Pairwise ranking component analysis | Knowledge and Information Systems Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Pairwise ranking component analysis

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncovering the latent structure of the data is an active research topic in data mining. However, in the distance metric learning framework, previous studies have mainly focused on the classification performance. In this work, we consider the distance metric learning problem in the ranking setting, where predicting the order between the data vectors is more important than predicting the class labels. We focus on two problems: improving the ranking prediction accuracy and identifying the latent structure of the data. The core of our model consists of ranking the data using a Mahalanobis distance function. The additional use of non-negativity constraints and an entropy-based cost function allows us to simultaneously minimize the ranking error while identifying useful meta-features. To demonstrate its usefulness for information retrieval applications, we compare the performance of our method with four other methods on four UCI data sets, three text data sets, and four image data sets. Our approach shows good ranking accuracies, especially when few training data are available. We also use our model to extract and interpret the latent structure of the data sets. In addition, our approach is simple to implement and computationally efficient and can be used for data embedding and visualization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.google.com.

  2. Although we use text documents for illustrative purposes, our approach can be applied to any kind of data represented by vectors (e.g., image data, biological data, etc.).

  3. http://mdp-toolkit.sourceforge.net/.

  4. http://www.scipy.org/.

  5. http://www.gnu.org/s/gsl/.

  6. http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/index.html.

  7. http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~ronb/thesis.html.

  8. http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~roweis/data.html.

References

  1. Amini MR, Truong TV, Goutte C (2008) A boosting algorithm for learning bipartite ranking functions with partially labeled data, In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 99–106

  2. Baccini A, Dejean S, Lafage L et al (2011) How many performance measures to evaluate information retrieval systems? Knowl Inform Syst 30(3):693–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker LD, McCallum AK (1998) Distributional clustering of words for text classification, In: Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 96–103

  4. Bekkerman R, El-Yaniv R, Tishby N et al (2003) Distributional word clusters vs. words for text categorization. J Mach Learn Res 3:1183–1208

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Burges S, Shaked T, Renshaw E et al (2005) Learning to rank using gradient descent. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 89–96

  6. Burges CJC, Ragno R, Le QV (2007) Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 19. MIT Press, pp 193–200

  7. Chapelle O, Shivaswamy P, Vadrevu S et al (2010) Multi-task learning for boosting with application to web search ranking. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1189–1198

  8. Chen Y, Rege M, Dong M et al (2008) Non-negative matrix factorization for semi-supervised data clustering. Knowl Inform Syst 17(3):355–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen WW, Schapire RE, Singer Y (1999) Learning to order things. J Artif Intell Res 10(1):243–270

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of information theory. Wiley, London

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis JV, Kulis B, Jain P et al (2007) Information-theoretic metric learning. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 209–216

  12. Dela Rosa K, Metsis V, Athitsos V (2011) Boosted ranking models: a unifying framework for ranking predictions. Knowl Inform Syst 30(3):543–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dhillon IS, Modha DS (2001) Concept decompositions for large sparse text data using clustering. Mach Learn 42(1):143–175

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2000) Pattern classification. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forman G (2003) An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. J Mach Learn Res 3:1289–1305

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Freund Y, Schapire RE (1996) Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 148–156

  17. Freund Y, Iyer R, Schapire RE et al (2003) An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J Mach Learn Res 4:933–969

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Globerson A, Roweis S (2006) Metric learning by collapsing classes. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 19. MIT Press, pp 451–458

  19. Goldberger J, Roweis S, Hinton G et al (2004) Neighbourhood components analysis. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 17. MIT Press, pp 513–520

  20. Harpeled S, Roth D, Zimak D (2003) Constraint classification for multiclass classification and ranking. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 16. MIT Press, pp 785–792

  21. Huang K, Ying Y, Campbell C (2011) Generalized sparse metric learning with relative comparisons. Knowl Inform Syst 28(1):25–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jain P, Kulis B, Dhillon IS et al (2008) Online metric learning and fast similarity search. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 21. MIT Press, pp 761–768

  23. Jolliffe I (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Kulis B, Sustik M, Dhillon IS (2006) Learning low-rank kernel matrices. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 505–512

  25. Lee DD, Seung HS (1999) Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401:788–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee DD, Seung HS (2001) Algorithms for Non-negative Matrix Factorization. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. MIT Press, pp 556–562

  27. Liu TY (2009) Learning to rank for information retrieval. Found Trends Inform Retriev 3(3):225–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schütze H (2008) Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Martínez AM, Kak AC (2001) PCA versus LDA. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 23(2):228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pereira F, Tishby N, Lee L (1993) Distributional clustering of English words. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, pp 183–190

  31. Salton G, McGill MJ (1986) Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schultz M, Joachims T (2004) Learning a distance metric from relative comparisons. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 16. MIT Press, pp 41–48

  33. Shalev-Shwartz S, Singer Y, Ng AY (2004) Online and batch learning of pseudo-metrics. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 743–750

  34. Shental N, Hertz T, Weinshall D et al (2002) Adjustment learning and relevant component analysis. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on computer vision. Springer, London, UK, pp 776–792

  35. Slonim N, Tishby N (2000) Document clustering using word clusters via the information bottleneck method. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 208–215

  36. Sugiyama M (2006) Local Fisher discriminant analysis for supervised dimensionality reduction. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 905–912

  37. Thurau C, Kersting K, Wahabzada MC et al (2010) Convex non-negative matrix factorization for massive datasets. Knowl Inform Syst 29(2):457–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Usunier N, Amini MR, Gallinari P (2005) Generalisation error bounds for classifiers trained with interdependent data. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 18. MIT Press, pp 1369–1376

  39. Usunier N, Buffoni D, Gallinari P (2009) Ranking with ordered weighted pairwise classification. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on machine learning. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1057–1064

  40. Wang D, Li T, Ding C (2010) Weighted feature subset non-negative matrix factorization and its applications to document understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on data mining, pp 541–550

  41. Weinberger KQ, Blitzer J, Saul LK (2006) Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 18. MIT Press, pp 1473–1480

  42. Xing EP, Ng AY, Jordan MI et al (2002) Distance metric learning, with application to clustering with side-information. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 15. MIT Press, pp 505–512

  43. Xu W, Liu X, Gong Y (2003) Document clustering based on non-negative matrix factorization. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 267–273

  44. Yang Y, Pedersen JO (1997) A comparative study on feature selection in text categorization. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, USA, pp 412–420

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Biology Research Center (CBRC), Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tokyo, 135-0064, Japan

    Jean-François Pessiot & Wataru Fujibuchi

  2. Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan

    Hyeryung Kim

Authors
  1. Jean-François Pessiot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyeryung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wataru Fujibuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-François Pessiot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pessiot, JF., Kim, H. & Fujibuchi, W. Pairwise ranking component analysis. Knowl Inf Syst 36, 459–487 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0574-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0574-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation