NKKM

Nonlinear Knowledge in Kernel Machines: 

Nonlinear Knowledge in Kernel Machines Olvi Mangasarian UW Madison & UCSD La Jolla Edward Wild UW Madison Data Mining and Mathematical Programming Workshop Centre de Recherches Mathématiques Université de Montréal, Québec October 10-13, 2006

Objectives: 

Objectives Primary objective: Incorporate prior knowledge over completely arbitrary sets into: function approximation, and classification without transforming (kernelizing) the knowledge Secondary objective: Achieve transparency of the prior knowledge for practical applications

Graphical Example of Knowledge Incorporation: 

Graphical Example of Knowledge Incorporation +  + + + + + + +        Similar approach for approximation K(x0, B0)u = 

Outline: 

Outline Kernels in classification and function approximation Incorporation of prior knowledge Previous approaches: require transformation of knowledge New approach does not require any transformation of knowledge Knowledge given over completely arbitrary sets Fundamental tool used Theorem of the alternative for convex functions Experimental results Four synthetic examples and two examples related to breast cancer prognosis Classifiers and approximations with prior knowledge more accurate than those without prior knowledge

Theorem of the Alternative for Convex Functions:Generalization of the Farkas Theorem: 

Farkas: For A2 Rk£ n, b2 Rn, exactly one of the following must hold: I. Ax  0, b0x > 0 has solution x 2 Rn, ,or II. A0 v =b, v  0, has solution v 2 Rk . Let h:½ Rn! Rk, : ! R,  convex set, h and  convex on , and h(x)<0 for some x2 . Then, exactly one of the following must hold: I. h(x)  0, (x) < 0 has a solution x  , or II. v  Rk, v  0: v0h(x)+(x)  0 x  . To get II of Farkas: v  0, v0Ax- b0x  0 8 x 2 Rn , v  0, A0 v -b=0. Theorem of the Alternative for Convex Functions: Generalization of the Farkas Theorem

Classification and Function Approximation: 

Classification and Function Approximation Given a set of m points in n-dimensional real space Rn with corresponding labels Labels in {+1, -1} for classification problems Labels in R for approximation problems Points are represented by rows of a matrix A 2 Rm£n Corresponding labels or function values are given by a vector y Classification: y 2 {+1, -1}m Approximation: y  Rm Find a function f(Ai) = yi based on the given data points Ai f : Rn ! {+1, -1} for classification f : Rn! R for approximation

Classification and Function Approximation: 

Classification and Function Approximation Problem: utilizing only given data may result in a poor classifier or approximation Points may be noisy Sampling may be costly Solution: use prior knowledge to improve the classifier or approximation

Adding Prior Knowledge: 

Adding Prior Knowledge Standard approximation and classification: fit function at given data points without knowledge Constrained approximation: satisfy inequalities at given points Previous approaches (2001 FMS, 2003 FMS, and 2004 MSW ): satisfy linear inequalities over polyhedral regions Proposed new approach: satisfy nonlinear inequalities over arbitrary regions without kernelizing (transforming) knowledge

Kernel Machines: 

Kernel Machines Approximate f by a nonlinear kernel function K using parameters u 2 Rk and  in R A kernel function is a nonlinear generalization of the scalar product f(x)  K(x0, B0)u - , x 2 Rn, K:Rn £ Rn£k ! Rk Gaussian K(x0, B0)i=-||x-Bi||2, i=1,…..,k B 2 Rk£n is a basis matrix Usually, B = A2Rm£n = Input data matrix In Reduced Support Vector Machines, B is a small subset of the rows of A B may be any matrix with n columns

Kernel Machines: 

Kernel Machines Introduce slack variable s to measure error in classification or approximation Error s in kernel approximation of given data: -s  K(A, B0)u - e - y  s, e is a vector of ones in Rm Function approximation: f(x)  K(x0, B0)u -  Error s in kernel classification of given data K(A+, B0)u - e + s+ ¸ e, s+ ¸ 0 K(A- , B0)u - e - s-  - e, s- ¸ 0 More succinctly, let: D = diag(y), the m£m matrix with diagonal y of § 1’s, then: D(K(A, B0)u - e) + s ¸ e, s ¸ 0 Classifier: f(x)  sign(K(x0, B0)u - )

Kernel Machines in Approximation OR Classification: 

Trade off between solution complexity (||u||1) and data fitting (||s||1) At solution e0a = ||u||1 e0s = ||s||1 Kernel Machines in Approximation OR Classification OR Kernel Machines in Approximation

Incorporating Nonlinear Prior Knowledge: Previous Approaches: 

Cx  d  w0x-   h0x +  Need to “kernelize” knowledge from input space to transformed (feature) space of kernel Requires change of variable x = A0t, w = A0u CA0t  d  u0AA0t -   h0A0t +  K(C, A0)t  d  u0K(A, A0)t -   h0A0t +  Use a linear theorem of the alternative in the t space Lost connection with original knowledge Achieves good numerical results, but is not readily interpretable in the original space Incorporating Nonlinear Prior Knowledge: Previous Approaches

Nonlinear Prior Knowledge in Function Approximation: New Approach: 

Nonlinear Prior Knowledge in Function Approximation: New Approach Start with arbitrary nonlinear knowledge implication g(x)  0  K(x0, B0)u -   h(x), 8x 2  ½ Rn g, h are arbitrary functions on  g:! Rk, h:! R Linear in v, u,  9v ¸ 0: v0g(x) + K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) ¸ 0 8x 2 

Theorem of the Alternative for Convex Functions: 

Assume that g(x), K(x0, B0)u - , -h(x) are convex functions of x, that  is convex and 9 x 2  : g(x)<0. Then either: I. g(x)  0, K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) < 0 has a solution x  , or II. v  Rk, v  0: K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) + v0g(x)  0 x   But never both. If we can find v  0: K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) + v0g(x)  0 x  , then by above theorem g(x)  0, K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) < 0 has no solution x   or equivalently: g(x)  0  K(x0, B0)u -   h(x), 8x 2  Theorem of the Alternative for Convex Functions

Proof: 

Proof I  II (Not needed for present application) Follows from a fundamental theorem of Fan-Glicksburg-Hoffman for convex functions [1957] and the existence of an x 2  such that g(x) <0. I  II (Requires no assumptions on g, h, K, or uwhatsoever) Suppose not. That is, there exists x 2 , v 2 Rk,, v¸ 0: g(x)  0, K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x) < 0, (I) v  0, v0g(x) +K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x)  0 , 8 x 2  (II) Then we have the contradiction: 0 > v0g(x) +K(x0, B0)u -  - h(x)  0 · 0 < 0

Incorporating Prior Knowledge: 

Linear semi-infinite program: infinite number of constraints Discretize: finite linear program g(xi) · 0 ) K(xi0, B0)u -  ¸ h(xi), i = 1, …, k Slacks allow knowledge to be satisfied inexactly Add term to objective function to drive slacks to zero Incorporating Prior Knowledge

Numerical Experience: Approximation: 

Numerical Experience: Approximation Evaluate on three datasets Two synthetic datasets Wisconsin Prognostic Breast Cancer Database (WPBC) 194 patients £ 2 histogical features tumor size & number of metastasized lymph nodes Compare approximation with prior knowledge to approximation without prior knowledge Prior knowledge leads to an improved accuracy General prior knowledge used cannot be handled exactly by previous work (MSW 2004) No kernelization needed on knowledge set

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid: 

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid f(x1, x2) = x1x2

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid: 

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Given exact values only at 11 points along line x1 = x2 At x1 2 {-5, …, 5} x1 x2

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Approximation without Prior Knowledge: 

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Approximation without Prior Knowledge

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid: 

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Add prior (inexact) knowledge: x1x2  1  f(x1, x2)  x1x2 Nonlinear term x1x2 can not be handled exactly by any previous approaches Discretization used only 11 points along the line x1 = -x2, x1  {-5, -4, …, 4, 5}

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Approximation with Prior Knowledge: 

Two-Dimensional Hyperboloid Approximation with Prior Knowledge

Two-Dimensional Tower Function: 

Two-Dimensional Tower Function

Two-Dimensional Tower Function (Misleading) Data: 

Two-Dimensional Tower Function (Misleading) Data Given 400 points on the grid [-4, 4]  [-4, 4] Values are min{g(x), 2}, where g(x) is the exact tower function

Two-Dimensional Tower Function Approximation without Prior Knowledge: 

Two-Dimensional Tower Function Approximation without Prior Knowledge

Two-Dimensional Tower FunctionPrior Knowledge: 

Two-Dimensional Tower Function Prior Knowledge Add prior knowledge: (x1, x2)  [-4, 4]  [-4, 4]  f(x) = g(x) Prior knowledge is the exact function value. Enforced at 2500 points on the grid [-4, 4]  [-4, 4] through above implication Principal objective of prior knowledge here is to overcome poor given data

Two-Dimensional Tower Function Approximation with Prior Knowledge: 

