We propose a new approach to address the text classification problems when learning with partial labels is beneficial. Instead of offering each training sample a set of candidate labels, we assign negative-oriented labels to the ambiguous training examples if they are unlikely fall into certain classes. We construct our new maximum likelihood estimators with self-correction property, and prove that under some conditions, our estimators converge faster. Also we discuss the advantages of applying one of our estimator to a fully supervised learning problem. The proposed method has potential applicability in many areas, such as crowdsourcing, natural language processing and medical image analysis.
A popular model to achieve our aim is to use Naive Bayes model @cite_1 @cite_6 , the label for a given document @math is given by: where @math is the @math -th class. For example, we can treat each class as a multinomial distribution, and the corresponding documents are samples generated by the distribution. With this assumption, we desire to find the centroid for every class, by either using the maximum likelihood function or defining other different objective functions @cite_16 in both supervised and unsupervised learning version @cite_9 . Although the assumption of this method is not exact in this task, Naive Bayes achieves high accuracy in practical problems.
@cite_9 @cite_16 @cite_1 @cite_6
2158738673 1550206324 179179905 1817561967
We present an application of Hidden Markov Models to supervised document classification and ranking. We consider a family of models that take into account the fact that relevant documents may contain irrelevant passages; the originality of the model is that it does not explicitly segment documents but rather considers all possible segmentations in its final score. This model generalizes the multinomial Naive Bayes and it is derived from a more general model for different access tasks. The model is evaluated on the REUTERS test collection and compared to the multinomial Naive Bayes model. It is shown to be more robust with respect to the training set size and to improve the performance both for ranking and classification, specially for classes with few training examples. Recent work in text classification has used two different first-order probabilistic models for classification, both of which make the naive Bayes assumption. Some use a multi-variate Bernoulli model, that is, a Bayesian Network with no dependencies between words and binary word features (e.g. Larkey and Croft 1996; Koller and Sahami 1997). Others use a multinomial model, that is, a uni-gram language model with integer word counts (e.g. Lewis and Gale 1994; Mitchell 1997). This paper aims to clarify the confusion by describing the differences and details of these two models, and by empirically comparing their classification performance on five text corpora. We find that the multi-variate Bernoulli performs well with small vocabulary sizes, but that the multinomial performs usually performs even better at larger vocabulary sizes--providing on average a 27 reduction in error over the multi-variate Bernoulli model at any vocabulary size. The naive Bayes classifier greatly simplify learning by assuming that features are independent given class. Although independence is generally a poor assumption, in practice naive Bayes often competes well with more sophisticated classifiers. Our broad goal is to understand the data characteristics which affect the performance of naive Bayes. Our approach uses Monte Carlo simulations that allow a systematic study of classification accuracy for several classes of randomly generated problems. We analyze the impact of the distribution entropy on the classification error, showing that low-entropy feature distributions yield good performance of naive Bayes. We also demonstrate that naive Bayes works well for certain nearlyfunctional feature dependencies, thus reaching its best performance in two opposite cases: completely independent features (as expected) and functionally dependent features (which is surprising). Another surprising result is that the accuracy of naive Bayes is not directly correlated with the degree of feature dependencies measured as the classconditional mutual information between the features. Instead, a better predictor of naive Bayes accuracy is the amount of information about the class that is lost because of the independence assumption. Recent work in supervised learning has shown that a surprisingly simple Bayesian classifier with strong assumptions of independence among features, called naive Bayes, is competitive with state-of-the-art classifiers such as C4.5. This fact raises the question of whether a classifier with less restrictive assumptions can perform even better. In this paper we evaluate approaches for inducing classifiers from data, based on the theory of learning Bayesian networks. These networks are factored representations of probability distributions that generalize the naive Bayesian classifier and explicitly represent statements about independence. Among these approaches we single out a method we call Tree Augmented Naive Bayes (TAN), which outperforms naive Bayes, yet at the same time maintains the computational simplicity (no search involved) and robustness that characterize naive Bayes. We experimentally tested these approaches, using problems from the University of California at Irvine repository, and compared them to C4.5, naive Bayes, and wrapper methods for feature selection.