Optimizing Feature Sets for Structured Data

  • Ulrich Rückert
  • Stefan Kramer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4701)

Abstract

Choosing a suitable feature representation for structured data is a non-trivial task due to the vast number of potential candidates. Ideally, one would like to pick a small, but informative set of structural features, each providing complementary information about the instances. We frame the search for a suitable feature set as a combinatorial optimization problem. For this purpose, we define a scoring function that favors features that are as dissimilar as possible to all other features. The score is used in a stochastic local search (SLS) procedure to maximize the diversity of a feature set. In experiments on small molecule data, we investigate the effectiveness of a forward selection approach with two different linear classification schemes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Borgelt, C.: On canonical forms for frequent graph mining. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Mining Graphs, Trees, and Sequences, pp. 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bringmann, B., Zimmermann, A., De Raedt, L., Nijssen, S.: Don’t be afraid of simpler patterns. In: Fürnkranz, J., Scheffer, T., Spiliopoulou, M. (eds.) PKDD 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4213, pp. 55–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deshpande, M., Kuramochi, M., Wale, N., Karypis, G.: Frequent substructure-based approaches for classifying chemical compounds. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17(8), 1036–1050 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fang, H., Tong, W., Shi, L.M., Blair, R., Perkins, R., Branham, W., Hass, B.S., Xie, Q., Dial, S.L., Moland, C.L., Sheehan, D.M.: Structure-activity relationships for a large diverse set of natural, synthetic, and environmental estrogens. Chemical Research in Toxicology 14(3), 280–294 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fröhlich, H., Wegner, J.K., Sieker, F., Zell, A.: Optimal assignment kernels for attributed molecular graphs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ICML, pp. 225–232. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landwehr, N., Passerini, A., De Raedt, L., Frasconi, P.: kFOIL: Learning simple relational kernels. In: AAAI, AAAI Press, Stanford (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, H., Yap, C.W., Ung, C.Y., Xue, Y., Cao, Z.W., Chen, Y.Z.: Effect of selection of molecular descriptors on the prediction of blood-brain barrier penetrating and nonpenetrating agents by statistical learning methods. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 45(5), 1376–1384 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rückert, U., Kramer, S.: Stochastic local search in k-term DNF learning. In: Proceedings of the 20th ICML, pp. 648–655. AAAI Press (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rückert, U., Kramer, S.: A statistical approach to rule learning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ICML, pp. 785–792. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoshida, F., Topliss, J.: QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. J. Med. Chem. 43, 2575–2585 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu, L., Liu, H.: Efficient feature selection via analysis of relevance and redundancy. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 5, 1205–1224 (2004)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Rückert
    • 1
  • Stefan Kramer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Informatik/I12, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstr. 3, D-85748 Garching b. MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations