Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.
-
Upload
clarissa-boone -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.
![Page 1: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Ambiguous Nodes in Networked Data based on Measuring Reliable Neighboring Probabilities
Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling LeeStudent : Chao Chih WangDate : 2013.01.04
![Page 2: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline
Introduction Network data Traditional VS Networked data Classification Collective Classification ICA
Problem Our Method
Collective Inference With Ambiguous Node (CIAN)
Experiments Conclusion
![Page 3: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Introduction – Network data traditional data:
instances are independent of each other
network data: instances are maybe related to each other
application: emails web page paper citation
independent related
![Page 4: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Introduction – Network data
![Page 5: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
traditional VS network data classification
Introduction
F
D
G
E
C
B
H
A
12
F
D
G
E
C
B
H
A 1
2
B
Class: 1 2
: Class 1
![Page 6: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Introduction – Collective Classification To classify interrelated instances using content
features and link features.
node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
D 1 0 0
E 1 1 1
1+2
A 1B
C
D
E
21
1 0 0 1/2 1/2 0
1
2
link feature
class1 class2 class3
Binary
Count
Proportion
1 0 02 0 01 0 0
1 1 01 1 01/2 1/2 0
D:E:
We use :
![Page 7: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Introduction – ICA
ICA : Iterative Classification Algorithm
Initial : Training local classifier use content features to predict unlabel instancesIterative { for predict each unlabeled instance { set unlabeled instance ’s link feature use local classifier to predict unlabeled instance }}
step1
step2
![Page 8: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Introduction – ICA Example
Iteration
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
1 1 0 1
2 1 0 1
node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
C 1 0 0 0 1/2 1/2 2
D 1 0 0 1/2 1/2 0 2
E 1 0 1 1/2 1/4 1/4 1
F 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
G 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
H 1 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 3
Training data:
2/3 0 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3
1
3A:
1
2
2 A
E
1
1B
1
C
D
F1 G
3H2
1
2
3
3
Class : 1 2 3
unlabel data:training data:
Iteration
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
1 1 0 1
2 1 0 1
1/2 1/2 0 1/4 1/2 1/4
2
2B:
3I
![Page 9: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Problem – Ambiguous Node label the wrong class
judge the label with difficulty make a mistake 2
1
1A
B
2
2D
node content feature class
C 0 0 1
D 0 0 1
E 1 1 2
F 1 0 2
G 1 1 2
C
E F
G
content feature
a. b.
woman
man age≤20
age>20
0 1 0 1
class
non-smoking
smoking
1 2
11 or 2 ?1
![Page 10: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Problem – use ICA
11
1A
unlabel data:training data:
1
1
1C 1
2
22
A
True class :
B
1
C
1
2 D
node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
B 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
D 0 1 1 1/3 2/3 0 2
E 0 1 1 1/4 3/4 0 2
F 1 0 1 2/3 1/3 0 1
G 1 0 1 2/3 1/3 0 1
H 0 1 1 0 1 0 2
Training data
Iteration
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1
2/3 1/3 0 2/3 1/3 0
A: 1
1E
F
G
B
2
H
- Ambiguous
1 0 1C:
1I
2J
![Page 11: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Idea
Make a new prediction for neighbors of unlabeled instance
Use probability to compute link feature
Retrain the CC classifier
![Page 12: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
compute link feature use probability
A
12
3( 1 , 80%)
( 2, 60%)
( 3 , 70%)
Our method:Class 1 : 80/(80+60+70)Class 2 : 60/(80+60+70)Class 3 : 70/(80+60+70)
General method :Class 1 : 1/3Class 2 : 1/3Class 3 : 1/3
Our Method – Method #1
![Page 13: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Our Method – Method #2
11
1A1
1
1C
2
2
E
F
G
B
2
H
- Ambiguous
22
A
True class :
B
1
C
D
To predict unlabeled instance ’s neighbors again.
( 1 , 70%)( 2, 80%)
( 1 , 70%)
( 1 , 70%)
( 2 , 60%)
( 2 , 80%)
predict again
11
1A1
1
1C
2
2
E
F
G
B
2
H
- Noise
D( 1 , 70%)( 2, 80%)
( 1 , 70%)
( 1 , 70%)
( 2 , 90%)
( 2 , 80%)
predict again
B is ambiguous node.
B is noise node.
![Page 14: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
To predict unlabeled instance ’s neighbors again first iteration needs to predict again difference between original and predict
label : ▪ This iteration doesn’t to adopt▪ Next iteration need to predict again
similarity between original and predict label :▪ Average the probability ▪ Next iteration doesn’t need to predict again
A
1 2( 1 , 80%) ( 2, 60%)
( 2, 80%)( 2, 60%)
( 2, 70%)( 2, 60%)
1
Our Method – Method #2
new prediction
B C
Example:
![Page 15: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
2
w
x
y 3z
1( 1 , 60%)
( 2 , 70%)
( 3 , 60%)
( 3 , 60%)
( 2 , 80%)
( 2 , 70%) new prediction
( 2 , 75%)
( 3 , 60%)( ? , ??%)
linkfeature
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
original 0.315 0.368 0.315
Method A 0.27 0.405 0.324
Method B 0 0.692 0.307
Method C 0 0.555 0.444
x:Method A : (1 , 50%)Method B : (2 , 60%)Method C : (1 , 0%)
2
x’s True label : 2
x is ambiguous ( or noise) node:Method B >Method C > Method Ax is not ambiguous ( or noise) node:Method A >Method C > Method BMethod A & Method B is too extreme.So we choose the Method C.
Our Method – Method #2
not adoptchange classnot change class
-Ambiguous
![Page 16: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Our Method – Method #2
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Iteration 5
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
MethodAMethodBMethodC
Accuracy
![Page 17: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Retrain CC classifier
Our Method – Method #3
node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
A 1 0 1 1/2 1/2 0 1
B 1 1 1 1 0 0 2
C 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
( 3 , 70%)
1+
AB
C
D
E
21
1+2
A 3
B
C
D
E
21
( 1 , 90%)( 2, 60%)
( 2 , 70%)
( 1 , 80%) node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
A 1 0 1 90/290 130/290
70/290 1
B 1 1 1 80/140 60/140 0 2
C 1 0 1 80/150 0 70/150 1
retrain
Initial ( ICA )
![Page 18: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
11
1A
B
1
1
1C 2
-Ambiguous2
1
( 2 , 60%)
( 1 , 80%)
2( 2 , 80%)
( 1 , 80%) ( 2 , 80%)
( 1 , 70%)
predict again
( 2 , 60%)
( 1 , 60%)
D
Iteration
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
1 1 1 1
22
A
True label:
B
1
C node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
B 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
D 0 1 1 1/2 1/2 0 2
E 0 1 1 1/2 1/2 0 2
F 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
G 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Training data
E
F
G
1/2 1/2 0
Our: 2
unlabel data:training data:
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
0 0 1 0.466 0.533 0
B:
( 1 , 60%)
( 2 , 80%)
2
CIAN Example – Ambiguous
1 1 1 2/3 1/3 0 1ICA:
![Page 19: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
11
1A
B
1
1
1C 2
- Noise2
1
( 2 , 80%)
( 1 , 80%)
2( 2 , 80%)
( 1 , 80%) ( 2 , 80%)
( 1 , 70%)
predict again
( 2 , 70%)
( 1 , 70%)
D Iteration
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
1 1 1 1
22
A
True label:
B
1
C node
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
B 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
D 0 1 1 1/2 1/2 0 2
E 0 1 1 1/2 1/2 0 2
F 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
G 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Training data
E
F
G
1/2 1/2 0
Our:2
unlabel data:training data:
content feature
link featureclass1 class2
class3
class
0 1 1 0.466 0.533 0
B:
( 1 , 60%)
( 2 , 80%)
2
CIAN Example – Noise
1 1 1 2/3 1/3 0 1ICA:
![Page 20: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
CIAN
CIAN : Collective Inference With Ambiguous Node
Initial : Training local classifier use content features to predict unlabel instancesIterative { for predict each unlabel instance { for nb unlabeled instance ’s neighbors{
if(need to predict again) (class label, probability ) = local
classifier(nb) } set unlabel instance ’s link feature (class label, probability ) = local classifier(A) } retrain local classifier}
step1
step2
step3
step4step5
![Page 21: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Experiments - Data sets
Characteristics Cora CiteSeer
WebKB-texas
WebKB-washingto
n
Instances 2708 3312 187 230
Class labels 7 6 5 5
Link number 4732 5429 328 446
Content features 1433 3703 1703 1703
Link features 7 6 5 5
![Page 22: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Experiments-Experimental setting
Characteristics Cora CiteSeer
WebKB-texas
WebKB-washingt
on
Instances 2708 3312 187 230
Max ambiguous nodes
(NB)429 590 52 50
Max ambiguous nodes
(SVM)356 365 20 31
Training data 1500 2000 100 120
Iteration 5 5 5 5fixed
argument‧Compare with CO、 ICA、 CIAN
![Page 23: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Experiments
1. misclassified nodes Proportion of misclassified nodes (0%~30% , 80%)
2. ambiguous nodes NB vs SVM
3. misclassified and Ambiguous nodes Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
(0%~30% , 80%)
4. iteration & stable number of iterations
![Page 24: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Experiments – 1. misclassified Cora
0% 10% 20% 30%68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified nodes
Accu
racy
0% 4.5 2.5
10% 3.2 3.3
20% 2.7 3.9
30% 2.3 4.2
CO ICA CIAN0% 76.1 80.6 83.1
10% 73.2 76.4 79.720% 70.7 73.4 77.330% 68 70.3 74.5
![Page 25: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Experiments – 1. misclassified CiteSeer
0% 10% 20% 30%6869707172737475767778
COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified nodes
Accu
racy
0% 3.6 0.2
10% 1.9 1.3
20% 1.3 1.8
30% 1.2 2.1
CO ICA CIAN0% 73.5 77.1 77.3
10% 71.8 73.7 7520% 70.2 71.5 73.330% 69.1 70.3 72.4
![Page 26: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Experiments – 1. misclassified WebKB-texas
0% 10% 20% 30%66676869707172737475 CO
ICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified nodes
Accu
racy
0% 1.4 0.3
10% 1.5 0.9
20% 1 1.5
30% 0.4 2
CO ICA CIAN
0% 73.2 74.6 74.9
10% 70.7 72.2 73.1
20% 69.4 70.4 71.9
30% 67.8 68.2 70.2
![Page 27: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Experiments – 1. misclassified WebKB-washington
0% 10% 20% 30%6869707172737475767778 CO
ICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified nodes
Accu
racy
0% 1.5 0.9
10% 1.4 1.4
20% 1 1.9
30% 0.8 2.2
CO ICA CIAN
0% 75.1 76.6 77.5
10% 73.2 74.6 76
20% 71.6 72.6 74.5
30% 69.8 70.6 72.8
![Page 28: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Experiments – 1. misclassified
80% of misclassified nodes
CO ICA CIAN
Cora 22.1 20.1 25.6
CiteSeer 20.7 19.1 23.6
WebKB-texas 17.6 16.3 20.5
WebKB-washington 19 17.7 22.2
![Page 29: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Experiments – 2. ambiguous
Cora
33% 66% 99%74
76
78
80
82
84
86
CO
ICA
CIAN
Proportion of ambiguous nodes(NB)
Accu
racy
Max ambiguous nodes : 429
33% 66% 99%74
76
78
80
82
84
86
Proportion of ambiguous nodes (SVM)
Max ambiguous nodes : 356
![Page 30: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Experiments – 2. ambiguous
CiteSeerMax ambiguous nodes : 590
33% 66% 99%74
76
78
80
82
84
CO
ICA
CIAN
Proportion of ambiguous nodes(NB)
Accu
racy
33% 66% 99%74
76
78
80
82
84
Proportion of ambiguous nodes (SVM)
Max ambiguous nodes : 365
![Page 31: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Experiments – 2. ambiguous
WebKB-texasMax ambiguous nodes : 52
33% 66% 99%67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
CO
ICA
CIAN
Proportion of ambiguous nodes(NB)
Accu
racy
33% 66% 99%67
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
Proportion of ambiguous nodes (SVM)
Max ambiguous nodes : 20
![Page 32: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Experiments – 2. ambiguous
WebKB-washingtonMax ambiguous nodes : 33
33% 66% 99%71
73
75
77
79
81
CO
ICA
CIAN
Proportion of ambiguous nodes(NB)
Accu
racy
33% 66% 99%71
73
75
77
79
81
Proportion of ambiguous nodes (SVM)
Max ambiguous nodes : 31
![Page 33: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Experiments – 2. ambiguous
Characteristics Cora CiteSeer
WebKB-texas
WebKB-washingt
on
Instances 2708 3312 187 230
Max ambiguous nodes
(NB)429 590 52 50
Max ambiguous nodes
(SVM)356 365 20 31
The same ambiguous nodes 157 164 15 17
The proportion of the same
ambiguous nodes (NB)
36.5% 27.7% 28.8% 34%
The proportion of the same
ambiguous nodes (SVM)
44.1% 44.9% 75% 54.8%
‧ How much the same ambiguous nodes between NB and SVM?
![Page 34: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Experiments – 3. misclassified and ambiguous
Cora
10% 20% 30%67
69
71
73
75
77
79 COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
Accu
racy
10% 6.3 1.5
20% 6.7 2
30% 6.7 2.3
CO ICA CIAN
10% 71.7 78 79.5
20% 69.2 75.9 77.9
30% 67.1 73.8 76.1
![Page 35: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Experiments – 3. misclassified and ambiguous
CiteSeer
10% 20% 30%69707172737475767778
COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
Accu
racy
10% 2.2 0.9
20% 1.1 1.7
30% 2.2 2.3
CO ICA CIAN
10% 74.5 76.7 77.6
20% 72.5 73.6 75.3
30% 69.1 71.3 73.6
![Page 36: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Experiments – 3. misclassified and ambiguous
WebKB-texas
10% 20% 30%666768697071727374
COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
Accu
racy
10% 1.8 1
20% 1.8 1.4
30% 1.4 3
CO ICA CIAN
10% 70.3 72.1 73.1
20% 68.2 70 71.4
30% 66.1 67.5 70.5
![Page 37: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Experiments – 3. misclassified and ambiguous
WebKB-washington
10% 20% 30%66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80 COICACIAN
Proportion of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
Accu
racy
10% 0.5 1.8
20% 1.2 2.4
30% 1.8 5.2
CO ICA CIAN
10% 78.4 78.9 80.7
20% 72.4 73.6 76
30% 66.2 68 73.2
![Page 38: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Experiments – 3. misclassified and ambiguous
80% of misclassified and ambiguous nodes
CO ICA CIAN
Cora 27.3 26.8 30.3
CiteSeer 26.9 24.8 28.6
WebKB-texas 24.9 22.5 26.9
WebKB-washington 25.8 20.9 25.9
![Page 39: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Experiments
Number of
training data
The proportion of misclassified
nodes
The proportion of misclassified and ambiguous
nodesCora 1500 60% 65%
CiteSeer 2000 65% 70%
WebKB-texas 100 45% 50%WebKB-
washington 120 50% 55%
‧ When the accuracy of ICA is lower than CO ?
![Page 40: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Experiments – 4. iteration & stable Cora
10%
round CO ICA Our
1 74.25 78.59 79.24
2 74.25 78.64 80.11
3 74.25 78.59 80.23
4 74.25 78.64 80.11
5 74.25 78.64 80.48
6 74.25 78.82 80.5
7 74.25 78.82 80.67
8 74.25 78.82 80.79
9 74.25 78.82 80.79
10 74.25 78.82 80.79
Avg. 74.25 78.72 80.371
20%
CO ICA Our
71.77 75.64 76.33
71.77 76.22 77.22
71.77 75.85 77.41
71.77 75.94 77.22
71.77 76.26 78.3
71.77 76.29 78.3
71.77 76.49 78.44
71.77 76.49 78.57
71.77 76.49 78.57
71.77 76.49 78.57
71.77 76.216 77.893
30%
CO ICA Our
67.52 71.32 73.59
67.52 71.53 74.11
67.52 71.53 74.11
67.52 71.32 74.25
67.52 71.64 74.11
67.52 71.73 74.28
67.52 71.82 74.32
67.52 71.82 74.4
67.52 71.82 74.49
67.52 71.82 74.49
67.52 71.635 74.215
![Page 41: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Experiments – 4. iteration & stable CiteSeer
10%
round CO ICA Our
1 72.25 74.74 74.88
2 72.25 74.68 75.96
3 72.25 74.79 75.88
4 72.25 74.83 76.27
5 72.25 75.14 76.27
6 72.25 75.23 76.44
7 72.25 75.42 76.5
8 72.25 75.42 76.81
9 72.25 75.42 76.81
10 72.25 75.42 76.81
Avg. 72.25 75.109 76.263
20%
CO ICA Our
71.34 73.32 73.64
71.34 72.94 74.32
71.34 73.32 74.32
71.34 72.94 74.49
71.34 73.28 74.7
71.34 73.52 74.7
71.34 73.52 74.71
71.34 73.52 74.86
71.34 73.52 74.86
71.34 73.52 74.86
71.34 73.34 74.546
30%
CO ICA Our
69.24 71.03 72.17
69.24 71.24 72.78
69.24 71.24 72.63
69.24 71.03 72.78
69.24 71.38 72.86
69.24 71.46 73.24
69.24 71.76 73.3
69.24 71.76 73.39
69.24 71.76 73.48
69.24 71.76 73.48
69.24 71.442 73.011
![Page 42: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Experiments – 4. iteration & stable WebKB-texas
10%
round CO ICA Our
1 66.73 66.82 68.34
2 66.73 66.96 68.83
3 66.73 66.82 68.83
4 66.73 67.24 68.54
5 66.73 67.24 68.92
6 66.73 67.24 68.92
7 66.73 67.24 68.92
8 66.73 67.24 68.92
9 66.73 67.24 68.92
10 66.73 67.24 68.92
Avg. 66.73 67.128 68.806
20%
CO ICA Our
64.36 65.51 65.66
64.36 65.79 66.8
64.36 66.08 66.8
64.36 66.25 67.36
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.25 67.67
64.36 66.113 67.264
30%
CO ICA Our
62.14 62.94 65.86
62.14 63.27 66.05
62.14 64.38 66.05
62.14 64.87 66.19
62.14 64.87 66.19
62.14 64.87 66.31
62.14 64.87 66.31
62.14 64.87 66.31
62.14 64.87 66.31
62.14 64.87 66.31
62.14 64.468 66.189
![Page 43: Advisor : Prof. Sing Ling Lee Student : Chao Chih Wang Date : 2013.01.04 1.](https://reader036.fdocument.pub/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649f4d5503460f94c6e222/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Experiments – 4. iteration & stable WebKB-washington
10%
round CO ICA Our
1 70.9 71.81 73.34
2 70.9 71.94 74.05
3 70.9 72.16 74.27
4 70.9 72.2 74.27
5 70.9 72.2 74.41
6 70.9 72.2 74.41
7 70.9 72.2 74.41
8 70.9 72.2 74.41
9 70.9 72.2 74.41
10 70.9 72.2 74.41
Avg. 70.9 72.131 74.239
20%
CO ICA Our
68.18 69.09 71.67
68.18 69.27 72.32
68.18 69.67 72.41
68.18 69.8 72.53
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.8 72.86
68.18 69.663 72.609
30%
CO ICA Our
66.36 67.27 69.37
66.36 67.27 69.86
66.36 67.46 69.92
66.36 67.73 70.18
66.36 67.73 70.18
66.36 67.73 70.22
66.36 67.73 70.22
66.36 67.73 70.22
66.36 67.73 70.22
66.36 67.73 70.22
66.36 67.611 70.061