Co-Regularized Least-Squares for Label Ranking

  • Evgeni Tsivtsivadze
  • Tapio Pahikkala
  • Jorma Boberg
  • Tapio Salakoski
  • Tom Heskes
Chapter

Abstract

Situations when only a limited amount of labeled data and a large amount of unlabeled data are available to the learning algorithm are typical for many real-world problems. To make use of unlabeled data in preference learning problems, we propose a semisupervised algorithm that is based on the multiview approach. Our algorithm, which we call Sparse Co-RankRLS, minimizes a least-squares approximation of the ranking error and is formulated within the co-regularization framework. It operates by constructing a ranker for each view and by choosing such ranking prediction functions that minimize the disagreement among all of the rankers on the unlabeled data. Our experiments, conducted on real-world dataset, show that the inclusion of unlabeled data can improve the prediction performance significantly. Moreover, our semisupervised preference learning algorithm has a linear complexity in the number of unlabeled data items, making it applicable to large datasets.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Blum, T. Mitchell, Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training, in Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1998), pp. 92–100Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U. Brefeld, T. Gärtner, T. Scheffer, S. Wrobel, Efficient co-regularised least squares regression, in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine learning (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2006), pp. 137–144Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U. Brefeld, T. Scheffer, Co-em support vector learning, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine learning (ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2004), p.16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.A. Brualdi, H.J. Ryser, Combinatorial Matrix Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Collins, N. Duffy, New ranking algorithms for parsing and tagging: kernels over discrete structures, and the voted perceptron, in ACL ’02: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, 2001), pp. 263–270Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O. Dekel, C.D. Manning, Y. Singer, Log-linear models for label ranking, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol.16, ed. by S. Thrun, L. Saul, B. Schölkopf (MIT, Cambridge, MA, 2004), pp.497–504Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Demšar, Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 1–30 (2006)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Fürnkranz, E. Hüllermeier, Preference learning. Künstliche Intelligenz 19(1), 60–61 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.H. Golub, C.F.Van Loan, Matrix Computations (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Herbrich, T. Graepel, K. Obermayer, Support vector learning for ordinal regression, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Articial Neural Networks (Institute of Electrical Engineers, London, 1999), pp. 97–102Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Horn, C.R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Pahikkala, E. Tsivtsivadze, A. Airola, J. Järvinen, J. Boberg, An efficient algorithm for learning to rank from preference graphs. Mach. Learn. 75(1), 129–165 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Pahikkala, E. Tsivtsivadze, J. Boberg, T. Salakoski, Graph kernels versus graph representations: a case study in parse ranking, in Proceedings of the ECML/PKDD’06 workshop on Mining and Learning with Graphs, ed. by T. Gärtner, G.C. Garriga, T. Meinl, Berlin, Germany (pp.181–188) (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Poggio, F. Girosi, Networks for approximation and learning. Proc. IEEE 78(9), 1481–1497 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Pothen, H.D. Simon, K.-P. Liou, Partitioning sparse matrices with eigenvectors of graphs. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 11(3), 430–452 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Pyysalo, F. Ginter, J. Heimonen, J. Björne, J. Boberg, J. Järvinen, T. Salakoski, BioInfer: A corpus for information extraction in the biomedical domain. BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 50 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.Quinonero-Candela, CE. Rasmussen, A unifying view of sparse approximate Gaussian process regression. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 6, 1939–1959 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Rosenberg, P.L. Bartlett, The rademacher complexity of co-regularized kernel classes, in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ed. by M. Meila, X. Shen (2007), pp. 396–403Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Schölkopf, R. Herbrich, A.J. Smola, A generalized representer theorem, in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, ed. by DavidP. Helmbold, B.Williamson (Springer, London, 2001), pp. 416–426Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. Sindhwani, P. Niyogi, M. Belkin, A co-regularization approach to semi-supervised learning with multiple views, in Proceedings of ICML Workshop on Learning with Multiple Views (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. Sindhwani, D. Rosenberg, An rkhs for multi-view learning and manifold co-regularization, in Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2008), ed. by A. McCallum, S. Roweis (Omnipress, Helsinki, Finland, 2008), pp. 976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A.J. Smola, B. Schölkopf, Sparse greedy matrix approximation for machine learning, in Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning, ed. by Pat Langley (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, Ca, USA, 2000), pp. 911–918Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Tsivtsivadze, T. Pahikkala, A. Airola, J. Boberg, T. Salakoski, A sparse regularized least-squares preference learning algorithm, in 10th Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (SCAI 2008), vol. 173, ed. by A. Holst, P. Kreuger, P. Funk (IOS, 2008), pp. 76–83Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Tsivtsivadze, T. Pahikkala, S. Pyysalo, J. Boberg, A. Mylläri, T. Salakoski, Regularized least-squares for parse ranking, in Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis VI, ed. by A.Fazel Famili, J.N. Kok, J.M. Peña, A. Siebes, A.J. Feelders (Springer, 2005), pp. 464–474Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P.Vincent, Y.Bengio, Kernel matching pursuit. Mach. Learn. 48(1–3), 165–187 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evgeni Tsivtsivadze
    • 1
  • Tapio Pahikkala
    • 2
  • Jorma Boberg
    • 2
  • Tapio Salakoski
    • 2
  • Tom Heskes
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Computing and Information SciencesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Turku Centre for Computer Science (TUCS), Department of Information TechnologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations