Advertisement

Clustering and Understanding Documents via Discrimination Information Maximization

  • Malik Tahir Hassan
  • Asim Karim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7301)

Abstract

Text document clustering is a popular task for understanding and summarizing large document collections. Besides the need for efficiency, document clustering methods should produce clusters that are readily understandable as collections of documents relating to particular contexts or topics. Existing clustering methods often ignore term-document semantics while relying upon geometric similarity measures. In this paper, we present an efficient iterative partitional clustering method, CDIM, that maximizes the sum of discrimination information provided by documents. The discrimination information of a document is computed from the discrimination information provided by the terms in it, and term discrimination information is estimated from the currently labeled document collection. A key advantage of CDIM is that its clusters are describable by their highly discriminating terms – terms with high semantic relatedness to their clusters’ contexts. We evaluate CDIM both qualitatively and quantitatively on ten text data sets. In clustering quality evaluation, we find that CDIM produces high-quality clusters superior to those generated by the best methods. We also demonstrate the understandability provided by CDIM, suggesting its suitability for practical document clustering.

Keywords

Document Collection Document Cluster Discrimination Score Discrimination Information Cluster Validation Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Morris, J., Hirst, G.: Non-classical lexical semantic relations. In: Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, pp. 46–51. Association for Computational Linguistics (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cai, D., van Rijsbergen, C.J.: Learning semantic relatedness from term discrimination information. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 1860–1875 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tan, P.N., Steinbach, M., Kumar, V.: Introduction to Data Mining. Addison Wesley, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao, Y., Karypis, G.: Criterion functions for document clustering: experiments and analysis. Technical Report 01-40, University of Minnestoa (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinbach, M., Karypis, G.: A comparison of document clustering techniques. In: Proceedings of the KDD Workshop on Text Mining (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu, X., Zhang, X., Lu, C., Park, E., Zhou, X.: Exploiting wikipedia as external knowledge for document clustering. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 389–396. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, X., Jing, L., Hu, X., Ng, M., Zhou, X.: A Comparative Study of Ontology Based Term Similarity Measures on PubMed Document Clustering. In: Kotagiri, R., Radha Krishna, P., Mohania, M., Nantajeewarawat, E. (eds.) DASFAA 2007. LNCS, vol. 4443, pp. 115–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu, W., Liu, X., Gong, Y.: Document clustering based on non-negative matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Informaion Retrieval, pp. 267–273. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu, W., Gong, Y.: Document clustering by concept factoriz ation. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 202–209. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cai, D., He, X., Han, J.: Locally consistent concept factorization for document clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tang, B., Shepherd, M., Heywood, M.I., Luo, X.: Comparing Dimension Reduction Techniques for Document Clustering. In: Kégl, B., Lee, H.-H. (eds.) Canadian AI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3501, pp. 292–296. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ding, C., Li, T.: Adaptive dimension reduction using discriminant analysis and k-means clustering. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 521–528. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Junejo, K., Karim, A.: A robust discriminative term weighting based linear discriminant method for text classification. In: Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 323–332 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, H., Li, J., Wong, L., Feng, M., Tan, Y.P.: Relative risk and odds ratio: a data mining perspective. In: PODS 2005: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, J., Liu, G., Wong, L.: Mining statistically important equivalence classes and delta-discriminative emerging patterns. In: KDD 2007: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsieh, D.A., Manski, C.F., McFadden, D.: Estimation of response probabilities from augmented retrospective observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association 80(391), 651–662 (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeBlanc, M., Crowley, J.: Relative risk trees for censored survival data. Biometrics 48(2), 411–425 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karypis, G.: CLUTO-a clustering toolkit. Technical report, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bagga, A., Baldwin, B.: Entity-based cross-document coreferencing using the vector space model. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 79–85. ACL (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amigó, E., Gonzalo, J., Artiles, J., Verdejo, F.: A comparison of extrinsic clustering evaluation metrics based on formal constraints. Information Retrieval 12(4), 461–486 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Demsar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7, 1–30 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malik Tahir Hassan
    • 1
  • Asim Karim
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceLUMS School of Science and EngineeringLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations