Knowledge base construction (KBC) is the process of populating a knowledge base, i.e., a relational database together with inference rules, with information extracted from documents and structured sources. KBC blurs the distinction between two traditional database problems, information extraction and information integration. For the last several years, our group has been building knowledge bases with scientific collaborators. Using our approach, we have built knowledge bases that have comparable and sometimes better quality than those constructed by human volunteers. In contrast to these knowledge bases, which took experts a decade or more human years to construct, many of our projects are constructed by a single graduate student. Our approach to KBC is based on joint probabilistic inference and learning, but we do not see inference as either a panacea or a magic bullet: inference is a tool that allows us to be systematic in how we construct, debug, and improve the quality of such systems. In addition, inference allows us to construct these systems in a more loosely coupled way than traditional approaches. To support this idea, we have built the DeepDive system, which has the design goal of letting the user "think about features---not algorithms." We think of DeepDive as declarative in that one specifies what they want but not how to get it. We describe our approach with a focus on feature engineering, which we argue is an understudied problem relative to its importance to end-to-end quality.
Here, traditional classifiers assign each tuple a probability score, e.g., a na "ive Bayes classifier or a logistic regression classifier. For example, KnowItAll @cite_19 and TextRunner @cite_35 @cite_44 use a na "ive Bayes classifier, and CMU’s NELL @cite_33 @cite_1 uses logistic regression. Large-scale systems typically use these types of approaches in sophisticated combinations, e.g., NELL or Watson.
@cite_35 @cite_33 @cite_1 @cite_44 @cite_19
2063198586 2108626773 2068221105 1817561967
Objectives: To investigate whether (1) machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers; (2) classifier performance varies with optimization; and (3) the number of citations to screen can be reduced. Methods: We used an open-source, data-mining suite to process and classify biomedical citations that point to mostly nonrandomized studies from 2 systematic reviews. We built training and test sets for citation portions and compared classifier performance by considering the value of indexing, various feature sets, and optimization. We conducted our experiments in 2 phases. The design of phase I with no optimization was: 4 classifiersx3 feature setsx3 citation portions. Classifiers included k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, complement naive Bayes, and evolutionary support vector machine. Feature sets included bag of words, and 2- and 3-term n-grams. Citation portions included titles, titles and abstracts, and full citations with metadata. Phase II with optimization involved a subset of the classifiers, as well as features extracted from full citations, and full citations with overweighted titles. We optimized features and classifier parameters by manually setting information gain thresholds outside of a process for iterative grid optimization with 10-fold cross-validations. We independently tested models on data reserved for that purpose and statistically compared classifier performance on 2 types of feature sets. We estimated the number of citations needed to screen by reviewers during a second pass through a reduced set of citations. Results: In phase I, the evolutionary support vector machine returned the best recall for bag of words extracted from full citations; the best classifier with respect to overall performance was k-nearest neighbor. No classifier attained good enough recall for this task without optimization. In phase II, we boosted performance with optimization for evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers. Generalization performance was better for the latter in the independent tests. For evolutionary support vector machine and complement naive Bayes classifiers, the initial retrieval set was reduced by 46 and 35 , respectively. Conclusions: Machine learning classifiers can help identify nonrandomized studies eligible for full-text screening by systematic reviewers. Optimization can markedly improve performance of classifiers. However, generalizability varies with the classifier. The number of citations to screen during a second independent pass through the citations can be substantially reduced. Despite the simplicity of the Naive Bayes classifier, it has continued to perform well against more sophisticated newcomers and has remained, therefore, of great interest to the machine learning community. Of numerous approaches to refining the naive Bayes classifier, attribute weighting has received less attention than it warrants. Most approaches, perhaps influenced by attribute weighting in other machine learning algorithms, use weighting to place more emphasis on highly predictive attributes than those that are less predictive. In this paper, we argue that for naive Bayes attribute weighting should instead be used to alleviate the conditional independence assumption. Based on this premise, we propose a weighted naive Bayes algorithm, called WANBIA, that selects weights to minimize either the negative conditional log likelihood or the mean squared error objective functions. We perform extensive evaluations and find that WANBIA is a competitive alternative to state of the art classifiers like Random Forest, Logistic Regression and A1DE. The probability of error of classification methods based on convex combinations of simple base classifiers by boosting algorithms is investigated. The main result of the paper is that certain regularized boosting algorithms provide Bayes-risk consistent classifiers under the sole assumption that the Bayes classifier may be approximated by a convex combination of the base classifiers. Nonasymptotic distribution-free bounds are also developed which offer interesting new insight into how boosting works and help explain its success in practical classification problems. 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.