Online Max-Margin Weight Learning with Markov Logic Networks Tuyen N. Huynh and Raymond J. Mooney...

Online Max-Margin Weight Learning

with Markov Logic Networks

Tuyen N. Huynh and Raymond J. Mooney

Machine Learning GroupDepartment of Computer ScienceThe University of Texas at Austin

Star AI 2010, July 12, 2010

Outline

2

Motivation Background

Markov Logic Networks Primal-dual framework

New online learning algorithm for structured prediction

Experiments Citation segmentation Search query disambiguation

Conclusion

Motivation

Most of the existing weight learning for MLNs are in the batch setting. Need to run inference over all the training

examples in each iteration Usually take a few hundred iterations to

converge Cannot fit all the training examples in the

memory

Conventional solution: online learning

3

Background

4

An MLN is a weighted set of first-order formulas

Larger weight indicates stronger belief that the clause should hold

Probability of a possible world (a truth assignment to all ground atoms) x:

Markov Logic Networks (MLNs)

iii xnw

ZxXP )(exp

1)(

Weight of formula i No. of true groundings of formula i in x

[Richardson & Domingos, 2006]

2.5 Center(i,c) => InField(Ftitle,i,c)1.2 InField(f,i,c) ^ Next(j,i) ^ ¬HasPunc(c,i)=> InField(f,j,c)

5

Existing discriminative weight learning methods for MLNs

maximize the Conditional Log Likelihood (CLL) [Singla & Domingos, 2005], [Lowd & Domingos, 2007], [Huynh & Mooney, 2008]

maximize the margin, the log ratio between the probability of the correct label and the closest incorrect one [Huynh & Mooney, 2009]

6

Online learning

7

Regret = R(T) =P T

t=1 lt(wt) ¡ minw2W

Regret = R(T) =TX

t=1

ct(wt) ¡ minw2W

(8)Regret = R(T) =TX

t=1

ct(wt) ¡ minw2W

TX

t=1

ct(w) (1)

Regret = R(T) =P T

t=1 ct(wt) ¡ minw2WP T

t=1 ct(w)

A general and latest framework for deriving low-regret online algorithms

Rewriting the regret bound as an optimization problem (called the primal problem), then considering the dual problem of the primal one

A condition that guarantees the increase in the dual objective in each step

Incremental-Dual-Ascent (IDA) algorithms. For example: subgradient methods

Primal-dual framework [Shalev-Shwartz et al., 2006]

8

Primal-dual framework (cont.)

9

Proposed a new class of IDA algorithms called Coordinate-Dual-Ascent (CDA) algorithm: The CDA update rule only optimizes the

dual w.r.t the last dual variable A closed-form solution of CDA update rule

CDA algorithms have the same cost as subgradient methods but increase the dual objective more in each step converging to the optimal value faster

Primal-dual framework (cont.)

10

CDA algorithms for max-margin structured prediction

11

Max-margin structured prediction

12

),();,( yxwwyxf T

),(maxarg);( yxwwxh T

Yy

)',(max),();,(\

yxwyxwwyx T

yYy

T

Steps for deriving new CDA algorithms

13

1. Define the regularization and loss functions

2. Find the conjugate functions3. Derive a closed-form solution for the

CDA update rule

1. Define the regularization and loss functions

14

Label loss function

1. Define the regularization and loss functions (cont.)

15

2. Find the conjugate functions

16

2. Find the conjugate functions (cont.)

17

18

Optimization problem:

Solution:

3. Closed-form solution for the CDA update rule

CDA algorithms for max-margin structured prediction

19

Experiments

20

Citation segmentation

21

Citeseer dataset [Lawrence et.al., 1999] [Poon and Domingos, 2007]

1,563 citations, divided into 4 research topics

Each citation is segmented into 3 fields: Author, Title, Venue

Used the simplest MLN in [Poon and Domingos, 2007] Similar to a linear chain CRF: Next(j,i) ^ !HasPunc(c,i) ^ InField(c,+f,i) => InField(c,+f,j)

Experimental setup

Systems compared: MM: the max-margin weight learner for

MLNs in batch setting [Huynh & Mooney, 2009]

1-best MIRA [Crammer et al., 2005]

Subgradient [Ratliff et al., 2007]

CDA1/PA1 CDA2

22

Experimental setup (cont.)

4-fold cross-validation Metric:

CiteSeer: micro-average F1 at the token level

Used exact MPE inference (Integer Linear Programming) for all online algorithms and approximate MPE inference (LP-relaxation) for the batch one.

Used Hamming loss as the label loss function

23

Average F1

24

Average training time in minutes

25

Microsoft web search query dataset

26

Used the clean-up dataset created by Mihalkova & Mooney [2009]

Has thousands of search sessions where an ambiguous queries was asked

Goal: disambiguate search query based on previous related search sessions

Used 3 MLNs proposed in [Mihalkova & Mooney, 2009]

Experimental setup

Systems compared: Contrastive Divergence (CD) [Hinton 2002]:

used in [Mihalkova & Mooney, 2009] 1-best MIRA Subgradient CDA1/PA1 CDA2

Metric: Mean Average Precision (MAP): how close

the relevant results are to the top of the rankings

27

MAP scores

28

Conclusion

29

Derived CDA algorithms for max-margin structured prediction Have same computational cost as existing

online algorithms but increase the dual objective more

Experimental results on two real-world problems show that the new algorithms generally achieve better accuracy and also have more consistent performance.

Thank you!

30

Questions?