicting the classes of given unlabeled documents. The metrics of evaluation we focus on in our experiments are detailed in Section 4.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Our semi-supervised technique utilizes statistics computed over the labeled corpus, denoted as follows. We use N + w to denote the sum of the occurrences of word w over all documents in the positive class in the labeled data D L . Also, let N + = n w\u2208D L N + w be the sum value of all word counts in the labeled positive documents. The count of the remaining words in the positive documents is represented as N",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "+ \u00acw = N + \u2212 N + w . The quantities N \u2212 , N \u2212",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "w , and N \u2212 \u00acw are defined similarly for the negative class.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We now introduce our algorithm, which scalably utilizes large unlabeled data stores for classifica-tion tasks. The technique builds upon the multinomial Naive Bayes model, and is denoted as MNB with Feature Marginals (MNB-FM).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB with Feature Marginals",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In the text classification setting , each feature value w d represents count of observations of word w in document d. MNB makes the simplifying assumption that word occurrences are conditionally independent of each other given the class (+ or \u2212) of the example. Formally, let the probability P (w|+) of the w in the positive class be denoted as \u03b8 + w . Let P (+) denote the prior probability that a document is of the positive class, and P (\u2212) = 1 \u2212 P (+) the prior for the negative class. Then MNB represents the class probability of an example as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "P (+|d) = w\u2208d (\u03b8 + w ) w d P (+) w\u2208d (\u03b8 \u2212 w ) w d P (\u2212) + w\u2208d (\u03b8 + w ) w d P (+)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(1) MNB estimates the parameters \u03b8 + w from the corresponding counts in the training set. The maximum-likelihood estimate of \u03b8 + w is N + w /N + , and to prevent zero-probability estimates we employ \"add-1\" smoothing (typical in MNB) to obtain the estimate:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b8 + w = N + w + 1 N + + |T | .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "After MNB calculates \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w from the training set for each feature in the feature space, it can then classify test examples using Equation 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "MNB-FM attempts to improve MNB's estimates of \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w , using statistics computed over the unlabeled data. Formally, MNB-FM leverages the equality:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P (w) = \u03b8 + w P t (+) + \u03b8 \u2212 w P t (\u2212)",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The left-hand-side of Equation 2, P (w), represents the probability that a given randomly drawn token from the unlabeled data happens to be the word w. We write P t (+) to denote the probability that a randomly drawn token (i.e. a word occurrence) from the corpus comes from the positive class. Note that P t (+) can differ from P (+), the prior probability that a document is positive, due to variations in document length. P t (\u2212) is defined similarly for the negative class. MNB-FM is motivated by the insight that the left-hand-side of Equation 2 can be estimated in advance, without knowledge of the target class, simply by counting the number of tokens of each word in the unlabeled data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "MNB-FM then uses this improved estimate of P (w) as a constraint to improve the MNB parameters on the right-hand-side of Equation 2. We note that P t (+) and P t (\u2212), even for a small training set, can typically be estimated reliably-every token in the training data serves as an observation of these quantities. However, for large and sparse feature spaces common in settings like text classification, many features occur in only a small fraction of examples-meaning \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w must be estimated from only a handful of observations. MNB-FM attempts to improve the noisy estimates \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w utilizing the robust estimate for P (w) computed over unlabeled data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Specifically, MNB-FM proceeds by assuming the MLEs for P (w) (computed over unlabeled data), P t (+), and P t (\u2212) are correct, and reestimates \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w under the constraint in Equation 2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "First, the maximum likelihood estimates of \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w given the training data D L are:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "arg max \u03b8 + w ,\u03b8 \u2212 w P (D L |\u03b8 + w , \u03b8 \u2212 w ) = arg max \u03b8 + w ,\u03b8 \u2212 w \u03b8 +(N + w ) w (1 \u2212 \u03b8 + w ) (N + \u00acw ) \u03b8 \u2212(N \u2212 w ) w (1 \u2212 \u03b8 \u2212 w ) (N \u2212 \u00acw ) = arg max \u03b8 + w ,\u03b8 \u2212 w N + w ln(\u03b8 + w ) + N + \u00acw ln(1 \u2212 \u03b8 + w )+ N \u2212 w ln(\u03b8 \u2212 w ) + N \u2212 \u00acw ln(1 \u2212 \u03b8 \u2212 w )",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We can rewrite the constraint in Equation 2 as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b8 \u2212 w = K \u2212 \u03b8 + w L",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "where for compactness we represent:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "K = P (w) P t (\u2212) ; L = P t (+) P t (\u2212) .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Substituting the constraint into Equation 3 shows that we wish to choose \u03b8 + w as: arg max",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b8 + w N + w ln(\u03b8 + w ) + N + \u00acw ln(1 \u2212 \u03b8 + w )+ N \u2212 w ln(K \u2212 L\u03b8 + w ) + N \u2212 \u00acw ln(1 \u2212 K + L\u03b8 + w )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The optimal values for \u03b8 + w are thus located at the solutions of:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "0 = N + w \u03b8 + w + N + \u00acw \u03b8 + w \u2212 1 + LN \u2212 w L\u03b8 + w \u2212 K + LN \u2212 \u00acw L\u03b8 + w \u2212 K + 1 Both \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w are constrained to valid prob- abilities in [0,1] when \u03b8 + w \u2208 [0, K L ]. If N + \u00acw and N \u2212",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "w have non-zero counts, vertical asymptotes exist at 0 and K L and guarantee a solution in this range. Otherwise, a valid solution may not exist. In that case, we default to the add-1 Smoothing estimates used by MNB. Finally, after optimizing the values \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w for each word w as described above, we normalize the estimates to obtain valid conditional probability distributions, i.e. with w \u03b8",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "+ w = w \u03b8 \u2212 w = 1 3.2 MNB-FM Example",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The following concrete example illustrates how MNB-FM can improve MNB parameters using the statistic P (w) computed over unlabeled data. The example comes from the Reuters Aptemod text classification task addressed in Section 4, using bag-of-words features for the Earnings class. In one experiment with 10 labeled training examples, we observed 5 positive and 5 negative examples, with the word \"resources\" occurring three times in the set (once in the positive class, twice in the negative class).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "MNB uses add-1 smoothing to estimate the conditional probability of the word \"resources\" in each class as \u03b8 + w = 1+1 216+33504 = 5.93e-5, and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b8 \u2212 w = 2+1 547+33504 = 8.81e-5. Thus, \u03b8 + w \u03b8 \u2212 w = 0.673",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "implying that \"resources\" is a negative indicator of the Earnings class. However, this estimate is inaccurate. In fact, over the full dataset, the parameter values we observe are \u03b8 + w = 93 168549 = 5.70e-4 and \u03b8 \u2212 w = 263 564717 = 4.65e-4, with a ratio of \u03b8 + w \u03b8 \u2212 w = 1.223. Thus, in actuality, the word \"resources\" is a mild positive indicator of the Earnings class. Yet because MNB estimates its parameters from only the sparse training data, it can be inaccurate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The optimization in MNB-FM seeks to accord its parameter estimates with the feature frequency, computed from unlabeled data, of P (w) = 4.89e-4. We see that compared with P (w), the \u03b8 + w and \u03b8 \u2212 w that MNB estimates from the training data are both too low by almost an order of magnitude. Further, the maximum likelihood estimate for \u03b8 \u2212 w (based on an occurrence count of 2 out of 547 observations) is somewhat more reliable than that for \u03b8 + w (1 of 216 observations). As a result, \u03b8 + w is adjusted upward relatively more than \u03b8 \u2212 w via MNB-FM's constrained ML estimation. MNB-FM returns \u03b8 + w = 6.52e-5 and \u03b8 \u2212 w = 6.04e-5. The ratio",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b8 + w \u03b8 \u2212",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "w is 1.079, meaning MNB-FM correctly identifies the word \"resources\" as an indicator of the positive class.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The above example illustrates how MNB-FM can leverage frequency marginal statistics computed over unlabeled data to improve MNB's conditional probability estimates. We analyze how frequently MNB-FM succeeds in improving MNB's estimates in practice, and the resulting impact on classification accuracy, below.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MNB-FM Method",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we describe our experiments quantifying the accuracy and scalability of our proposed technique. Across multiple domains, we find that MNB-FM outperforms a variety of approaches from previous work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We evaluate on two text classification tasks: topic classification, and sentiment detection. In topic classification, the task is to determine whether a test document belongs to a specified topic. We train a classifier separately (i.e., in a binary classification setting) for each topic and measure classification performance for each class individually.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data Sets",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The sentiment detection task is to determine whether a document is written with a positive or negative sentiment. In our case, the goal is to determine if the given text belongs to a positive review of a product.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data Sets",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The Reuters RCV1 corpus is a standard large corpus used for topic classification evaluations (Lewis et al., 2004) . It includes 804,414 documents with several nested target classes. We consider the 5 largest base classes after punctuation and stopwords were removed. The vocabulary consisted of 288,062 unique words, and the total number of tokens in the data set was 99,702,278. Details of the classes can be found in Table 1 .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 113,
"text": "(Lewis et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 419,
"end": 426,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "RCV1",
"sec_num": "4.1.1"
},
{
"text": "While MNB-FM is designed to improve the scalability of SSL to large corpora, some of the comparison methods from previous work were not tractable on the large topic classification data set RCV1. To evaluate these methods, we also experimented with the Reuters ApteMod dataset (Yang and Liu, 1999) , consisting of 10,788 documents belonging to 90 classes. We consider the 10 most ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 276,
"end": 296,
"text": "(Yang and Liu, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Reuters Aptemod",
"sec_num": "4.1.2"
},
{
"text": "In the domain of Sentiment Classification, we tested on the Amazon dataset from (Blitzer et al., 2007) . Stopwords listed in an included file were ignored for our experiments and we only the considered unigram features. Unlike the two Reuters data sets, each category had a unique set of documents of varying size. For our experiments, we only used the 10 largest categories. Details of the categories can be found in Table 3 . In the Amazon Sentiment Classification data set, the task is to determine whether a review is positive or negative based solely on the reviewer's submitted text. As such, the positive and negative Table 3 : Amazon dataset details labels are equally relevant. For our metrics, we calculate the scores for both the positive and negative class and report the average of the two (in contrast to the Reuters data sets, in which we only report the scores for the positive class).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 102,
"text": "(Blitzer et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 418,
"end": 425,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 632,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Classification Data",
"sec_num": "4.1.3"
},
{
"text": "In addition to Multinomial Naive Bayes (discussed in Section 3), we evaluate against a variety of supervised and semi-supervised techniques from previous work, which provide a representation of the state of the art. Below, we detail the comparison methods that we re-implemented for our experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison Methods",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We implemented a semi-supervised version of Naive Bayes with Expectation Maximization, based on (Nigam et al., 2000) . We found that 15 iterations of EM was sufficient to ensure approximate convergence of the parameters. We also experimented with different weighting factors to assign to the unlabeled data. While performing per-data-split cross-validation was computationally prohibitive for NB+EM, we performed experiments on one class from each data set that revealed weighting unlabeled examples at 1/5 the weight of a labeled example performed best. We found that our re-implementation of NB+EM slightly outperformed published results on a separate data set (Mann and McCallum, 2010) , validating our design choices.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 116,
"text": "(Nigam et al., 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 663,
"end": 688,
"text": "(Mann and McCallum, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "NB + EM",
"sec_num": "4.2.1"
},
{
"text": "We implemented Logistic Regression using L2-Normalization, finding this to outperform L1-Normalized and non-normalized versions. The strength of the normalization was selected for each training data set of each size utilized in our experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Logistic Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "The strength of the normalization in the logistic regression required cross-validation, which we limited to 20 values logarithmically spaced between 10 \u22124 and 10 4 . The optimal value was selected based upon the best average F1 score over the 10 folds. We selected a normalization parameter separately for each subset of the training data during experimentation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Logistic Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "For our large unlabeled data set sizes, we found that a standard Label Propogation (LP) approach, which considers propagating information between all pairs of unlabeled examples, was not tractable. We instead implemented a constrained version of LP for comparison.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Label Propagation",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "In our implementation, we limit the number of edges in the propagation graph. Each node propagates to only to its 10 nearest neighbors, where distance is calculated as the cosine distance between the tf-idf representation of two documents. We found the tf-idf weighting to improve performance over that of simple cosine distance. Propagation was run for 100 iterations or until the entropy dropped below a predetermined threshold, whichever occurred first. Even with these aggressive constraints, Label Propagation was intractable to execute on some of the larger data sets, so we do not report LP results for the RCV1 dataset or for the 5 largest Amazon categories.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Label Propagation",
"sec_num": "4.2.3"
},
{
"text": "We also re-implemented a version of the recent Semi-supervised Frequency Estimate approach (Su et al., 2011) . SFE was found to outperform MNB and NB+EM in previous work. Consistent with our MNB implementation, we use Add-1 Smoothing in our SFE calculations although its use is not specifically mentioned in (Su et al., 2011) . SFE also augments multinomial Naive Bayes with the frequency information P (w), although in a manner distinct from MNB-FM. In particular, SFE uses the equality P (+|w) = P (+, w)/P (w) and estimates the rhs using P (w) computed over all the unlabeled data, rather than using only labeled data as in standard MNB. The primary distinction between MNB-FM and SFE is that SFE adjusts sparse estimates P (+, w) in the same way as non-sparse estimates, whereas MNB-FM is designed to adjust sparse estimates more than nonsparse ones. Further, it can be shown that as P (w) of a word w in the unlabeled data becomes larger than that in the labeled data, SFE's estimate of the ratio P (w|+)/P (w|\u2212) approaches one. Depending on the labeled data, such an estimate can be arbitrarily inaccurate. MNB-FM does not have this limitation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 108,
"text": "(Su et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 325,
"text": "(Su et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SFE",
"sec_num": "4.2.4"
},
{
"text": "For each data set, we evaluate on 50 randomly drawn training splits, each comprised of 1,000 randomly selected documents. Each set included at least one positive and one negative document. We Table 4 : F1, training size in parentheses respected the order of the training splits such that each sample was a strict subset of any larger training sample of the same split.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 199,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "We evaluate on the standard metric of F1 with respect to the target class. For Amazon, in which both the \"positive\" and \"negative\" classes are potential target classes, we evaluate using macroaveraged scores.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The primary results of our experiments are shown in Table 4 . The results show that MNB-FM improves upon the MNB classifier substantially, and also tends to outperform the other SSL and supervised learning methods we evaluated. MNB-FM is the best performing method over all data sets when the labeled data is limited to 10 and 100 documents, except for training sets of size 10 in Aptemod, where MNB has a slight edge.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 59,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Tables 5 and 6 present detailed results of the experiments on the RCV1 data set. These experiments are limited to the 5 largest base classes and show the F1 performance of MNB-FM and the various comparison methods, excluding Label Propagation which was intractable on this data set. The runtimes of our methods can be seen in Table 7. The results show the runtimes of the SSL methods discussed in this paper as the size of the unlabeled dataset grows. As expected, we find that MNB-FM has runtime similar to MNB, and scales much better than methods that take multiple passes over the unlabeled data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "From our experiments, it is clear that the performance of MNB-FM improves on MNB, and in many cases outperforms all existing SSL algorithms we evaluated. MNB-FM improves the conditional probability estimates in MNB and, surprisingly, we found that it can often improve these estimates for words that do not even occur in the training set. Tables 8 and 9 show the details of the improvements MNB-FM makes on the feature marginal estimates. We ran MNB-FM and MNB on the RCV1 class MCAT and stored the computed feature marginals for direct comparison. For each word in the vocabulary, we compared each classifier's conditional probability ratios, i.e. \u03b8 + /\u03b8 \u2212 , to the true value over the entire data set. We computed which classifier was closer to the correct ratio for each word. These results were averaged over 5 iterations. From the data, we can see that MNB-FM improves the estimates for many words not seen in the training set as well as the most common words, even with small training sets.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 339,
"end": 353,
"text": "Tables 8 and 9",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Analysis",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We also analyzed how well the different methods rank, rather than classify, the test documents. We evaluated ranking using the R-precision metric, equal to the precision (i.e. fraction of positive documents classified correctly) of the R highestranked test documents, where R is the total number of positive test documents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ranking Performance",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Logistic Regression performed particularly well on the R-Precision Metric, as can be seen in Tables 10, 11, and 12. Logistic Regression performed less well in the F1 metric. We find that NB+EM Table 8 ). MNB-FM improves estimates by a substantial amount for unknown words and also the most common known and half-known words.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 200,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ranking Performance",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "performs particularly well on the R-precision metric on ApteMod, suggesting that its modelling assumptions are more accurate for that particular data set (NB+EM performs significantly worse on the other data sets, however). MNB-FM performs essentially equivalently well, on average, to the best competing method (Logistic Regression) on the large RCV1 data set. However, these experiments show that MNB-FM offers more advantages in document classification than in document ranking.