Advertisement

Parameterized Mapping Distances for Semi-Structured Data

  • Kilho ShinEmail author
  • Taro Niiyama
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11352)

Abstract

The edit distances have been widely used as an effective method to analyze similarity of semi-structured data such as strings, trees and graphs. For example, the Levenshtein distance for strings is known to be effective to analyze DNA and proteins, and the Taï distance and its variations are attracting wide attention of researchers who study tree-type data such as glycan, HTML-DOM-trees, parse trees of natural language processing and so on. The problem that we recognize here is that the way of engineering new edit distances was ad-hoc and lacked a unified view. To solve the problem, we introduce the concept of the mapping distance and a hyper-parameter that controls costs of label mismatch. One of the most important advantages of our parameterized mapping distances consists in the fact that the distances can be defined for arbitrary finite sets in a consistent manner and some important properties such as satisfaction of the axioms of metrics can be discussed abstractly regardless of the structures of data. The second important advantage is that mapping distances themselves can be parameterized, and therefore, we can identify the best distance to a particular application by parameter search. The mapping distance framework can provide a unified view over various distance measures for semi-structured data focusing on partial one-to-one mappings between data. These partial one-to-one mappings are a generalization of what are known as mappings of edit paths in the legacy study of edit distances. This is a clear contrast to the legacy edit distance framework, which defines distances through edit operations and edit paths. Our framework enables us to design new distance measures in a consistent manner, and also, various distance measures can be described using a small number of parameters. In fact, in this paper, we take ordered rooted trees as an example and introduce three independent dimensions to parameterize mapping distance measures. Through intensive experiments using ten datasets, we identify two important mapping distances that can exhibit good classification performance when used with the k-NN classifier. These mapping distances are novel and have not been discussed in the literature.

Keywords

Edit distance Kernel Mapping Tree 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17H007623 and JP16K12491.

References

  1. 1.
    Benjamini, Y., Hochberg, Y.: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 57(1), 289–300 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bille, P.: A survey on tree edit distance and related problems. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 337(1–3), 217–239 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins, M., Duffy, N.: Convolution kernels for natural language. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 [Neural Information Processing Systems: Natural and Synthetic NIPS, vol. 2001], pp. 625–632. MIT Press, Boca Raton (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demaine, E.D., Mozes, S., Rossman, B., Weimann, O.: An optimal decomposition algorithm for tree edit distance. ACM Trans. Algo. 6, 2 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dulucq, S., Touzet, H.: Analysis of tree edit distance algorithms. In: The 14th Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM), pp. 83–95 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hashimoto, K., Goto, S., Kawano, S., Aoki-Kinoshita, K.F., Ueda, N.: KEGG as a glycome informatics resource. Glycobiology 16, 63R–70R (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kao, M.Y., Lam, T.W., Sung, W.K., Ting, H.F.: An even faster and more unifying algorithm for comparing trees via unbalanced bipartite matchings, July 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, P.N.: Computing the edit-distance between unrooted ordered trees. In: Bilardi, G., Italiano, G.F., Pietracaprina, A., Pucci, G. (eds.) ESA 1998. LNCS, vol. 1461, pp. 91–102. Springer, Heidelberg (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68530-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuboyama, T., Shin, K., Miyahara, T., Yasuda, H.: A theoretical analysis of alignment and edit problems for trees. In: Coppo, M., Lodi, E., Pinna, G.M. (eds.) ICTCS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3701, pp. 323–337. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11560586_26CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Sov. Phys. Dokl. 10(8), 707–710 (1966)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, C.L., Su, Z.-Y., Tang, C.Y.: A new measure of edit distance between labeled trees. In: Wang, J. (ed.) COCOON 2001. LNCS, vol. 2108, pp. 338–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44679-6_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moschitti, A.: Example data for tree kernels in SVM-light. http://disi.unitn.it/moschitti/Tree-Kernel.htm
  13. 13.
    Neuhaus, M., Bunke, H.: Bridging the gap between graph edit distance and kernel machines. World Scientific (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pawlik, M., Augsten, N.: Rted: a robust algorithm for the tree edit distance. Proc. VLDB Endowment. 5, 334–345 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pyysalo, S., Airola, A., Heimonen, J., Bjorne, J., Ginter, F., Salakoski, T.: Comparative analysis of five protein-protein interaction corpora. BMC Bioinform. 9(S–3), S6 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richter, T.: A new measure of the distance between ordered trees and its applications. Tech. Rep. 85166-CS, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Bonn (1997). http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/richter97new.html
  17. 17.
    Shin, K.: Tree edit distance and maximum agreement subtree. Inf. Process. Lett. 115(1), 69–73 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2014.09.002MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shin, K., Niiyama, T.: The mapping distance - a generalization of the edit distance - and its application to trees. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Agent and Artificial Intelligence ICAART 2018, vol. 2, pp. 266–275. SciTePress (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taï, K.C.: The tree-to-tree correction problem. J. ACM 26(3), 422–433 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, J.T.L., Zhang, K.: Finding similar consensus between trees: an algorithm and a distance hierarchy. Pattern Recognit. 34, 127–137 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zaki, M.J., Aggarwal, C.C.: XRules: an effective algorithm for structural classification of XML data. Mach. Learn. 62, 137–170 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, K.: Algorithms for the constrained editing distance between ordered labeled trees and related problems. Pattern Recognit. 28(3), 463–474 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, K., Shasha, D.: Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM J. Comput. 18(6), 1245–1262 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, K., Wang, J.T.L., Shasha, D.: On the editing distance between undirected acyclic graphs. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 7(1), 43–58 (1996). http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/zhang95editing.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Applied InformaticsUniversity of HyogoKobeJapan
  2. 2.NTT DoCoMoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations