Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Classification
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
parquet
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
Tags:
long context
text
stringlengths 2.85k
2.55M
| label
class label 11
classes |
|---|---|
Constrained Submodular Maximization via a
Non-symmetric Technique
arXiv:1611.03253v1 [cs.DS] 10 Nov 2016
Niv Buchbinder∗
Moran Feldman†
November 11, 2016
Abstract
The study of combinatorial optimization problems with a submodular objective has attracted
much attention in recent years. Such problems are important in both theory and practice because
their objective functions are very general. Obtaining further improvements for many submodular
maximization problems boils down to finding better algorithms for optimizing a relaxation of
them known as the multilinear extension.
In this work we present an algorithm for optimizing the multilinear relaxation whose guarantee improves over the guarantee of the best previous algorithm (which was given by Ene
and Nguyen (2016)). Moreover, our algorithm is based on a new technique which is, arguably,
simpler and more natural for the problem at hand. In a nutshell, previous algorithms for this
problem rely on symmetry properties which are natural only in the absence of a constraint. Our
technique avoids the need to resort to such properties, and thus, seems to be a better fit for
constrained problems.
∗
Department of Statistics and Operations Research, School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv university, Israel.
Email: niv.buchbinder@gmail.com.
†
Depart. of Mathematics and Computer Science, The Open University of Israel. Email: moranfe@openu.ac.il.
1
Introduction
The study of combinatorial optimization problems with a submodular objective has attracted much
attention in recent years. Such problems are important in both theory and practice because their
objective functions are very general—submodular functions generalize, for example, cuts functions
of graphs and directed graphs, the mutual information function, matroid weighted rank functions and log-determinants. More specifically, from a theoretical perspective, many well-known
problems in combinatorial optimization are in fact submodular maximization problems, including:
Max-Cut [30, 33, 38, 40, 56], Max-DiCut [20, 30, 31], Generalized Assignment [10, 14, 22, 27],
Max-k-Coverage [19, 41], Max-Bisection [3, 28] and Facility Location [1, 16, 17]. From a practical
perspective, submodular maximization problems have found uses in social networks [32, 39], vision [5, 36], machine learning [43, 44, 45, 49, 50] and many other areas (the reader is referred, for
example, to a comprehensive survey by Bach [4]).
The techniques used by approximation algorithms for submodular maximization problems usually fall into one of two main approaches. The first approach is combinatorial in nature, and is
mostly based on local search techniques and greedy rules. This approach has been used as early
as the late 70’s for maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid constraint
(some of these works apply only to specific types of matroids) [15, 26, 34, 35, 37, 42, 53, 54]. Later
works used this approach to handle also problems with non-monotone submodular objective functions and different constraints [6, 21, 25, 47, 48], yielding in some cases optimal algorithms [6, 55].
However, algorithms based on this approach tend to be highly tailored for the specific structure of
the problem at hand, making extensions quite difficult.
The second approach used by approximation algorithms for submodular maximization problems overcomes the above obstacle. This approach resembles a common paradigm for designing
approximation algorithms and involves two steps. In the first step a fractional solution is found for
a relaxation of the problem, known as the multilinear relaxation. In the second step the fractional
solution is rounded to obtain an integral one while incurring a bounded loss in the objective. This
approach has been used to obtain improved approximations for many problems [8, 11, 12, 24, 46].
Various techniques have been developed for rounding the fractional solution. These techniques
tend to be quite flexible, and usually can extend to many related problem. In particular, the
Contention Resolution Schemes framework of [12] yields a rounding procedure for every constraint
which can be presented as the intersection of a few basic constraints such as knapsack constraints,
matroid constraints and matching constraints. Given this wealth of rounding procedures, obtaining
further improvements for many important submodular maximization problems (such as maximizing
a submodular function subject to a matroid or knapsack constraint) boils down to obtaining improved algorithms for finding a good fractional solution, i.e., optimizing the multilinear relaxation.
1.1
Maximizing the Multilinear Relaxation
At this point we would like to present some terms more formally. A submodular function is a set
function f : 2N → R obeying f (A) + f (B) ≥ f (A ∪ B) + f (A ∩ B) for any sets A, B ⊆ N . A
submodular maximization problem is the problem of finding a set S ⊆ N maximizing f subject to
some constraint. Formally, let I be the set of subsets of N obeying the constraint. Then, we are
interested in the following problem.
max f (A)
s.t. A ∈ I ⊆ 2N
A relaxation of the above problem replaces I with a polytope P ⊆ [0, 1]N containing the
1
characteristic vectors of all the sets of I. In addition, a relaxation must replace the function f with
an extension function F : [0, 1]N → R. Thus, a relaxation is a fractional problem of the following
format.
max F (x)
s.t. x ∈ P ⊆ [0, 1]N
Defining the “right” extension function, F , for the relaxation is a challenge, as, unlike the linear
case, there is no single natural candidate. The objective that turned out to be useful, and is, thus,
used by multilinear relaxation is known as the multilinear extension (first introduced by [8]). The
value F (x) of this extension for any vector x ∈ [0, 1]N is defined as the expected value of f over
a random subset R(x) ⊆ N containing every element u ∈ N independently with probability xu .
Formally, for every x ∈ [0, 1]N ,
Y
X
Y
(1 − xu ) .
F (x) = E[R(x)] =
f (S)
xu
S⊆N
u∈S
u∈S
/
The first algorithm for optimizing the multilinear relaxation was the Continuous Greedy algorithm designed by Calinescu et al. [8]. When the submodular function f is non-negative and
monotone1 and P is solvable2 this algorithm finds a vector x ∈ P such that E[F (x)] ≥ (1 − 1/e −
o(1)) · f (OP T ) (where OP T is the set maximizing f among all sets whose characteristic vectors
belongs to P ). Interestingly, the guarantee of Continuous Greedy is optimal for monotone functions
even when P is a simple cardinality constraint [8, 53].
Optimizing the multilinear relaxation when f is not necessarily monotone proved to be a more
challenging task. Initially, several algorithms for specific polytopes were suggested [29, 47, 57].
Later on, improved general algorithms were designed that work whenever f is non-negative and
P is down-closed3 and solvable [13, 24]. Designing algorithms that work in this general setting is
highly important as many natural constraints fall into this framework. Moreover, the restriction of
the algorithms to down-closed polytopes is unavoidable as Vondrák [57] proved that no algorithm
can produce a vector x ∈ P obeying E[F (x)] ≥ c · f (OP T ) for any constant c > 0 when P is
solvable but not down-closed.
Up until recently, the best algorithm for this general setting was called Measured Continuous
Greedy [24]. It guaranteed to produce a vector x ∈ P obeying E[F (x)] ≥ (1/e − o(1)) · f (OP T ) ≈
0.367 · f (OP T ) [24]. The natural feel of the guarantee of Measured Continuous Greedy and the fact
that it was not improved for a few years made some people suspect that it is optimal. Recently,
an evidence against this conjecture was given by [7], which described an algorithm for the special
case of a cardinality constraint with an improved approximation guarantee of 0.371. Even more
recently, Ene and Nguyen [18] shuttered the conjecture completely. By extending the technique
used by [7], they showed that one can get an approximation guarantee 0.372 for every down-closed
and solvable polytope P . On the inapproximability side, Oveis Gharan and Vondrák [29] proved
that no algorithm can achieve approximation better than 0.478 even when P is the matroid polytope
of a partition matroid. Closing the gap between the best algorithm and inapproximability result
for this fundamental problem remains an important open problem.
1
A
A
3
A
upper
2
set function f : 2N → R is monotone if f (A) ≤ f (B) for every A ⊆ B ⊆ N .
polytope is solvable if one can optimize linear functions over it.
polytope P ⊆ [0, 1]N is down-closed if y ∈ P implies that every vector x ∈ [0, 1]N which is coordinate-wise
bounded by y must belong to P as well.
2
1.2
Our Contribution
Our main contribution is an algorithm with an improved guarantee for maximizing the multilinear
relaxation.
Theorem 1.1. There exists a polynomial time algorithm that given a non-negative submodular
function f : 2N → R≥0 and a solvable down-closed polytope P ⊆ [0, 1]N finds a vector x ∈ P
obeying F (x) ≥ 0.385 · f (OP T ), where OP T = arg max{f (S) : 1S ∈ P } and F is the multilinear
extension of f .
Admittedly, the improvement in the guarantee obtained by our algorithm compared to the
0.372 guarantee of [18] is relatively small. However, the technique underlying our algorithm is
very different, and, arguably, much cleaner, than the technique underlying the previous results
improving over the natural guarantee of 1/e [7, 18]. Moreover, we believe our technique is more
natural for the problem at hand, and thus, is likely to yield further improvements in the future. In
the rest of this section we explain the intuition on which we base this belief.
The results of [7, 18] are based on the observation that the guarantee of Measured Continuous
Greedy improves when the algorithm manages to increase all the coordinates of its solution at a
slow rate. Based on this observation, [7, 18] run an instance of Measured Continuous Greedy (or a
discretized version of it), and force it to raise the coordinates slowly. If this extra restriction does
not affect the behavior of the algorithm significantly, then it produces a solution with an improved
guarantee. Otherwise, [7, 18] argue that the point in which the extra restriction affect the behavior
of Measured Continuous Greedy reveals a vector x ∈ P which contains a significant fraction of
OP T . Once x is available, one can use the technique of unconstrained submodular maximization,
described by [6], that has higher approximation guarantee of 1/2 > 1/e, to extract from x a vector
0 ≤ y ≤ x of large value. The down-closeness of P guarantees that y belongs to P as well.
Unfortunately, the use of the unconstrained submodular maximization technique in the above
approach is very problematic for two reasons. First, this technique is based on ideas that are
very different from the ideas used by the analysis of Measured Continuous Greedy. This makes
the combination of the two quite involved. Second, on a more abstract level, the unconstrained
submodular maximization technique is based on a symmetry which exists in the absence of a
constraint since f¯(S) = f (N \ S) is non-negative and submodular whenever f has these properties.
However, this symmetry breaks when a constraint is introduced, and thus, the unconstrained
submodular maximization technique does not seem to be a good fit for a constrained problem.
Our algorithm replaces the symmetry based unconstrained submodular maximization technique
with a local search algorithm. More specifically, it first executes the local search algorithm. If the
output of the local search algorithm is good, then our algorithm simply returns it. Otherwise, we
observe that the poor value of the output of the local search algorithm guarantees that it is also
far from OP T in some sense. Our algorithm then uses this far from OP T solution to guide an
instance of Measured Continuous Greedy, and help it avoid bad decisions.
As it turns out, the analysis of Measured Continuous Greedy and the local search algorithm
use similar ideas and notions. Thus, the two algorithms combine quite cleanly, as can be observed
from Section 3.
3
2
Preliminaries
Our analysis uses another useful extension of submodular functions. Given a submodular function
f : 2N → R, its Lovász extension is a function fˆ: [0, 1]N → R defined by
fˆ(x) =
Z
1
f (Tλ (x))dλ ,
0
where Tλ (x) = {u ∈ N : xu < λ}. The Lovász extension has many important applications (see,
e.g., [9, 52]), however, in this paper we only use it in the context of the following known result
(which is an immediate corollary of the work of [51]).
Lemma 2.1. Given the multilinear extension F and the Lovász extension fˆ of a submodular function f : 2N → R, it holds that F (x) ≥ fˆ(x) for every vector x ∈ [0, 1]N .
We now define some additional notation that we use. Given a set S ⊆ N and an element u ∈ N ,
we denote by 1S and 1u the characteristic vectors of the sets S and {u}, respectively, and by S + u
and S − u the sets S ∪ {u} and S \ {u}, respectively. Given two vectors x, y ∈ [0, 1]N , we denote
by x ∨ y, x ∧ y and x ◦ y the coordinate-wise maximum, minimum and multiplication, respectively,
of x and y.4 Finally, given a vector x ∈ [0, 1]N and an element u ∈ N , we denote by ∂u F (x) the
derivative of F with respect to u at the point x. The following observation gives a simple formula
for ∂u F (x). This observation holds because F is a multilinear function.
Observation 2.2. Let F (x) be the multilinear extension of a submodular function f : 2N → R.
Then, for every u ∈ N and x ∈ [0, 1]N ,
(1 − xu ) · ∂u F (x) = F (x ∨ 1u ) − F (x) .
In the rest of the paper we assume, without loss of generality, that 1u ∈ P for every element
u ∈ N and that n is larger than any given constant. The first assumption is justified by the
observation that every element u violating this assumption can be safely removed from N since it
cannot belong to OP T . The second assumption is justified by the observation that it is possible to
find a set S obeying 1S ∈ P and f (S) = f (OP T ) in constant time when n is a constant.
Another issue that needs to be kept in mind is the representation of submodular functions. We
are interested in algorithms whose time complexity is polynomial in |N |. However, the representation of the submodular function f might be exponential in this size; thus, we cannot assume that
the representation of f is given as part of the input for the algorithm. The standard way to bypass
this difficulty is to assume that the algorithm has access to f through an oracle. We assume the
standard value oracle that is used in most of the previous works on submodular maximization.
This oracle returns, given any subset S ⊆ N , the value f (S).
3
Main Algorithm
In this section we present the algorithm used to prove Theorem 1.1. This algorithm uses two
components. The first component is a close variant of a fractional local search algorithm suggested
by Chekuri et al. [13] which has the following properties.
4
More formally, for every element u ∈ N , (x ∨ y)u = max{xu , yu }, (x ∧ y)u = min{xu , yu } and (x ◦ y)u = xu · yu .
4
Lemma 3.1 (Follows from Chekuri et al. [13]). There exists a polynomial time algorithm which
returns vector x ∈ P such that, with high probability, for every vector y ∈ P ,
1
1
F (x) ≥ F (x ∧ y) + F (x ∨ y) − o(1) · f (OP T ) .
2
2
(1)
Proof. Let M = max{f (u), f (N − u) : u ∈ N }, and let a be an arbitrary constant larger than 3.
Then, Lemmata 3.7 and 3.8 of Chekuri et al. [13] imply that, with high probability, the fractional
local search algorithm they suggest terminates in polynomial time and outputs a vector x ∈ P
obeying, for every vector y ∈ P ,
2F (x) ≥ F (x ∧ y) + F (x ∨ y) −
5M
.
na−2
Moreover, the output vector x is in P whenever the fractional local search algorithm terminates.
Our assumption that 1u ∈ P for every element u ∈ N implies, by submodularity, that f (S) ≤
n · f (OP T ) for every set S ⊆ N . Since M is the maximum over values of f , we get also M ≤
n · f (OP T ). Using this observation, and plugging a = 4, we get that there exists an algorithm
which, with high probability, terminates after T (n) operations (for some polynomial function T (n))
T)
for every vector y ∈ P .
and outputs a vector x ∈ P obeying 2F (x) ≥ F (x ∧ y) + F (x ∨ y) − 5·f (OP
n
Moreover, the output vector x belongs to P whenever the algorithm terminates.
To complete the lemma, we consider a procedure that executes the above algorithm for T (n)
operations, and return its output if it terminates within this number of operations. If the algorithm
fails to terminate within this number of operations, which happens with a diminishing probability,
then the procedure simply returns 1∅ (which always belongs to P since P is down-closed). One
can observe that this procedure has all the properties guaranteed by the lemma.
The second component of our algorithm is a new auxiliary algorithm which we present and
analyze in Section 4. This auxiliary algorithm is the main technical contribution of this paper, and
its guarantee is given by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2. There exists a polynomial time algorithm that given a vector z ∈ [0, 1]N and a value
ts ∈ [0, 1] outputs a vector x ∈ P obeying
E[F (x)] ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − o(1)) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · F (z ∧ 1OP T )
−ts
− (2 − ts − 2e
(2)
) · F (z ∨ 1OP T )] .
Our main algorithm executes the algorithms suggested by Lemma 3.1 followed by the algorithm
suggested by Theorem 3.2. Notice that the second of these algorithms has two parameters in
addition to f and P : a parameter z which is set to be the output of the first algorithm, and a
parameter ts which is set to be a constant to be determined later. After the two above algorithms
terminate, our algorithm returns the output of the first algorithm with probability p, for a constant
p to be determined later, and with the remaining probability it returns the output of the second
algorithm.5 A formal description of our algorithm is given as Algorithm 1. Observe that Lemma 3.1
and Theorem 3.2 imply together that Algorithm 1 is a polynomial time algorithm which always
outputs a vector in P .
To prove Theorem 1.1, it remains to analyze the quality of the solution produced by Algorithm 1.
5
Clearly it is always better to return the better of the two solution instead of randomizing between them. However,
doing so will require the algorithm to either have an oracle access to F or estimate the values of the solutions using
sampling (the later can be done using standard techniques—see, e.g., [8]). For the sake of simplicity, we chose here
the easier to analyze approach of randomizing between the two solutions.
5
Algorithm 1: Main Algorithm(f, P )
1
2
3
Execute the algorithm suggested by Lemma 3.1, and let x1 ∈ P be its output.
Execute the algorithm suggested by Theorem 3.2 with z = x1 , and let x2 be its output.
return with probability p the solution x1 , and the solution x2 otherwise.
Lemma 3.3. When its parameters are set to ts = 0.372 and p = 0.23, Algorithm 1 produces a
solution whose expected value is at least 0.385 · f (OP T ).
Proof. Let E be the event that x1 , the output of the algorithm suggested by Lemma 3.1, satisfies
Inequality (1). Since E is a high probability event, it is enough to prove that, conditioned on E,
Algorithm 1 produces a solution whose expected value is at least c · f (OP T ) for some constant
c > 0.385. The rest of the proof of the lemma is devoted to proving the last claim. Throughout it,
everything is implicitly conditioned on E.
As we are conditioning on E, we can plug y = 1OP T and, respectively, y = x1 ∧ 1OP T into
Inequality (1) to get
1
1
F (x1 ) ≥ F (x1 ∧ 1OP T ) + F (x1 ∨ 1OP T ) − o(1) · f (OP T )
(3)
2
2
and
F (x1 ) ≥ F (x1 ∧ 1OP T ) − o(1) · f (OP T ) ,
(4)
where the last inequality follows by noticing that x1 ∨ (x1 ∧ 1OP T ) = x1 . Next, let E[F (x2 ) | x1 ]
denote the expected value of F (x2 ) conditioned on the given value of x1 . Inequality (2) guarantees
that
E[F (x2 ) | x1 ] ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − o(1)) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )
−ts
− (2 − ts − 2e
(5)
) · F (x1 ∨ 1OP T )] .
Recall that Algorithm 1 returns x1 with probability p, and x2 otherwise. Hence, the expected
value of its output is
E[p · F (x1 ) + (1 − p) · E[F (x2 ) | x1 ]] ,
(6)
where the expectation is over x1 .
Optimizing the constants. We would like to derive from Inequalities (3), (4) and (5) the best
lower bound we can get on (6). To this end, let p1 and p2 be two non-negative numbers such that
p1 + p2 = p, and let p3 = 1 − p. Using the above inequalities and this notation, (6) can now be
lower bounded by
1
1
p1 · E[F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )] + E[F (x1 ∨ 1OP T )] − o(1) · f (OP T )
2
2
+ p2 · [E[F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )] − o(1) · f (OP T )]
+ p3 · ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − o(1)) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · E[F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )]
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · E[F (x1 ∨ 1OP T )]] ,
which can be rewritten as
p
+ p2 − p3 · ets −1 (1 − e−ts ) · E[F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )]
p2
1
− p3 · ets −1 (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · E[F (x1 ∨ 1OP T )]
+
2
+ p3 · ets −1 (2 − ts − e−ts ) · f (OP T ) − o(1) · f (OP T ) .
1
6
To get the most out of this lower bound we need to maximize the coefficient of f (OP T ) while
keeping the coefficients of E[F (x1 ∧ 1OP T )] and E[F (x1 ∨ 1OP T )] non-negative (so that they can
be ignored due to non-negativity of f ). This objective is formalized by the following non-convex
program.
max p3 · ets −1 (2 − ts − e−ts )
s.t. p1 /2 + p2 − p3 · ets −1 (1 − e−ts )
p1 /2 − p3 · ets −1 (2 − ts − 2e−ts )
p1 + p2 + p3
p 1 , p 2 , p 3 , ts
≥0
≥0
=1
≥0
Solving the program, we get that the best solution is approximately p1 = 0.205, p2 = 0.025,
p3 = 0.770 and ts = 0.372, and the objective function value corresponding to this solution is at
least 0.3856. Hence, we have managed to lower bound (6) (and thus, also the expected value of the
output of Algorithm 1) by 0.3856 · f (OP T ) for p = 0.23 and ts = 0.372, which completes the proof
of the lemma.
