toplogo
Resources
Sign In

Semi-supervised Predictive Clustering Trees for Improved Multi-label and Hierarchical Multi-label Classification


Core Concepts
The core message of this paper is that semi-supervised predictive clustering trees (SSL-PCTs) and their ensemble versions (SSL-RFs) can significantly improve the predictive performance of multi-label classification (MLC) and hierarchical multi-label classification (HMLC) tasks compared to their supervised counterparts, by leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data.
Abstract
The paper proposes a novel semi-supervised learning approach for MLC and HMLC tasks based on predictive clustering trees (PCTs). The key aspects are: The semi-supervised PCT algorithm (SSL-PCT) extends the standard top-down induction of decision trees by considering both the target and descriptive attributes when evaluating splits. This allows leveraging unlabeled data to better estimate the underlying data distribution. SSL-PCT introduces a parameter w that controls the trade-off between the contribution of the target space and the descriptive space to the tree construction. This safeguards against performance degradation compared to the fully supervised case. The authors also propose feature-weighted variants of SSL-PCT and SSL-RF, which assign higher importance to more informative features during tree construction. Extensive experiments on 24 datasets (12 MLC, 12 HMLC) show that the proposed SSL-PCT and SSL-RF methods significantly outperform their supervised counterparts (SL-PCT and CLUS-RF) across a wide range of labeled data sizes. The authors provide insights into how semi-supervised learning can better exploit label dependencies in MLC and HMLC tasks by leveraging the underlying data distribution revealed by unlabeled examples. The proposed methods preserve the interpretability of classical tree-based models, unlike many existing generative or optimization-based semi-supervised approaches for structured output prediction.
Stats
The number of labeled examples in the training set varies from 50 to 500. The total number of examples in the datasets ranges from 594 to 11,006. The number of descriptive features ranges from 0 to 1,449. The number of labels ranges from 2 to 724. The average number of labels per example ranges from 0.726 to 39.04.
Quotes
"Semi-supervised learning (SSL) is a common approach to learning predictive models using not only labeled, but also unlabeled examples." "While SSL for the simple tasks of classification and regression has received much attention from the research community, this is not the case for complex prediction tasks with structurally dependent variables, such as multi-label classification and hierarchical multi-label classification." "The advantage of predictive clustering trees is manifold: 1) The learning phase is time efficient; 2) The SSL models are interpretable for both MLC and HMLC tasks; 3) The SSL models can take both quantitative and categorical variables into account; 4) PCTs can combined into ensembles, such as random forests, to further improve their predictive performance; 5) The hierarchical structure of tree-based models can naturally model the hierarchical structure of the output space in the HMLC task."

Deeper Inquiries

How can the proposed SSL-PCT and SSL-RF methods be extended to handle other structured output prediction tasks beyond MLC and HMLC, such as multi-target regression or structured output prediction with complex dependencies

The proposed SSL-PCT and SSL-RF methods can be extended to handle other structured output prediction tasks beyond MLC and HMLC by adapting the variance function and prototype function to suit the specific requirements of the new tasks. For multi-target regression, the variance function can be modified to consider the relationships between multiple target variables and their interactions. The prototype function can be adjusted to predict multiple continuous or nominal values for each example. Additionally, the feature weighting mechanism used in SSL-PCT-FR and SSL-RF-FR can be applied to prioritize the most informative features for multi-target regression tasks. For structured output prediction with complex dependencies, the algorithms can be enhanced to capture the intricate relationships between different output variables. This can involve incorporating graph-based models to represent dependencies between output variables, and designing the variance and prototype functions to account for these dependencies. By customizing the algorithms to the specific characteristics of the new tasks, the SSL-PCT and SSL-RF methods can effectively handle a wide range of structured output prediction tasks.

What are the theoretical guarantees or conditions under which the semi-supervised learning approach proposed in this paper is expected to provide significant improvements over the supervised counterparts

The theoretical guarantees or conditions under which the semi-supervised learning approach proposed in this paper is expected to provide significant improvements over the supervised counterparts include the smoothness assumption, low-density separation assumption, and manifold assumption. These assumptions suggest that if two samples are close in the input space, their labels should be similar, the decision boundary should avoid high-density areas, and data points on the same low-dimensional manifold should have the same label. In the context of structured output prediction tasks like MLC and HMLC, leveraging unlabeled data to better estimate the distribution of data in the descriptive space can lead to improved predictive accuracy. By incorporating the information from unlabeled examples, the SSL-PCT and SSL-RF methods can better capture the underlying patterns and dependencies in the data, resulting in enhanced predictive performance compared to supervised methods.

Can the feature weighting mechanism used in SSL-PCT-FR and SSL-RF-FR be further improved or adapted to better handle datasets with a large number of irrelevant features

The feature weighting mechanism used in SSL-PCT-FR and SSL-RF-FR can be further improved or adapted to better handle datasets with a large number of irrelevant features by incorporating more sophisticated feature selection techniques. One approach could be to integrate advanced feature selection algorithms such as recursive feature elimination, L1 regularization, or tree-based feature importance ranking methods to identify and prioritize the most relevant features for prediction. Additionally, ensemble methods like gradient boosting or stacking can be employed to combine the outputs of multiple feature weighting models and enhance the overall feature selection process. By leveraging ensemble techniques, the feature weighting mechanism can be optimized to effectively handle datasets with a large number of features, improving the model's ability to focus on the most informative attributes while disregarding irrelevant ones.
0