Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning

In recent years, spectral clustering has become one of the most popular modern clustering algorithms. It is simple to implement, can be solved efficiently by standard linear algebra software, and very often outperforms traditional clustering algorithms such as the k-means algorithm. On the first glance spectral clustering appears slightly mysterious, and it is not obvious to see why it works at all and what it really does. The goal of this tutorial is to give some intuition on those questions. We describe different graph Laplacians and their basic properties, present the most common spectral clustering algorithms, and derive those algorithms from scratch by several different approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of the different spectral clustering algorithms are discussed.

/pdf/a-tutorial-on-spectral-clustering-536pmg9onu.pdf

A tutorial on spectral clustering

The modern science of networks has brought significant advances to our understanding of complex systems. One of the most relevant features of graphs representing real systems is community structure, or clustering, i. e. the organization of vertices in clusters, with many edges joining vertices of the same cluster and comparatively few edges joining vertices of different clusters. Such clusters, or communities, can be considered as fairly independent compartments of a graph, playing a similar role like, e. g., the tissues or the organs in the human body. Detecting communities is of great importance in sociology, biology and computer science, disciplines where systems are often represented as graphs. This problem is very hard and not yet satisfactorily solved, despite the huge effort of a large interdisciplinary community of scientists working on it over the past few years. We will attempt a thorough exposition of the topic, from the definition of the main elements of the problem, to the presentation of most methods developed, with a special focus on techniques designed by statistical physicists, from the discussion of crucial issues like the significance of clustering and how methods should be tested and compared against each other, to the description of applications to real networks.

/pdf/community-detection-in-graphs-34rogm3r6p.pdf

Community detection in graphs

This work presents a new perspective on characterizing the similarity between elements of a database or, more generally, nodes of a weighted and undirected graph. It is based on a Markov-chain model of random walk through the database. More precisely, we compute quantities (the average commute time, the pseudoinverse of the Laplacian matrix of the graph, etc.) that provide similarities between any pair of nodes, having the nice property of increasing when the number of paths connecting those elements increases and when the "length" of paths decreases. It turns out that the square root of the average commute time is a Euclidean distance and that the pseudoinverse of the Laplacian matrix is a kernel matrix (its elements are inner products closely related to commute times). A principal component analysis (PCA) of the graph is introduced for computing the subspace projection of the node vectors in a manner that preserves as much variance as possible in terms of the Euclidean commute-time distance. This graph PCA provides a nice interpretation to the "Fiedler vector," widely used for graph partitioning. The model is evaluated on a collaborative-recommendation task where suggestions are made about which movies people should watch based upon what they watched in the past. Experimental results on the MovieLens database show that the Laplacian-based similarities perform well in comparison with other methods. The model, which nicely fits into the so-called "statistical relational learning" framework, could also be used to compute document or word similarities, and, more generally, it could be applied to machine-learning and pattern-recognition tasks involving a relational database

http://outobox.cs.umn.edu/Random_Walks_Collaborative_Recommendation_Fouss.pdf

Random-Walk Computation of Similarities between Nodes of a Graph with Application to Collaborative Recommendation

It sometimes happens (for instance in case control studies) that a classifier is trained on a data set that does not reflect the true a priori probabilities of the target classes on real-world data. This may have a negative effect on the classification accuracy obtained on the real-world data set, especially when the classifier's decisions are based on the a posteriori probabilities of class membership. Indeed, in this case, the trained classifier provides estimates of the a posteriori probabilities that are not valid for this real-world data set (they rely on the a priori probabilities of the training set). Applying the classifier as is (without correcting its outputs with respect to these new conditions) on this new data set may thus be suboptimal. In this note, we present a simple iterative procedure for adjusting the outputs of the trained classifier with respect to these new a priori probabilities without having to refit the model, even when these probabilities are not known in advance. As a by-product, estimates of the new a priori probabilities are also obtained. This iterative algorithm is a straightforward instance of the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm and is shown to maximize the likelihood of the new data. Thereafter, we discuss a statistical test that can be applied to decide if the a priori class probabilities have changed from the training set to the real-world data. The procedure is illustrated on different classification problems involving a multilayer neural network, and comparisons with a standard procedure for a priori probability estimation are provided. Our original method, based on the EM algorithm, is shown to be superior to the standard one for a priori probability estimation. Experimental results also indicate that the classifier with adjusted outputs always performs better than the original one in terms of classification accuracy, when the a priori probability conditions differ from the training set to the real-world data. The gain in classification accuracy can be significant.

/pdf/adjusting-the-outputs-of-a-classifier-to-new-a-priori-1wx95druq6.pdf

Adjusting the outputs of a classifier to new a priori probabilities: a simple procedure

This work presents a novel procedure for computing (1) distances between nodes of a weighted, undirected, graph, called the Euclidean Commute Time Distance (ECTD), and (2) a subspace projection of the nodes of the graph that preserves as much variance as possible, in terms of the ECTD – a principal components analysis of the graph. It is based on a Markov-chain model of random walk through the graph. The model assigns transition probabilities to the links between nodes, so that a random walker can jump from node to node. A quantity, called the average commute time, computes the average time taken by a random walker for reaching node j for the first time when starting from node i, and coming back to node i. The square root of this quantity, the ECTD, is a distance measure between any two nodes, and has the nice property of decreasing when the number of paths connecting two nodes increases and when the "length" of any path decreases. The ECTD can be computed from the pseudoinverse of the Laplacian matrix of the graph, which is a kernel. We finally define the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of a graph as the subspace projection that preserves as much variance as possible, in terms of the ECTD. This graph PCA has some interesting links with spectral graph theory, in particular spectral clustering.

/pdf/the-principal-components-analysis-of-a-graph-and-its-mknvovgo5b.pdf

The principal components analysis of a graph, and its relationships to spectral clustering

http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/staff/marco/Publications/2008_ExperimentalInvestigation.pdf

An experimental investigation of kernels on graphs for collaborative recommendation and semisupervised classification

This work presents a systematic comparison between seven kernels (or similarity matrices) on a graph, namely the exponential diffusion kernel, the Laplacian diffusion kernel, the von Neumann kernel, the regularized Laplacian kernel, the commute time kernel, and finally the Markov diffusion kernel and the cross-entropy diffusion matrix - both introduced in this paper - on a collaborative recommendation task involving a database. The database is viewed as a graph where elements are represented as nodes and relations as links between nodes. From this graph, seven kernels are computed, leading to a set of meaningful proximity measures between nodes, allowing to answer questions about the structure of the graph under investigation; in particular, recommend items to users. Cross- validation results indicate that a simple nearest-neighbours rule based on the similarity measure provided by the regularized Laplacian, the Markov diffusion and the commute time kernels performs best. We therefore recommend the use of the commute time kernel for computing similarities between elements of a database, for two reasons: (1) it has a nice appealing interpretation in terms of random walks and (2) no parameter needs to be adjusted.

http://www.isys.ucl.ac.be/staff/luh/publi/Fouss2005c.pdf

Marco Saerens

Papers

Random-Walk Computation of Similarities between Nodes of a Graph with Application to Collaborative Recommendation

Adjusting the outputs of a classifier to new a priori probabilities: a simple procedure

The principal components analysis of a graph, and its relationships to spectral clustering

An experimental investigation of kernels on graphs for collaborative recommendation and semisupervised classification

An Experimental Investigation of Graph Kernels on a Collaborative Recommendation Task