Two-Dimensional Tower Function Approximation with Prior Knowledge

Breast Cancer Application:Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis as a Function of Tumor Size: 

Breast Cancer Application: Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis as a Function of Tumor Size Number of metastasized lymph nodes is an important prognostic indicator for breast cancer recurrence Determined by surgery in addition to the removal of the tumor Optional procedure especially if tumor size is small Wisconsin Prognostic Breast Cancer (WPBC) data Lymph node metastasis and tumor size for 194 patients Task: predict the number of metastasized lymph nodes given tumor size alone

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis: 

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis Split data into two portions Past data: 20% used to find prior knowledge Present data: 80% used to evaluate performance Past data simulates prior knowledge obtained from an expert

Prior Knowledge for Lymph Node Metastasis as a Function of Tumor Size: 

Prior Knowledge for Lymph Node Metastasis as a Function of Tumor Size Generate prior knowledge by fitting past data: h(x) := K(x0, B0)u -  B is the matrix of the past data points Use density estimation to decide where to enforce knowledge p(x) is the empirical density of the past data Prior knowledge utilized on approximating function f(x): Number of metastasized lymph nodes is greater than the predicted value on past data, with tolerance of 0.01 p(x)  0.1  f(x) ¸ h(x) - 0.01

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis: Results: 

Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis: Results RMSE: root-mean-squared-error LOO: leave-one-out error Improvement due to knowledge: 14.9%

Incorporating Prior Knowledge in Classification (Very Similar): 

Incorporating Prior Knowledge in Classification (Very Similar) Implication for positive region g(x)  0  K(x0, B0)u -   , 8x 2  ½ Rn K(x0, B0)u -  -  + v0g(x) ¸ 0, v ¸ 0, 8x 2  Similar implication for negative regions Add discretized constraints to linear program

Incorporating Prior Knowledege: Classification: 

Incorporating Prior Knowledege: Classification

Numerical Experience: Classification: 

Numerical Experience: Classification Evaluate on three datasets Two synthetic datasets Wisconsin Prognostic Breast Cancer Database Compare classifier with prior knowledge to one without prior knowledge Prior knowledge leads to an improved accuracy General prior knowledge used cannot be handled exactly by previous work (FMS 2001, FMS 2003) No kernelization needed on knowledge set

Checkerboard DatasetBlack & White Points in R2: 

Checkerboard Dataset Black & White Points in R2

Checkerboard Classifier Without Knowledge Using 16 Center Points: 

Checkerboard Classifier Without Knowledge Using 16 Center Points Prior Knowledge for 16-Point Checkerboard Classifier Checkerboard Classifier With Knowledge Using 16 Center Points

Spiral Dataset 194 Points in R2: 

Spiral Dataset 194 Points in R2

Spiral Classifier Without KnowledgeBased on 100 Labeled Points: 

No misclassified points Labels given only at 100 correctly classified circled points Spiral Classifier With Knowledge Spiral Classifier Without Knowledge Based on 100 Labeled Points Prior Knowledge Function for Spiral White ) + Gray ) • Note the many incorrectly classified +’s Prior knowledge imposed at 291 points in each region

Predicting Breast Cancer Recurrence Within 24 Months: 

Predicting Breast Cancer Recurrence Within 24 Months Wisconsin Prognostic Breast Cancer (WPBC) dataset 155 patients monitored for recurrence within 24 months 30 cytological features 2 histological features: number of metastasized lymph nodes and tumor size Predict whether or not a patient remains cancer free after 24 months 82% of patients remain disease free 86% accuracy (Bennett, 1992) best previously attained Prior knowledge allows us to incorporate additional information to improve accuracy

Generating WPBC Prior Knowledge: 

Generating WPBC Prior Knowledge Gray regions indicate areas where g(x) · 0 Simulate oncological surgeon’s advice about recurrence Tumor Size in Centimeters Number of Metastasized Lymph Nodes Knowledge imposed at dataset points inside given regions Recur within 24 months Cancer free within 24 months Recur Cancer free

WPBC Results: 

WPBC Results 49.7 % improvement due to knowledge 35.7 % improvement over best previous predictor

Conclusion: 

Conclusion General nonlinear prior knowledge incorporated into kernel classification and approximation Implemented as linear inequalities in a linear programming problem Knowledge appears transparently Demonstrated effectiveness Four synthetic examples Two real world problems from breast cancer prognosis Future work Prior knowledge with more general implications User-friendly interface for knowledge specification Generate prior knowledge for real-world datasets

Website Links to Talk & Papers: 

Website Links to Talk & Papers http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~olvi http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~wildt