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ranking Performance",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "The ranking results show that LR may be preferred when ranking is important. However, LR underperforms in classification tasks (in terms of F1, Tables 4-6). The reason for this is that LR's learned classification threshold becomes less accurate when datasets are small and classes are highly Table 10 : R-Precision, training size in parentheses skewed. In these cases, LR classifies too frequently in favor of the larger class which is detrimental to its performance. This effect is visible in Tables 5 and 6 , where LR's performance significantly drops for the ECAT and GPOL classes. ECAT and GPOL represent only 14.91% and 7.07% of the RCV1 dataset, respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 300,
"text": "Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 508,
"text": "Tables 5 and 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ranking Performance",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "To our knowledge, MNB-FM is the first approach that utilizes a small set of statistics computed over Table 12 : RCV1: R-Precision, D L = 100 349 a large unlabeled data set as constraints to improve a semi-supervised classifier. Our experiments demonstrate that MNB-FM outperforms previous approaches across multiple text classification techniques including topic classification and sentiment analysis. Further, the MNB-FM approach offers scalability advantages over most existing semi-supervised approaches.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 109,
"text": "Table 12",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Current popular Semi-Supervised Learning approaches include using Expectation-Maximization on probabilistic models (e.g. (Nigam et al., 2000) ); Transductive Support Vector Machines (Joachims, 1999) ; and graph-based methods such as Label Propagation (LP) (Zhu and Ghahramani, 2002) and their more recent, more scalable variants (e.g. identifying a small number of representative unlabeled examples (Liu et al., 2010) ). In general, these techniques require passes over the entirety of the unlabeled data for each new learning task, intractable for massive unlabeled data sets. Naive implementations of LP cannot scale to large unlabeled data sets, as they have time complexity that increases quadratically with the number of unlabeled examples. Recent LP techniques have achieved greater scalability through the use of parallel processing and heuristics such as Approximate-Nearest Neighbor (Subramanya and Bilmes, 2009) , or by decomposing the similarity matrix (Lin and Cohen, 2011) . Our approach, by contrast, is to pre-compute a small set of marginal statistics over the unlabeled data, which eliminates the need to scan unlabeled data for each new task. Instead, the complexity of MNB-FM is proportional only to the number of unique words in the labeled data set.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 141,
"text": "(Nigam et al., 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 198,
"text": "(Joachims, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 282,
"text": "(Zhu and Ghahramani, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 417,
"text": "(Liu et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 921,
"text": "(Subramanya and Bilmes, 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 985,
"text": "(Lin and Cohen, 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "In recent work, Su et al. propose the Semisupervised Frequency Estimate (SFE), which like MNB-FM utilizes the marginal probabilities of features computed from unlabeled data to improve the Multinomial Naive Bayes (MNB) classifier (Su et al., 2011) . SFE has the same scalability advantages as MNB-FM. However, unlike our approach, SFE does not compute maximumlikelihood estimates using the marginal statistics as a constraint. Our experiments show that MNB-FM substantially outperforms SFE.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 247,
"text": "(Su et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "A distinct method for pre-processing unlabeled data in order to help scale semi-supervised learning techniques involves dimensionality reduction or manifold learning (Belkin and Niyogi, 2004) , and for NLP tasks, identifying word representa-tions from unlabeled data (Turian et al., 2010) . In contrast to these approaches, MNB-FM preserves the original feature set and is more scalable (the marginal statistics can be computed in a single pass over the unlabeled data set).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 191,
"text": "(Belkin and Niyogi, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 288,
"text": "(Turian et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We presented a novel algorithm for efficiently leveraging large unlabeled data sets for semisupervised learning. Our MNB-FM technique optimizes a Multinomial Naive Bayes model to accord with statistics of the unlabeled corpus. In experiments across topic classification and sentiment analysis, MNB-FM was found to be more accurate and more scalable than several supervised and semi-supervised baselines from previous work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "In future work, we plan to explore utilizing richer statistics from the unlabeled data, beyond word marginals. Further, we plan to experiment with techniques for unlabeled data sets that also include continuous-valued features. Lastly, we also wish to explore ensemble approaches that combine the best supervised classifiers with the improved class-conditional estimates provided by MNB-FM.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was supported in part by DARPA contract D11AP00268.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": "8"