4
Aided Measured Continuous Greedy
In this section we present the algorithm used to prove Theorem 3.2. Proving the above theorem
directly is made more involved by the fact that the vector z might be fractional. Instead, we prove
the following simplified version of Theorem 3.2 for integral values, and show that the simplified
version implies the original one.
Theorem 4.1. There exists a polynomial time algorithm that given a set Z ⊆ N and a value
ts ∈ [0, 1] outputs a vector x ∈ P obeying
E[F (x)] ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − o(1)) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] .
Next is the promised proof that Theorem 4.1 implies Theorem 3.2.
Proof of Theorem 3.2 given Theorem 4.1. Consider an algorithm ALG that given the z and ts arguments specified by Theorem 3.2 executes the algorithm guaranteed by Theorem 4.1 with the same
value ts and with a random set Z distributed like R(z). The output of ALG is then the output
produced by the algorithm guaranteed by Theorem 4.1. Let us denote this output by x.
Theorem 4.1 guarantees that, for every given Z,
E[F (x) | Z] ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − o(1)) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] .
To complete the proof we take the expectation over Z over the two sides of the last inequality and
observe that
E[f (Z ∩ OP T )] = E[f (R(z) ∩ OP T )] = E[f (R(z ∧ 1OP T ))] = F (z ∧ 1OP T )
and
E[f (Z ∪ OP T )] = E[f (R(z) ∪ OP T )] = E[f (R(z ∨ 1OP T ))] = F (z ∨ 1OP T ) .
7
In the rest of this section we give a non-formal proof of Theorem 4.1. This proof explains the
main ideas necessary for proving the theorem, but uses some non-formal simplifications such as
allowing a direct oracle access to the multilinear extension F and giving the algorithm in the form
of a continuous time algorithm (which cannot be implemented on a discrete computer). There
are known techniques for getting rid of these simplifications (see, e.g., [8]), and a formal proof of
Theorem 4.1 based on these techniques is given in Appendix A.
The algorithm we use for the non-formal proof of Theorem 4.1 is given as Algorithm 2. This
algorithm starts with the empty solution y(0) = 1∅ at time 0, and grows this solution over time
until it reaches the final solution y(1) at time 1. The way the solution grows varies over time.
During the time range [ts , 1) the solution grows like in the Measured Continuous Greedy algorithm
of [24]. On the other hand, during the earlier time range of [0, ts ) the algorithm pretends that the
elements of Z do not exist (by giving them negative marginal profits), and grows the solution in
the way Measured Continuous Greedy would have grown it if it was given the ground set N \ Z.
The value ts is the time in which the algorithm switches between the two ways it uses to grow its
solution, thus, the s in the notation ts stands for “switch”.
Algorithm 2: Aided Measured Continuous Greedy (non-formal)(f, P, Z, ts )
1
2
3
4
5
6
Let y(0) ← 1∅ .
foreach t ∈ [0, 1) do
For each u ∈ N let wu (t) ← F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t)).
P
P
arg maxx∈P { u∈N \Z wu (t) · xu (t) − u∈Z xu (t)} if t ∈ [0, ts ) ,
P
Let x(t) ←
arg maxx∈P
if t ∈ [ts , 1) .
u∈N wu (t) · xu (t)
Increase y(t) at a rate of
dy(t)
dt
= (1N − y(t)) ◦ x(t).
return y(1).
We first note that algorithm outputs a vector in P .
Observation 4.2. y(1) ∈ P .
Proof. Observe that x(t) ∈ P at eachR time t, which implies that (1N − y(t)) · x(t) is also in P since
1
P is down-closed. Therefore, y(1) = 0 (1N − y(t)) · x(t)dt is a convex combination of vectors in P ,
and thus, belongs to P .
The following lemma lower bounds the increase in F (y(t)) as a function of t.
Lemma 4.3. For every t ∈ [0, 1),
(
F (y(t) ∨ 1OP T \Z ) − F (y(t))
dF (y(t))
≥
dt
F (y(t) ∨ 1OP T ) − F (y(t))
if t ∈ [0, ts ) ,
if t ∈ [ts , 1) .
Proof. By the chain rule,
!
!
X
X dyu (t) ∂F (y)
∂F (y)
dF (y(t))
=
(1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) ·
=
·
dt
dt
∂yu y=y(t)
∂yu y=y(t)
u∈N
u∈N
X
X
=
(xu (t) · [F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t))]) =
xu (t) · wu (t) = x(t) · w(t) .
u∈N
(7)
u∈N
Consider first the case
this time period Algorithm 2 chooses x(t) as the
P t ∈ [0, ts ). During P
vector in P maximizing u∈N \Z wu (t) · xu (t) − u∈Z xu (t). Since P is down-closed x(t) = 1OP T \Z
8
is in P and has value 1OP T \Z · w(t) and thus, we have x(t) · w(t) ≥ 1OP T \Z · w(t). Plugging this
observation into Equality (7) yields
dF (y(t))
= x(t) · w(t) ≥ 1OP T \Z · w(t) =
dt
≥ F (y(t) ∨ 1OP T \Z ) − F (y(t)) ,
X
[F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t))]
u∈OP T \Z
where the last inequality holds by the submodularity of f .
Similarity, when t ∈ [ts , 1) Algorithm 2 chooses x(t) as the vector in P maximizing x(t) · w(t).
Since 1OP T ∈ P , we get this time x(t) · w(t) ≥ 1OP T · w(t). Plugging this observation into
Equality (7) yields
X
dF (y(t))
= x(t) · w(t) ≥ 1OP T · w(t) =
[F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t))]
dt
u∈OP T
≥ F (y(t) ∨ 1OP T ) − F (y(t)) ,
where the last inequality holds again by the submodularity of f .
Lemma 4.4. For every time t ∈ [0, 1) and set A ⊆ N it holds that
F (y(t) ∨ 1A ) ≥ e− max{0,t−ts } − e−t max {0, f (A) − f (A ∪ Z)} + e−t · f (A) .
Proof. First, we note that for every time t ∈ [0, 1] and element u ∈ N ,
(
1 − e−t
if u 6∈ Z ,
yu (t) ≤
−
max{0,t−t
s}
1−e
if u ∈ Z .
(8)
This follows for the following reason. Since x(t) is always in P ⊆ [0, 1]N , yu (t) obeys the
differential inequality
dy(t)
= (1 − yu (t)) · x(t) ≤ (1 − yu (t)) .
dt
Using the initial condition yu (0) = 0, the solution for this differential inequality is yu (t) ≤ 1 − e−t .
To get the tighter bound for u ∈ Z, we note that at every time t ∈ [0, ts ) Algorithm 2 chooses as
x(t) a vector maximizing a linear function in P which assigns a negative weight to elements of Z.
Since P is down-closed this maximum must have xu (t) = 0 for every element u ∈ Z. This means
that yu (t) = 0 whenever u ∈ Z and t ∈ [0, ts ]. Moreover, plugging the improved initial condition
yu (ts ) = 0 into the above differential inequality yields the promised tighter bound also for the range
(ts , 1].
Next, let fˆ be the Lovász extension of f . Then, by Lemma 2.1,
Z 1
ˆ
f (Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ))dλ
F (y(t) ∨ 1A ) ≥ f (y(t) ∨ 1A ) =
0
≥
Z
1−e−t
1−e− max{0,t−ts }
Z 1−e−t
f (Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ))dλ +
Z
1
1−e−t
f (Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ))dλ
f (Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ))dλ + e−t · f (A)
≥ e− max{0,t−ts } − e−t max {0, f (A) − f (A ∪ Z)} + e−t · f (A) .
=
(9)
(10)
1−e− max{0,t−ts }
9
(11)
Inequality (9) follows by the non-negativity of f . Equality (10) follows since, for λ ∈ [1 − e−t , 1),
Inequality (8) guarantees that yu (t) ≤ λ for every u ∈ N , and thus, Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ) = A. Finally
Inequality (11) follows since, for λ ∈ [1 − e− max{0,t−ts } , 1 − e−t ), Inequality (8) guarantees that
yu (t) ≤ λ for every u ∈ Z, and thus, Tλ (y(t) ∨ 1A ) = B(λ) ∪ A for some B(λ) ⊆ N \ Z. By the
non-negativity of f , f (B(λ) ∪ A) ≥ 0. Also, by the submodularity and non-negativity of f , for
every such set B(λ)
f (B(λ) ∪ A) ≥ f (A) + f (B(λ) ∪ Z ∪ A) − f (Z ∪ A) ≥ f (A) − f (Z ∪ A) .
Plugging the results of Lemma 4.4 into the lower bound given by Lemma 4.3 on the improvement
in F (y(t)) as a function of t yields immediately the useful lower bound given by the next corollary.6
Corollary 4.5. For every t ∈ [0, 1),
(
f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − F (y(t))
dF (y(t))
≥
dt
ets −t · f (OP T ) − (ets −t − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − F (y(t))
if t ∈ [0, ts ) ,
if t ∈ [ts , 1) .
Using the last corollary we can complete the proof of Theorem 4.1.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. We have already seen that y(1)—the output of Algorithm 2—belongs to P .
It remains to show that
F (y(1)) ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts ) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] .
Corollary 4.5 describes a differential inequality for F (y(t)). Given the boundary condition
F (y(0)) ≥ 0, the solution for this differential inequality within the range t ∈ [0, ts ] is
F (y(t)) ≥ (1 − e−t ) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t − te−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) .
Plugging t = ts into the last inequality, we get
F (y(ts )) ≥ (1 − e−ts ) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−ts − ts e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) .
Let v = (1 − e−ts ) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−ts − ts e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) be the right hand side of the
last inequality. Next, we solve again the differential inequality given by Corollary 4.5 for the range
t ∈ [ts , 1] with the boundary condition F (y(ts )) ≥ v. The resulting solution is
F (y(t)) ≥ e−t (t − ts ) ets · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) + vets
Plugging t = 1 and the value of v we get
F (y(1)) ≥ e−1 (1 − ts ) ets · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) + vets
1 − ts ts
e · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
(12)
≥
e
+ ets −1 · {(1 − e−ts ) · [f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∩ Z)] − (1 − e−ts − ts e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )}
= ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts ) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] ,
where Inequality (12) follows since, by the submodularity and non-negativity of f ,
f (OP T \ Z) ≥ f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∩ Z) + f (∅) ≥ f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∩ Z) .
6
Note that Corollary 4.5 follows from a weaker version of Lemma 4.4 which only guarantees F (y(t) ∨ 1A ) ≥
(e
− e−t ) · [f (A) − f (A ∪ Z)] + e−t · f (A). We proved the stronger version of the lemma above because
it is useful in the formal proof of Theorem 4.1 given in Appendix A.
− max{0,t−ts }
10
References
[1] A. A. Ageev and M. I. Sviridenko. An 0.828 approximation algorithm for the uncapacitated
facility location problem. Discrete Appl. Math., 93:149–156, July 1999.
[2] Noga Alon and Joel H. Spencer. The Probabilistic Method. Wiley Interscience, second edition,
2000.
[3] Per Austrin, Siavosh Benabbas, and Konstantinos Georgiou. Better balance by being biased:
A 0.8776-approximation for max bisection. In SODA, pages 277–294, 2013.
[4] Francis Bach. Learning with submodular functions: A convex optimization perspective. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 6(2-3):145–373, 2013.
[5] Y. Y. Boykov and M. P. Jolly. Interactive graph cuts for optimal boundary & region segmentation of objects in N-D images. In ICCV, volume 1, pages 105–112, 2001.
[6] Niv Buchbinder, Moran Feldman, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, and Roy Schwartz. A tight linear time
(1/2)-approximation for unconstrained submodular maximization. In FOCS, pages 649–658,
2012.
[7] Niv Buchbinder, Moran Feldman, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, and Roy Schwartz. Submodular maximization with cardinality constraints. In SODA, pages 1433–1452, 2014.
[8] Gruia Călinescu, Chandra Chekuri, Martin Pál, and Jan Vondrák. Maximizing a monotone
submodular function subject to a matroid constraint. SIAM J. Comput., 40(6):1740–1766,
2011.
[9] Chandra Chekuri and Alina Ene. Approximation algorithms for submodular multiway partition. In FOCS, pages 807–816, 2011.
[10] Chandra Chekuri and Sanjeev Khanna. A polynomial time approximation scheme for the
multiple knapsack problem. SIAM J. Comput., 35(3):713–728, September 2005.
[11] Chandra Chekuri, Jan Vondrák, and Rico Zenklusen. Dependent randomized rounding via
exchange properties of combinatorial structures. In FOCS, pages 575–584, 2010.
[12] Chandra Chekuri, Jan Vondrák, and Rico Zenklusen. Submodular function maximization via
the multilinear relaxation and contention resolution schemes. In STOC, pages 783–792, 2011.
[13] Chandra Chekuri, Jan Vondrák, and Rico Zenklusen. Submodular function maximization via
the multilinear relaxation and contention resolution schemes. SIAM J. Comput., 43(6):1831–
1879, 2014.
[14] Reuven Cohen, Liran Katzir, and Danny Raz. An efficient approximation for the generalized
assignment problem. Information Processing Letters, 100(4):162–166, 2006.
[15] M. Conforti and G. Cornuèjols. Submodular set functions, matroids and the greedy algorithm.
tight worstcase bounds and some generalizations of the radoedmonds theorem. Disc. Appl.
Math., 7(3):251–274, 1984.
[16] G. Cornuejols, M. L. Fisher, and G. L. Nemhauser. Location of bank accounts to optimize float:
an analytic study of exact and approximate algorithms. Management Sciences, 23:789–810,
1977.
11
[17] G. Cornuejols, M. L. Fisher, and G. L. Nemhauser. On the uncapacitated location problem.
Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 1:163–177, 1977.
[18] Alina Ene and Huy L. Nguyen. Constrained submodular maximization: Beyond 1/e. In FOCS,
2016.
[19] Uriel Feige. A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover. J. ACM, 45(4):634–652, 1998.
[20] Uriel Feige and Michel X. Goemans. Aproximating the value of two prover proof systems, with
applications to max 2sat and max dicut. In ISTCS, pages 182–189, 1995.
[21] Uriel Feige, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Jan Vondrák. Maximizing non-monotone submodular
functions. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(4):1133–1153, 2011.
[22] Uriel Feige and Jan Vondrák. Approximation algorithms for allocation problems: Improving
the factor of 1 − 1/e. In FOCS, pages 667–676, 2006.
[23] Moran Feldman. Maximization Problems with Submodular Objective Functions. PhD thesis,
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, June 2013.
[24] Moran Feldman, Joseph Naor, and Roy Schwartz. A unified continuous greedy algorithm for
submodular maximization. In FOCS, pages 570–579, 2011.
[25] Moran Feldman, Joseph (Seffi) Naor, Roy Schwartz, and Justin Ward. Improved approximations for k-exchange systems. In ESA, pages 784–798, 2011.
[26] M. L. Fisher, G. L. Nemhauser, and L. A. Wolsey. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions – ii. In Polyhedral Combinatorics, volume 8 of Mathematical
Programming Studies, pages 73–87. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1978.
[27] Lisa Fleischer, Michel X. Goemans, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Maxim Sviridenko. Tight approximation algorithms for maximum general assignment problems. In SODA, pages 611–620,
2006.
[28] Alan M. Frieze and Mark Jerrum. Improved approximation algorithms for max k-cut and max
bisection. In IPCO, pages 1–13, 1995.
[29] Shayan Oveis Gharan and Jan Vondrák. Submodular maximization by simulated annealing.
In SODA, pages 1098–1117, 2011.
[30] Michel X. Goemans and David P. Williamson. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. Journal of the ACM,
42(6):1115–1145, 1995.
[31] Eran Halperin and Uri Zwick. Combinatorial approximation algorithms for the maximum
directed cut problem. In SODA, pages 1–7, 2001.
[32] Jason Hartline, Vahab Mirrokni, and Mukund Sundararajan. Optimal marketing strategies
over social networks. In WWW, pages 189–198, 2008.
[33] Johan Hȧstad. Some optimal inapproximability results. J. ACM, 48:798–859, July 2001.
[34] D. Hausmann and B. Korte. K-greedy algorithms for independence systems. Oper. Res. Ser.
A-B, 22(1):219–228, 1978.
12
[35] D. Hausmann, B. Korte, and T. Jenkyns. Worst case analysis of greedy type algorithms for
independence systems. Math. Prog. Study, 12:120–131, 1980.
[36] S. Jegelka and J. Bilmes. Submodularity beyond submodular energies: Coupling edges in graph
cuts. 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 0:1897–1904, 2011.
[37] T. Jenkyns. The efficacy of the greedy algorithm. Cong. Num., 17:341–350, 1976.
[38] Richard M. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In R. E. Miller and J. W.
Thatcher, editors, Complexity of Computer Computations, pages 85–103. Plenum Press, 1972.
[39] David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. Maximizing the spread of influence through a
social network. In SIGKDD, pages 137–146, 2003.
[40] Subhash Khot, Guy Kindler, Elchanan Mossel, and Ryan O’Donnell. Optimal inapproximability results for max-cut and other 2-variable csps? SIAM J. Comput., 37:319–357, April
2007.
[41] S. Khuller, A. Moss, and J. Naor. The budgeted maximum coverage problem. Information
Processing Letters, 70(1):39–45, 1999.
[42] B. Korte and D. Hausmann. An analysis of the greedy heuristic for independence systems.
Annals of Discrete Math., 2:65–74, 1978.
[43] Andreas Krause, AjitSingh, and Carlos Guestrin. Near-optimal sensor placements in gaussian
processes: Theory, efficient algorithms and empirical studies. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 9:235–284,
January 2008.
[44] Andreas Krause and Carlos Guestrin. Near-optimal nonmyopic value of information in graphical models. In UAI, page 5, 2005.
[45] Andreas Krause, Jure Leskovec, Carlos Guestrin, Jeanne VanBriesen, and Christos Faloutsos.
Efficient sensor placement optimization for securing large water distribution networks. Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management, 134(6):516–526, November 2008.
[46] Ariel Kulik, Hadas Shachnai, and Tami Tamir. Approximations for monotone and nonmonotone submodular maximization with knapsack constraints. Math. Oper. Res., 38(4):729–739,
2013.
[47] Jon Lee, Vahab S. Mirrokni, Viswanath Nagarajan, and Maxim Sviridenko. Maximizing nonmonotone submodular functions under matroid or knapsack constraints. SIAM Journal on
Discrete Mathematics, 23(4):2053–2078, 2010.
[48] Jon Lee, Maxim Sviridenko, and Jan Vondrák. Submodular maximization over multiple matroids via generalized exchange properties. In APPROX, pages 244–257, 2009.
[49] Hui Lin and Jeff Bilmes. Multi-document summarization via budgeted maximization of submodular functions. In North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics/Human Language Technology Conference (NAACL/HLT-2010), Los Angeles, CA, June
2010.
[50] Hui Lin and Jeff Bilmes. A class of submodular functions for document summarization. In
HLT, pages 510–520, 2011.
13
[51] László Lovász. Submodular functions and convexity. In A. Bachem, M. Grötschel, and B. Korte, editors, Mathematical Programming: the State of the Art, pages 235–257. Springer, 1983.
[52] L. Lovász M. Grötschel and A. Schrijver. The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization. Combinatoria, 1(2):169–197, 1981.
[53] G. L. Nemhauser and L. A. Wolsey. Best algorithms for approximating the maximum of a
submodular set function. Mathematics of Operations Research, 3(3):177–188, 1978.
[54] G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functionsi. Mathematical Programming, 14:265–294, 1978.
[55] Maxim Sviridenko. A note on maximizing a submodular set function subject to knapsack
constraint. Operations Research Letters, 32:41–43, 2004.
[56] Luca Trevisan, Gregory B. Sorkin, Madhu Sudan, and David P. Williamson. Gadgets, approximation, and linear programming. SIAM J. Comput., 29:2074–2097, April 2000.
[57] Jan Vondrák. Symmetry and approximability of submodular maximization problems. SIAM
J. Comput., 42(1):265–304, 2013.
A
A Formal Proof of Theorem 4.1
In this section we give a formal proof of Theorem 4.1. This proof is based on the same ideas used
in the non-formal proof of this theorem in Section 4, but employs also additional known techniques
in order to get rid of the issues that make the proof from Section 4 non-formal.
The algorithm we use to prove Theorem 4.1 is given as Algorithm 3. This algorithm is a discrete
variant of Algorithm 2. While reading the algorithm, it is important to observe that the choice of
the values δ̄1 and δ̄2 guarantees that the variable t takes each one of the values ts and 1 at some
point, and thus, the vectors y(ts ) and y(1) are well defined.
Algorithm 3: Aided Measured Continuous Greedy(f, P, Z, ts )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
// Initialization
Let δ̄1 ← ts · n−4 and δ̄2 ← (1 − ts ) · n−4 .
Let t ← 0 and y(t) ← 1∅ .
// Growing y(t)
while t < 1 do
foreach u ∈ N do
Let wu (t) be an estimate of E[f (u | R(y(t))] obtained by averaging the values of
f (u | R(y(t)) for r = ⌈48n6 ln(2n)⌉ independent samples of R(y(t)).
P
P
arg maxx∈P { u∈N \Z wu (t) · xu (t) − u∈Z xu (t)} if t ∈ [0, ts ) ,
P
Let x(t) ←
if t ∈ [ts , 1) .
arg maxx∈P
u∈N wu (t) · xu (t)
Let δt be δ̄1 when t < ts and δ̄2 when t ≥ ts .
Let y(t + δt ) ← y(t) + δt (1N − y(t)) ◦ x(t).
Update t ← t + δt .
return y(1).
14
We begin the analysis of Algorithm 3 by showing that y(t) remains within the cube [0, 1]N
throughout the execution of the algorithm. Without this observation, the algorithm is not welldefined.
Observation A.1. For every value of t, y(t) ∈ [0, 1]N .
Proof. We prove the observation by induction on t. Clearly the observation holds for y(0) = 1∅ .
Assume the observation holds for some time t, then, for every u ∈ N ,
yu (t + δt ) = yu (t) + δt (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) ≥ 0 ,
where the inequality holds since the induction hypothesis implies 1 − yu (t) ∈ [0, 1]. A similar
argument also implies
yu (t + δt ) = yu (t) + δt (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) ≤ yu (t) + (1 − yu (t)) = 1 .
Using the last observation it is now possible to prove the following counterpart of Observation 4.2.
Corollary A.2. Algorithm 3 always outputs a vector in P .
Proof. Let T be the set of values t takes
P
P during the execution of Algorithm 3. We observe that
δ
=
1,
which
implies
that
t∈T \{1} t
t∈T \{1} δt · x(t) is a convex combination of the vectors
{x(t) : t ∈ T \ {1}}.
P As all these vectors belong to P , and P is convex, any convex combination of
them, including t∈T \{1} δt · x(t), must be in P .
Next, we rewrite the output of Algorithm 3 as
X
X
δt · x(t) .
δt (1N − y(t)) ◦ x(t) ≤
y(1) =
t∈T \{1}
t∈T \{1}
By the above discussion the rightmost hand side of this inequality is a vector in P , which implies
that y(1) ∈ P since P is down-closed.
The next step towards showing that Algorithm 3 proves Theorem 4.1 is analyzing its approximation ratio. We start this analysis by showing that with high probability all the estimations made by
the algorithm are quite accurate. Let A be the event that |wu (t)−E[f (u | R(y(t)))]| ≤ n−2 ·f (OP T )
for every u ∈ N and time t.
Lemma A.3 (The symmetric version of Theorem A.1.16 in [2]). Let Xi , 1 ≤ i ≤ k, be mutually
independent with all E[Xi ] = 0 and all |Xi | ≤ 1. Set S = X1 + · · · + Xk . Then, Pr[|S| > a] ≤
2
2e−a /2k .
Corollary A.4. Pr[A] ≥ 1 − n−1 .
Proof. Consider the calculation of wu (t) for a given u ∈ N and time t. This calculation is done by
averaging the value of f (u | R(y(t))) for r independent samples of R(y(t)). Let Yi denote the value
(u|R(y(t)))]
. Then, by definition,
of f (u | R(y(t))) obtained for the i-th sample, and let Xi = Yi −E[f
2n·f (OP T )
wu (t) =
Pr
i=1 Yi
r
= [2n · f (OP T )] ·
Pr
i=1 Xi
r
+ E[f (u | R(y(t)))] .
Since Yi is distributed like f (u | R(y(t))), the definition of Xi guarantees that E[Xi ] = 0 for
every 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Additionally, |Xi | ≤ 1 for every such i since the absolute values of both Yi and
15
E[f (u | R(y(t)))] are upper bounded by maxS⊆N f (S) ≤ n · f (OP T ) (the last inequality follows
from our assumption that 1u ∈ P for every element u ∈ N ). Thus, by Lemma A.3,
#
" r
X
r
−3
2
Xi > 3 ≤ 2e−[rn /2] /2r
Pr[|wu (t) − E[f (u | R(y(t)))]| > n−2 · f (OP T )] = Pr
2n
i=1
6
1
1
−rn−6 /8
−6 ln(2n)
= 2e
≤ 2e
=2·
≤ 6 .
2n
2n
Observe that Algorithm 3 calculates wu (t) for every combination of element u ∈ N and time
t < 1. Since there are n elements in N and 2n4 times smaller than 1, the union bound implies
that the probability that for at least one such value wu (t) we have |wu (t) − E[f (u | R(y(t)))]| >
n−2 · f (OP T ) is upper bounded by
1
1
· n · 2n4 =
,
6
2n
n
which completes the proof of the corollary.
Our next step is to give a lower bound on the increase in F (y(t)) as a function of t given A. This
lower bound is given by Corollary A.7, which follows from the next two lemmata. The statement
and proof of the corollary and the next lemma is easier with the following definition. Let OP Tt′
denote the set OP T \ Z when t < ts , and OP T otherwise.
P
Lemma A.5. Given A, for every time t < 1,
u∈N (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) · ∂u F (y(t)) ≥ F (y(t) ∨
−1
1OP Tt′ ) − F (y(t)) − O(n ) · f (OP T ).
Proof. Let us calculate the weight of OP Tt′ according to the weight function w(t).
X
X
wu (t) ≥
[E[f (u | R(y(t)))] − n−2 · f (OP T )]
w(t) · 1OP Tt′ =
u∈OP Tt′
≥ E
X
u∈OP Tt′
u∈OP Tt′
f (R(y(t)) + u) − f (R(y(t))) − n−1 · f (OP T )
≥ E f (R(y(t)) ∪ OP Tt′ ) − f (R(y(t))) − n−1 · f (OP T )
= F (y(t) ∨ 1OP T ′t ) − F (y(t)) − n−1 · f (OP T ) ,
where the first inequality follows from the definition of A, and the last follows from the submodularity of f . Recall that x(t) is the vector in P maximizing some objective function (which depends on
t). For t < ts , the objective function maximized by x(t) assigns the value w(t)·1OP T \Z = w(t)·1OP Tt′
to the vector 1OP Tt′ ∈ P . Similarly, for t ≥ ts , the objective function maximized by x(t) assigns the
value w(t) · 1OP T = w(t) · 1OP Tt′ to the vector 1OP Tt′ ∈ P . Thus, the definition of x(t) guarantees
that in both cases we have
w(t) · x(t) ≥ w(t) · 1OP Tt′ ≥ F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ) − F (y(t)) − n−1 · f (OP T ) .
16
Hence,
X
(1 − yu (t)) · xu (t)·∂u F (y(t)) =
u∈N
X
xu (t) · [F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t))]
u∈N
X
=
xu (t) · E[f (u | R(y(t)))]
u∈N
X
≥
xu (t) · [wu (t) − n−2 · f (OP T )] = x(t) · w(t) − n−1 · f (OP T )
u∈N
≥ F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ) − F (y(t)) − 2n−1 · f (OP T ) ,
where the first inequality holds by the definition of A and the second equality holds since
F (y(t) ∨ 1u ) − F (y(t)) = E[f (R(y(t)) + u)] − E[f (R(y(t)))] = E[f (u | R(y(t)))] .
Lemma A.6 (A rephrased version of Lemma 2.3.7 in [23]). Consider
two vectors x, x′ ∈ [0, 1]N
P
such that |xu − x′u | ≤ δ for every u ∈ N . Then, F (x′ ) − F (x) ≥ u∈N (x′u − xu ) · ∂u F (x) − O(n3 δ2 ) ·
maxu∈N f ({u}).
Corollary A.7. Given A, for every time t < 1, F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥ δt [F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ) −
F (y(t))] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ).
Proof. Observe that for every u ∈ N , |yu (t + δt ) − yu (t)| = |δt (1 − yu (t))xu (t)| ≤ δt . Hence, by
Lemma A.6,
X
F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥
[yu (t + δt )) − yu (t)] · ∂u F (y(t)) − O(n3 δt2 ) · max f ({u})
u∈N
u∈N
=
X
δt (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) · ∂u F (y(t)) − O(n3 δt2 ) · max f ({u}) .
u∈N
u∈N
(13)
Consider the rightmost hand side of the last inequality. By Lemma A.5, the first term on this side
can be bounded by
X
δt (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) · ∂u F (y(t)) ≥ δt · [F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ) − F (y(t)) − O(n−1 ) · f (OP T )]
u∈N
= δt · [F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ) − F (y(t))] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ) .
On the other hand, the second term of (13) can be bounded by
O(n3 δt2 ) · max f ({u}) = O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T )
u∈N
since δt ≤ n−4 by definition and maxu∈N f ({u}) ≤ f (OP T ) by our assumption that 1u ∈ P for
every u ∈ N .
The lower bound given by the last corollary is in terms of F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ). To make this lower
bound useful, we need to lower bound the term F (y(t) ∨ 1OP Tt′ ). This is done by the following two
lemma which corresponds to Lemma 4.4.
Lemma A.8. [corresponds to Lemma 4.4] For every time t < 1 and set A ⊆ N it holds that
F (y(t) ∨ 1A ) ≥ e− max{0,t−ts } − e−t − O(n−4 ) · max {0, f (A) − f (A ∪ Z)}
+ (e−t − O(n−4 )) · f (A) .
17
The proof of this lemma goes along the same lines as the proof of its corresponding lemma in
Section 4, except that the bounds on the coordinates of y(t) used by the proof from Section 4 are
replaced with the (slightly weaker) bounds given by the following lemma.
Lemma A.9. For every time t and element u ∈ N ,
(
1 − e−t + O(n−4 )
yu (t) ≤
1 − e− max{0,t−ts } + O(n−4 )
if u 6∈ Z ,
if u ∈ Z .
Proof. Let ε = n−4 , and observe that δt ≤ ε for every time t. Our first objective is to prove by
induction on t that, if yu (τ ) = 0 for some time τ ∈ [0, 1], then yu (t) ≤ 1 − (1 − ε)(t−τ )/ε for every
time t ∈ [τ, 1]. For t = τ the claim holds because yu (τ ) = 0 = 1 − (1 − ε)(τ −τ )/ε . Next, assume the
claim holds for some t, and let us prove it for t + δt .
yu (t + δt ) = yu (t) + δt (1 − yu (t)) · xu (t) ≤ yu (t) + δt (1 − yu (t)) = yu (t)(1 − δt ) + δt
≤ (1 − (1 − ε)(t−τ )/ε )(1 − δt ) + δt = 1 − (1 − δt )(1 − ε)(t−τ )/ε
≤ 1 − (1 − ε)δt /ε (1 − ε)(t−τ )/ε = 1 − (1 − ε)(t+δt −τ )/ε ,
where the last inequality holds since (1 − x)1/x is a decreasing function for x ∈ (0, 1].
We complete the proof for the case u 6∈ Z by choosing τ = 0 (clearly yu (0) = 0) and observing
that, for every time t,
1 − (1 − ε)t/ε ≤ 1 − [e−1 (1 − ε)]t = 1 − e−t (1 − ε)t ≤ 1 − e−t (1 − ε) = 1 − e−t + O(ε) .
It remains to prove the lemma for the case u ∈ Z. Note that at every time t ∈ [0, ts ) Algorithm 3
chooses as x(t) a vector maximizing a linear function in P which assigns a negative weight to
elements of Z. Since P is down-closed this maximum must have xu (t) = 0 for an element u ∈ Z.
This means that yu (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0, ts ]. In addition to proving the lemma for this time range, the
last inequality also allows us to choose τ = ts , which gives, for t ∈ [ts , 1],
yu (t) ≥ 1 − (1 − ε)(t−ts )/ε ≥ 1 − ets −t + O(ε) .
Combining Corollary A.7 with Lemma A.8 gives us the following corollary.
Corollary A.10. Given A, for every time t ∈ [0, ts ),
F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥ δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − F (y(t)))]
− O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T )
and, for every time t ∈ [ts , 1),
F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥ δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}
− F (y(t))] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ) .
Proof. For every time t ∈ [0, ts ), Corollary A.7 and Lemma A.8 imply together
F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥ δt [(1 − e−t − O(n−4 )) · max {0, f (OP T \ Z) − f (OP T ∪ Z)}
+ (e−t − O(n−4 )) · f (OP T \ Z)] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T )
≥ δt [(1 − O(n−4 )) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
− F (y(t)))] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ) .
18
We observe that this inequality is identical to the inequality promised for this time range by the
corollary, except that it has an extra term of −δt · O(n−4 ) · f (OP T \ Z) on its right hand side. Since
f (OP T \ Z) is upper bounded by f (OP T ), due to the down-closeness of P , the absolute value of
this extra term is at most
δt · O(n−4 ) · f (OP T ) = O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ) ,
which completes the proof for the time range t ∈ [0, ts ).
Consider now the time range t ∈ [ts , 1). For this time range Corollary A.7 and Lemma A.8
imply together
F (y(t + δt )) − F (y(t)) ≥ δt [(ets −t − e−t − O(n−4 )) · max {0, f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∪ Z)}
+ (e−t − O(n−4 )) · f (OP T )] − O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ) .
We observe again that this inequality is identical to the inequality promised for this time range
by the corollary, except that it has extra terms of −δt · O(n−4 ) · f (OP T ) and −δt · O(n−4 ) ·
max{0, f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∪ Z)} on its right hand side. The corollary now follows since the absolute
value of both these terms is upper bounded by O(n−1 δt ) · f (OP T ).
Corollary A.10 bounds the increase in F (y(t)) in terms of F (y(t)) itself. Thus, it gives a
recursive formula which can be used to lower bound F (y(t)). Our remaining task is to solve this
formula and get a closed-form lower bound on F (y(t)). Let g(t) be defined as follows. g(0) = 0 and
for every time t < 1,
g(t+δt )
(
g(t) + δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − g(t)]
=
g(t) + δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0} − g(t)]
if t < ts ,
if t ≥ ts .
The next lemma shows that a lower bound on g(t) yields a lower bound on F (y(t)).
Lemma A.11. Given A, for every time t, g(t) ≤ F (y(t)) + O(n−1 ) · t · f (OP T ).
Proof. Let c be the larger constant among the constants hiding behind the big O notations in
Corollary A.10. We prove by induction on t that g(t) ≤ F (y(t)) + (ct/n) · f (OP T ). For t = 0, this
clearly holds since g(0) = 0 ≤ F (y(0)). Assume now that the claim holds for some t, and let us
prove it for t + δt . There are two cases to consider. If t < ts , then the induction hypothesis and
Corollary A.10 imply, for a large enough n,
g(t + δt ) = g(t) + δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − g(t)]
= (1 − δt )g(t) + δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )]
≤ (1 − δt )[F (y(t)) + (ct/n) · f (OP T )] + δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )]
= F (y(t)) + δt [f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) − F (y(t))]
+ (ct/n) · (1 − δt ) · f (OP T )
≤ F (y(t + δt )) + (cδt /n) · f (OP T ) + (ct/n) · (1 − δt ) · f (OP T )
≤ F (y(t + δt )) + [c(t + δt )/n] · f (OP T ) .
Similarly, if t ≥ ts , then we get
g(t + δt ) = g(t) + δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0} − g(t)]
19
= (1 − δt )g(t) + δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}]
≤ (1 − δt )[F (y(t)) + (ct/n) · f (OP T )]
+ δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}]
= F (y(t)) + δt [e−t · f (OP T ) + (ets −t − e−t ) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0} − F (y(t))]
+ (ct/n) · (1 − δt ) · f (OP T )
≤ F (y(t + δt )) + (cδt /n) · f (OP T ) + (ct/n) · (1 − δt ) · f (OP T )
≤ F (y(t + δt )) + [c(t + δt )/n] · f (OP T ) .
It remains to find a closed-form expression that lower bounds g(t) (and thus, also F (y(t))). Let
h1 (t) : [0, ts ] → R and h2 (t) : [ts , 1] → R be defined as follows.
h1 (t) = (1 − e−t ) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t − te−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) ,
and
h2 (t) = e−t · {(t − ts ) · [f (OP T ) + (ets − 1) · max{f (OP T ) − f (OP T ∪ Z), 0}] + ets · h1 (ts )} .
Lemma A.12. For every time t ≤ ts , h1 (t) ≤ g(t).
Proof. The proof is by induction on t. For t = 0, g(0) = 0 = (1 − e0 ) · f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e0 − 0 ·
e0 ) · f (Z ∪ OP T ) = h1 (0). Assume now that the lemma holds for some t < ts , and let us prove it
holds also for t + δt . By the induction hypothesis,
Z t+δt
h′ (τ )dτ
h1 (t + δt ) = h1 (t) +
t
Z t+δt
{e−τ · f (OP T \ Z) − τ e−τ · f (Z ∪ OP T )}dτ
= h1 (t) +
t
≤ h1 (t) + δt · {e−t · f (OP T \ Z) − te−t · f (Z ∪ OP T )}dτ
= (1 − δt )h1 (t) + δt · {f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )}
≤ (1 − δt )g(t) + δt · {f (OP T \ Z) − (1 − e−t ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )} = g(t + δt ) ,
where the first inequality holds since e−τ is a decreasing function of τ and τ e−τ is an increasing
function of τ in the range τ ∈ [0, 1].
Lemma A.13. For every time ts ≤ t ≤ 1, h2 (t) ≤ g(t).
Proof. The proof is by induction on t. For t = ts , by Lemma A.12, h2 (ts ) = h1 (ts ) ≤ g(ts ). Assume
now that the lemma holds for some ts ≤ t < 1, and let us prove it holds also for t + δt .
To avoid repeating complex expressions, let us denote A = f (OP T ) + (ets − 1) · max{f (OP T ) −
f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}. Notice that A is independent of t. Moreover, using this notation we can rewrite
h2 (t) as h2 (t) = e−t · {(t − ts ) · A + ets · h1 (ts )}. Thus, for every τ ∈ (ts , 1),
h′2 (τ ) = −e−τ · {(τ − ts ) · A + ets · h1 (ts )} + e−τ · A = e−τ · {(1 − τ + ts ) · A − ets · h1 (ts )} .
The definition of A and the non-negativity of f imply immediately that A ≥ 0. We would like
to prove also that ts · A − ets · h1 (ts ) ≥ 0. There are two cases to consider. First, if f (OP T ) ≥
f (Z ∪ OP T ), then
ts · A − ets · h1 (ts ) = ts · f (OP T ) + ts (ets − 1) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}
20
− (ets − 1) · f (OP T \ Z) + (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
≥ ts ets · f (OP T ) − ts (ets − 1) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
− (ets − 1) · f (OP T ) + (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
= (ts ets − ets + 1) · [f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T )] ≥ 0 .
where the inequality uses the fact that f (OP T ) ≥ f (OP T \ Z) because of the down-closure of P .
On the other hand, if f (OP T ) < f (Z ∪ OP T ), then
ts · A − ets · h1 (ts ) = ts · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (OP T \ Z) + (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )
≥ ts · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (OP T ) + (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (OP T ) = 0 .
Using the above observations and the induction hypothesis, we can now get
h2 (t + δt ) = h2 (t) +
Z
t+δt
h′ (τ )dτ = h2 (t) +
Z
t+δt
e−τ · {(1 − τ + ts ) · A − ets · h1 (ts )}dτ
t
t
≤ h2 (t) + δt · e−t · {(1 − t + ts ) · A − ets · h1 (ts )} = (1 − δt )h2 (t) + δt · e−t · A
≤ (1 − δt )g(t) + δt · e−t · A = g(t + δt ) .
The last two lemmata give us the promised closed-form lower bound on g(t), which can be used
to lower bound the approximation ratio of Algorithm 3.
Corollary A.14. E[F (y(1))] ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T ) −
(2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )].
Proof. By Lemma A.11, given A,
F (y(1)) ≥ g(1) − O(n−1 ) · f (OP T ) .
By Lemma A.13,
g(1) ≥ h2 (1)
= e−1 · {(1 − ts ) · [f (OP T ) + (ets − 1) · max{f (OP T ) − f (Z ∪ OP T ), 0}]
+ (ets − 1) · f (OP T \ Z) − (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )}
≥ e−1 · {(1 − ts ) · [ets · f (OP T ) − (ets − 1) · f (Z ∪ OP T )]
+ (ets − 1) · [f (OP T ) − f (Z ∩ OP T )] − (ets − 1 − ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )}
= ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts ) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] ,
where the second inequality holds since the submodularity and non-negativity of f imply
f (OP T \ Z) ≥ f (OP T ) + f (∅) − f (Z ∩ OP T ) ≥ f (OP T ) − f (Z ∩ OP T ) .
Combining the above observations we get that, given A,
F (y(1)) ≥ ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] .
21
Since F (y(1)) is always non-negative, this implies, by the law of total expectation,
E[F (y(1))] ≥ Pr[A] · {ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )]}
≥ {ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )]}
1
− · ets −1 · (2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T )
n
= ets −1 · [(2 − ts − e−ts − O(n−1 )) · f (OP T ) − (1 − e−ts ) · f (Z ∩ OP T )
− (2 − ts − 2e−ts ) · f (Z ∪ OP T )] ,
where the second inequality holds since Pr[A] ≥ 1 − n−1 by Corollary A.4.
Theorem 4.1 now follows immediately by combining Corollaries A.2 and A.14.
22
| 8cs.DS
|
Self Organizing Maps Whose Topologies Can Be Learned With
Adaptive Binary Search Trees Using Conditional Rotations
arXiv:1506.02750v1 [cs.NE] 9 Jun 2015
César A. Astudillo
∗ †
B. John Oommen‡
§
Abstract
Numerous variants of Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) have been proposed in the literature, including
those which also possess an underlying structure, and in some cases, this structure itself can be defined
by the user Although the concepts of growing the SOM and updating it have been studied, the whole
issue of using a self-organizing Adaptive Data Structure (ADS) to further enhance the properties of the
underlying SOM, has been unexplored. In an earlier work, we impose an arbitrary, user-defined, tree-like
topology onto the codebooks, which consequently enforced a neighborhood phenomenon and the so-called
tree-based Bubble of Activity (BoA). In this paper, we consider how the underlying tree itself can be
rendered dynamic and adaptively transformed. To do this, we present methods by which a SOM with
an underlying Binary Search Tree (BST) structure can be adaptively re-structured using Conditional
Rotations (CONROT). These rotations on the nodes of the tree are local, can be done in constant time,
and performed so as to decrease the Weighted Path Length (WPL) of the entire tree. In doing this, we
introduce the pioneering concept referred to as Neural Promotion, where neurons gain prominence in the
Neural Network (NN) as their significance increases. We are not aware of any research which deals with
the issue of Neural Promotion. The advantages of such a scheme is that the user need not be aware of any
of the topological peculiarities of the stochastic data distribution. Rather, the algorithm, referred to as
the TTOSOM with Conditional Rotations (TTOCONROT), converges in such a manner that the neurons
are ultimately placed in the input space so as to represent its stochastic distribution, and additionally,
the neighborhood properties of the neurons suit the best BST that represents the data. These properties
have been confirmed by our experimental results on a variety of data sets. We submit that all of these
concepts are both novel and of a pioneering sort.
Keywords: Adaptive Data Structures, Binary Search Trees, Self-Organizing Maps
∗ Universidad
† This
de Talca, Merced 437 Curicó, Chile. castudillo@utalca.cl
author is Assistant Professor at the Department of Computer Science, with the Universidad de Talca. This work is
partially supported by the FONDECYT grant 11121350, Chile. A very preliminary version of this paper was presented at AI’09,
the 2009 Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Melbourne, Australia, in December 2009. That paper won the
award of being the Best Paper of the Conference. We are also very grateful for the comments made by the Associate Editor and
the anonymous Referees. Their input helped in improving the quality of the final version of this paper. Thank you very much!
‡ School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada : K1S 5B6. oommen@scs.carleton.ca
§ Chancellor’s Professor ; Fellow : IEEE and Fellow : IAPR. This author is also an Adjunct Professor with the University of
Agder in Grimstad, Norway. The work of this author was partially supported by NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada.
1
1
Introduction
This paper is a pioneering attempt to merge the areas of Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs) with the theory
of Adaptive Data Structures (ADSs). Put in a nutshell, we can describe the goal of this paper as follows:
Consider a SOM with n neurons. Rather than having the neurons merely possess information about the
feature space, we also attempt to link them together by means of an underlying Data Structure (DS). This
DS could be a singly-linked list, a doubly-linked list or a Binary Search Tree (BST), etc. The intention is that
the neurons are governed by the laws of the SOM and the underlying DS. Observe now that the concepts of
“neighborhood” and Bubble of Activity (BoA) are not based on the nearness of the neurons in the feature
space, but rather on their proximity in the underlying DS. Having accepted the above-mentioned premise,
we intent to take this entire concept to a higher level of abstraction and propose to modify this DS itself
adaptively using operations specific to it. As far as we know, the combination of these concepts has been
unreported in the literature.
Before we proceed, to place our results in the right perspective, it is probably wise to see how the concept
of neighborhood has been defined in the SOM literature.
Kohonen, in his book [36], mentions that it is possible to distinguish between two basic types of neighborhood functions. The first family involves a kernel function (which is usually of a Gaussian nature). The
second, is the so-called neighborhood set, also known as the Bubble of Activity (BoA). This paper focuses
on the second type of neighborhood function.
Even though the traditional SOM is dependent on the neural distance to estimate the subset of neurons
to be incorporated into the BoA, this is not always the case for the SOM-variants included in the literature.
Indeed, the different strategies described in the state-of-the-art utilize families of schemes to define the BoA.
We mainly identify three sub-classes.
The first type of BoA uses the concept of the neural distance as in the case of the traditional SOM. Once
the Best Matching Unit (BMU) is identified, the neural distance is calculated by traversing the underlying
structure that holds the neurons. An important property of the neural distance between two neurons is that
it is proportional to the number of connections separating them. Examples of strategies that use the neural
distance to determine the BoA are the Growing Cell Structures (GCS) [24], the Growing Grid (GG) [25], the
Incremental Grid Growing (IGG) [13], the Growing SOM (GSOM) [3], the Tree-Structured SOM (TSSOM)
[37], the Hierarchical Feature Map (HFM) [43], the Growing Hierarchical SOM (GHSOM) [50], the SelfOrganizing Tree Algorithm (SOTA) [22], the Evolving Tree (ET) [46], the Tree-based Topology Oriented
SOM (TTOSOM) [8], among others.
A second subset of strategies employ a scheme for determining the BoA that does not depend on the
inter-neural connections. Instead, such strategies utilize the distance in the feature space. In these cases, it
is possible to distinguish between two types of Neural Networks (NNs). The simplest situation occurs when
the BoA only considers the BMU, i.e., it constitutes an instance of hard Competitive Learning (CL), as in
the case of the Tree-Structured VQ (TSVQ) [37] and the Self-Organizing Tree Map (SOTM) [27].
A more sophisticated and computationally expensive scheme involves ranking the neurons as per their
respective distances to the stimulus. In this scenario, the BoA is determined by selecting a subset of the
2
closest neurons. An example of a SOM variant that uses such a ranking is the Neural Gas (NG) [40].
According to the authors of [46], the SOM-based variants included in the literature attempt to tackle
two main goals: They either try to design a more flexible topology, which is usually useful to analyze large
datasets, or to reduce the the most time-consuming task required by the SOM, namely, the search for the
BMU when the input set has a complex nature. In this paper we focus on the former of the two mentioned
goals. In other words, our goal is to enhance the capabilities of the original SOM algorithm so as to represent
the underlying data distribution and its structure in a more accurate manner. We also intend to do so by
constraining the neurons so that they are related to each other, not just based on their neural indices and
stochastic distribution, but also based on a BST relationship.
Furthermore, as a long term ambition, we also anticipate methods which can accelerate the task of locating
the nearest neuron during the CL phase. This work will present the details of the design and implementation
of how an adaptive process applied to the BST, can be integrated into the SOM.
Regardless of the fact that numerous variants of the SOM has been devised, few of them possess the
ability of modifying the underlying topology [13, 21, 22, 26, 27, 42, 46, 52]. Moreover, only a small subset
use a tree as their underlying DS [8, 21, 22, 27, 46, 52]. These strategies attempt to dynamically modify the
nodes of the SOM, for example, by adding nodes, which can be a single neuron or a layer of a SOM-grid.
However, our hypothesis is that it is also possible to attain to a better understanding of the unknown data
distribution by performing structural tree-based modifications on the tree, which although they preserve the
general topology, attempt to modify the overall configuration, i.e., by altering the way by which nodes are
interconnected, and yet continue as a BST. We accomplish this by dynamically adapting the edges that
connect the neurons, by rotating1 the nodes within the BST that holds the whole structure of neurons. As
we will explain later, this is further achieved by local modifications to the overall structure in a constant
number of steps. Thus, we attempt to use rotations, tree-based neighbors and the feature space to improve
the quality of the SOM.
1.1
Motivations
Acquiring information about a set of stimuli in an unsupervised manner, usually demands the deduction of its
structure. In general, the topology employed by any Artificial Neural Network (ANN) possessing this ability
has an important impact on the manner by which it will “absorb” and display the properties of the input
set. Consider for example, the following: A user may want to devise an algorithm that is capable of learning
a triangle-shaped distribution as the one depicted in Figure 1. The SOM tries to achieve this by defining an
underlying grid-based topology and to fit the grid within the overall shape, as shown in Figure 1a (duplicated
from [36]). However, from our perspective, a grid-like topology does not naturally fit a triangular-shaped
distribution, and thus, one experiences a deformation of the original lattice during the modeling phase. As
opposed to this, Figure 1b, shows the result of applying one of the techniques developed by us, namely the
TTOSOM [8]. As the reader can observe from Figure 1b, a 3-ary tree seems to be a far more superior choice
for representing the particular shape in question.
1 The
operation of rotation is the one associated with BSTs, as will be presently explained.
3
(a) The grid learned by the
SOM.
(b) The tree learned by the
TTOSOM.
Figure 1: How a triangle-shaped distribution is learned through unsupervised learning.
On closer inspection, Figure 1b depicts how the complete tree fills in the triangle formed by the set of
stimuli, and further, seems to do it uniformly. The final position of the nodes of the tree suggests that the
underlying structure of the data distribution corresponds to the triangle. Additionally, the root of the tree
is placed roughly in the center of mass of the triangle. It is also interesting to note that each of the three
main branches of the tree, cover the areas directed towards a vertex of the triangle respectively, and their
sub-branches fill in the surrounding space around them in a recursive manner, which we identify as being a
holograph-like behavior.
Of course, the triangle of Figure 1b serves only as a very simple prima facie example to demonstrate
to the reader, in an informal manner, how both techniques will try to learn the set of stimuli. Indeed, in
real-world problems, these techniques can be employed to extract the properties of high-dimensional samples.