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Semisupervised learning on riemannian manifolds. Machine Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mikhail",
"middle": [],
"last": "Belkin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Partha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niyogi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "56",
"issue": "",
"pages": "209--239",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mikhail Belkin and Partha Niyogi. 2004. Semi- supervised learning on riemannian manifolds. Ma- chine Learning, 56(1):209-239.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blitzer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dredze",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classi- fication. In Association for Computational Linguis- tics, Prague, Czech Republic.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Semi-Supervised Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "O",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chapelle",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00f6lkopf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zien",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "O. Chapelle, B. Sch\u00f6lkopf, and A. Zien, editors. 2006. Semi-Supervised Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Transductive inference for text classification using support vector machines",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '99",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "200--209",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thorsten Joachims. 1999. Transductive inference for text classification using support vector machines. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, ICML '99, pages 200- 209, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Rcv1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "David",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yiming",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lewis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tony",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rose",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "The Journal of Machine Learning Research",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "",
"pages": "361--397",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David D Lewis, Yiming Yang, Tony G Rose, and Fan Li. 2004. Rcv1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. The Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research, 5:361-397.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Adaptation of graph-based semi-supervised methods to largescale text data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Frank",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "William W Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "The 9th Workshop on Mining and Learning with Graphs",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Frank Lin and William W Cohen. 2011. Adaptation of graph-based semi-supervised methods to large- scale text data. In The 9th Workshop on Mining and Learning with Graphs.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Large graph construction for scalable semi-supervised learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Junfeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "He",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shih-Fu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "ICML",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "679--686",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wei Liu, Junfeng He, and Shih-Fu Chang. 2010. Large graph construction for scalable semi-supervised learning. In ICML, pages 679-686.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Generalized expectation criteria for semi-supervised learning with weakly labeled data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gideon",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccallum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "J. Mach. Learn. Res",
"volume": "11",
"issue": "",
"pages": "955--984",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gideon S. Mann and Andrew McCallum. 2010. Generalized expectation criteria for semi-supervised learning with weakly labeled data. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11:955-984, March.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Text classification from labeled and unlabeled documents using em",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kamal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nigam",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [
"Kachites"
],
"last": "Mccallum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thrun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tom",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mitchell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Mach. Learn",
"volume": "39",
"issue": "2-3",
"pages": "103--134",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kamal Nigam, Andrew Kachites McCallum, Sebastian Thrun, and Tom Mitchell. 2000. Text classifica- tion from labeled and unlabeled documents using em. Mach. Learn., 39(2-3):103-134, May.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Large scale text classification using semisupervised multinomial naive bayes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Su",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jelber",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sayyad Shirab",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matwin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "ICML",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "97--104",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jiang Su, Jelber Sayyad Shirab, and Stan Matwin. 2011. Large scale text classification using semisu- pervised multinomial naive bayes. In Lise Getoor and Tobias Scheffer, editors, ICML, pages 97-104. Omnipress.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Entropic graph regularization in non-parametric semisupervised classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Amar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Subramanya",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeff",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Bilmes",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Neural Information Processing Society (NIPS)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Amar Subramanya and Jeff A. Bilmes. 2009. En- tropic graph regularization in non-parametric semi- supervised classification. In Neural Information Processing Society (NIPS), Vancouver, Canada, De- cember.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joseph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lev",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ratinov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "",
"volume": "51",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joseph Turian, Lev Ratinov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. Urbana, 51:61801.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A re-examination of text categorization methods",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yiming",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Xin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "42--49",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yiming Yang and Xin Liu. 1999. A re-examination of text categorization methods. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR confer- ence on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 42-49. ACM.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Learning from labeled and unlabeled data with label propagation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "X",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Z",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ghahramani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "X. Zhu and Z. Ghahramani. 2002. Learning from labeled and unlabeled data with label propagation. Technical report, Technical Report CMU-CALD- 02-107, Carnegie Mellon University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Semi-supervised learning literature survey",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Xiaojin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Xiaojin Zhu. 2006. Semi-supervised learning litera- ture survey.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "0.650 0.562 0.483 0.639* 0.757 RCV1 (10) 0.505 0.480 0.421 0.450 -0.512 RCV1 (100) 0.683 0.614 0.474 0.422 -0.689 RCV1 (1k) 0.781 0.748 0.535 0.454 -0.802 * Limited to 5 of 10 Amazon categories",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "0.858 0.780 0.869 0.843 MCAT 0.782 0.753 0.579 0.533 0.774 ECAT 0.471 0.293 0.203 0.119 0.498 GPOL 0.509 0.370 0.042 0.056 0.520 Average 0.683 0.614 0.474 0.422 0.689",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>: RCV1 dataset details</td></tr><tr><td>Class Earnings Acquisitions 2369 (22.0%) # Positive 3964 (36.7%) Foreign 717 (6.6%) Grain 582 (5.4%) Crude 578 (5.4%) Trade 485 (4.5%) Interest 478 (4.4%) Shipping 286 (2.7%) Wheat 283 (2.6%) Corn 237 (2.2%)</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": ""
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": ""
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Class MNB-FM SFE MNB NBEM Logist. CCAT 0.797 0.793 0.624 0.713 0.754 GCAT 0.849 0.848 0.731 0.837 0.831 MCAT 0.776 0.737 0.313 0.516 0.689 ECAT 0.463 0.317 0.017 0.193 0.203 GPOL 0.499 0.370 0.002 0.089 0.114 Average 0.677 0.613 0.337 0.470 0.518</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "RCV1: F1, |D L |= 10"
},
"TABREF6": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Method MNB-FM 1.44 1.61 1.69 2.47 5.50 1000 5000 10k 50k 100k NB+EM 2.95 3.43 4.93 10.07 16.90 MNB 1.15 1.260 1.40 2.20 3.61 Labelprop 0.26 4.17 10.62 67.58 -</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "RCV1: F1, |D L |= 100"
},
"TABREF7": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "Runtimes of SSL methods (sec.)"
},
"TABREF9": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Fraction Improved vs MNB Word Freq. Known Half Known Unknown Known Half Known Unknown Known Half Known Unknown Avg Improvement vs MNB Probability Mass 0-10 \u22126 0.567 0.243 0.853 0.085 -0.347 0.143 0.00% 0.22% 7.49% 10 \u22126 -10 \u22125 0.375 0.310 0.719 -0.213 -0.260 0.087 0.38% 4.43% 10.50% 10 \u22125 -10 \u22124 0.493 0.426 0.672 -0.071 -0.139 0.067 18.68% 20.37% 4.67% 10 \u22124 -10 \u22123 0.728 0.669 -0.233 0.018 -31.70% 1.56% -> 10 \u22123 ---------</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "Analysis of Feature Marginal Improvement of MNB-FM over MNB (|D L | = 10). \"Known\" indicates words occurring in both positive and negative training examples, \"Half Known\" indicates words occurring in only positive or negative training examples, while \"Unknown\" indicates words that never occur in labelled examples. Data is for the RCV1 MCAT category. MNB-FM improves estimates by a substantial amount for unknown words and also the most common known and half-known words."
},
"TABREF10": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "Analysis of Feature Marginal Improvement of MNB-FM over MNB (|D L | = 100). Data is for the RCV1 MCAT category (see"
}
}
}
} |