One can argue that imposing an initial topological configuration is not in accordance with the founding
principles of unsupervised learning, the phenomenon that is supposed to occur without “supervision” within
the human brain. As an initial response we argue that this “supervision” is required to enhance the training
phase, while the information we provide relates to the initialization phase. Indeed, this is in line with the
well-accepted principle [23], that very little can be automatically learned about a data distribution if no
assumptions are made!
As the next step of motivating this research endeavor, we venture into a world where the neural topology
and structure are themselves learned during the training process. This is achieved by the method that we
propose in this paper, namely the TTOSOM with Conditional Rotations (TTOCONROT), which, in essence,
dynamically extends the properties of the above-mentioned TTOSOM. Again, to accomplish this we need
key concepts that are completely new to the field of SOMs, namely those related to tree-based Adaptive Data
Structure (ADS). Indeed, as demonstrated by our experiments, the results that we have already obtained
have been applauded by the research community2 , and these, to the best of our knowledge, have remained
unreported in the literature.
Another reason why we are interested in such an inter-area integration, deals with the issue for devising
efficient methods that add neurons to the tree. Even though the schemes that we are currently proposing
2 As mentioned earlier, a paper which reported the preliminary results of this study, won the Best Paper Award in a well-known
international AI conference [7].
4
in this paper focus on tree adaptation by means of rotations, we envision another type of dynamism,i.e.,
one which involves the expansion of the tree structure through the insertion of newly created nodes. The
state-of-the-art considers different strategies that expand trees by inserting nodes (which can be a single
neuron or a SOM-layer) that essentially are based on a Quantization Error (QE) measure. In some of these
strategies, the error measure is based on the “hits”, i.e., the number of times a neuron has been selected
as the BMU, c.f., [13, 24, 37, 46]. The strategy that we have chosen for adapting the tree, namely using
Conditional Rotations (CONROT), already utilizes this BMU counter, and, distinct to the previous strategies
that attempt to search for a node to be expanded (which in the case of tree-based SOMs is usually at the
level of the leaves [37, 46]), we foresee and advocate a different approach. Our TTOCONROT method
asymptotically positions frequently accessed nodes close to the root, and so, according to this property, it
is the root node which should be split. Observe that if we follow such a philosophy, one would not have to
search for a node with a higher QE measure. Rather, the CONROT, will be hopefully, able to migrate the
candidates closer to the root. Of course, this works with assumption that a larger number of hits indicates
that the degree of granularity of a particular neuron justifies refinement. The concept of using the root of
the tree for growing a tree-based SOM is, in and of itself, pioneering, as far as we know.
1.2
Contributions of the Paper
The contributions of the paper can be summarized as follows:
1. We present an integration of the fields of SOMs and ADS. This, we respectfully, submit as pioneering.
2. The neurons of the SOM are linked together using an underlying tree-based DS, and they are governed
by the laws of the TTOSOM tree-based paradigm, and simultaneously the restructuring adaptation
provided by CONROT.
3. The definition of distance between the neurons is based on the tree structure, and not in the feature
space. This is valid also for the BoA, rendering the migrations distinct from the state-of-the-art.
4. The adaptive nature of the TTOCONROT is unique because adaptation is perceived in two forms: The
migration of the codebook vectors in the feature space is a consequence of the SOM update rule, and
the rearrangement of the neurons within the tree as a result of the rotations.
1.3
Organization of the Paper
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section surveys the relevant literature3 , which
involves both the field of SOMs including their tree-based instantiations, and the respective field of BSTs
with conditional rotations. After that, in Section 2, we provide an in-depth explanation of the TTOCONROT
philosophy, which is our primary contribution. The subsequent section shows the capabilities of the approach
through a series of experiments, and finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.
3 For the sake of space the literature review has been considerably condensed. However, given that there is no survey paper
on the area of tree-based SOMs reported in the literature, we are currently preparing a paper that summarizes the field.
5
2
Literature Review
2.1
The SOM
One of the most important families of ANNs used to tackle clustering problems is the well known SOM [36].
Typically, the SOM is trained using (un)supervised learning, so as to produce a neural representation in a
space whose dimension is usually smaller than that in which the training samples lie. Further, the neurons
attempt to preserve the topological properties of the input space.
The SOM concentrates all the information contained in a set of n input samples belonging to the ddimensional space, say X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }, utilizing a much smaller set of neurons, C = {c1 , c2 , . . . , cm },
each of which is represented as a vector. Each of the m neurons contains a weight vector w = [w1 , w2 , . . . , wd ]t ∈
IRd associated with it. These vectors are synonymously called “weights”, “prototypes” or “codebook” vectors. The vector wi may be perceived as the position of neuron ci in the feature space. During the training
phase, the values of these weights are adjusted simultaneously so as to represent the data distribution and
its structure. In each training step a stimulus (a representative input sample from the data distribution)
x is presented to the network, and the neurons compete between themselves so as to identify which is the
“winner”, also known as the Best Matching Unit (BMU). After identifying the BMU, a subset of the neurons
“close” to it are considered to be within the so-called Bubble of Activity (BoA), which further depends on
a parameter specified to the algorithm, namely, the so-called radius. Thereafter, this scheme performs a migration of the codebooks within that BoA so as to position them closer to the sample being examined. The
migration factor by which this update is effected, depends on a parameter known as the learning rate, which is
typically expected to be large initially, and which decreases as the algorithm proceeds, and which ultimately
results in no migration at all. Algorithm 1 describes the details of the SOM philosophy. In Algorithm 1, the
parameters are scheduled by defining a sequence S = hS1 , S2 , . . . , Ss i, where each Si corresponds to a tuple
(ηi , ri , ti ) that specifies the learning rate, ηi , and the radius, ri , for a fixed number of training steps, ti . The
way in which the parameters decay is not specified in the original algorithm, and some alternatives are, e.g.,
that the parameters remain fixed, decrease linearly, exponentially, etc.
Algorithm 1 SOM(X ,S)
Input:
i) X , the input sample set.
ii) S, the schedule for the parameters.
Method:
1: Initialize the weights w1 , w2 , . . . , wm , e.g., by randomly selecting elements from X .
2: repeat
3:
Obtain a sample x from X .
4:
Find the Winner neuron, i.e., the one which is most similar to x.
5:
Determine a subset of neurons close to the winner.
6:
Migrate the closest neuron and its neighbors towards x.
7:
Modify the learning factor and radius as per the pre-defined schedule.
8: until no noticeable changes are observed.
End Algorithm
Although the SOM has demonstrated an ability to solve problems over a wide spectrum, it possesses some
6
fundamental drawbacks. One of these drawbacks is that the user must specify the lattice a priori, which has
the effect that he must run the ANN a number of times to obtain a suitable configuration. Other handicaps
involve the size of the maps, where a lesser number of neurons often represent the data inaccurately.
The state-of-the-art approaches attempt to render the topology more flexible, so as to represent complicated data distributions in a better way and/or to make the process faster by, for instance, speeding up the
task of determining the BMU.
There are a vast number of domain fields where the SOM has demonstrated to be useful; a compendium
with all the articles that take advantage of the properties of the SOM is surveyed in [32, 45]. These survey
papers classify the publications related to the SOM according to their year of release. The report [32] includes
the bibliography published between the year 1981 and 1998, while the report [45] includes the analogous
papers published between 1998 and 2001. Further, additional recent references including the related work
up to the year 2005 have been collected in a technical report [48]. The more recent literature reports a host
of application domains, including Medical Image Processing [2], Human Eye Detection [33], Handwriting
Recognition [39], Image Segmentation [56], Information Retrieval [20], Object Tracking [30], etc.
2.2
Tree-Based SOMs
Although an important number of variants of the original SOM have been presented through the years, we
focus our attention on a specific family of enhancements in which the neurons are inter-connected using a
tree topology.
The Tree-Structured VQ (TSVQ) algorithm [37] is a tree-based SOM variant, whose topology is defined a
priori and which is static. The training first takes place at highest levels of the tree. The TSVQ incorporates
the concept of a “frozen” node, which implies that after a node is trained for a certain amount of time,
it becomes static. The algorithm then allows subsequent units, i.e., the direct children, to be trained.
The strategy utilizes a heuristic search algorithm for rapidly identifying a BMU. It starts from the root
and recursively traverses the path towards the leaves. If the unit currently being analyzed is frozen, the
algorithm identifies the child which is closest to the stimulus, and performs a recursive call. The algorithm
terminates when the node currently being analyzed is not a frozen node (i.e., it is currently being trained),
and is returned as the BMU.
Koikkalainen and Oja, in the same paper [37] refine the idea of the TSVQ by defining the TSSOM, which
inherits all the properties of the TSVQ, but redefines the search procedure and BoA. In the case of the
TSSOM, SOM layers of different dimensions are arranged in a pyramidal shape (which can be perceived as
a SOM with different degrees of granularity). It differs from the TSVQ, in the sense that, once the BMU is
found, the direct proximity is examined to check for the BMU. On the other hand, the BoA differs in that,
instead of considering only the BMU, its direct neighbors (in the pyramid) will also be considered.
The Self-Organizing Tree Algorithm (SOTA) [22] is a dynamically growing tree-based SOM which, according to their authors, take some analogies from the Growing Cell Structures (GCS) [24]. The SOTA
utilizes a binary tree as the underlying structure, and similarly to other strategies (e.g., the TSSOM [37]
and the Evolving Tree (ET) [46] explained below), it considers the migration of the neurons only if they
7
correspond to leaf nodes within the tree structure. Its BoA depends on the neural tree and is defined for two
cases. The most general case occurs when the parent of the BMU is not the root, i.e., a situation in which
the BoA is composed by the BMU, its sibling and its parent node. Otherwise, the BoA constitutes the BMU
only. The SOTA triggers a growing mechanism that utilizes a QE to determine the node to be split into two
new descendants.
In [21] the authors presented a tree-based SOM called the Growing Hierarchical SOM (GHSOM), in which
each node corresponds to an independent SOM. The expansion of the structure is dual: The first type of
adaptation is conceived by inserting new rows (or columns) to the SOM grid that is currently being trained,
while the second type is implemented by adding layers to the hierarchical structure. Both types of dynamism
depend on the verification of QE measures.
The SOTM [27] is a tree-based SOM which is also inspired by the Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART)
[15]. In the SOTM, when the input is within a threshold distance from the BMU, the latter is migrated.
Otherwise, a new neuron is added to the tree. Thus, in the SOTM, the subset of neurons to be migrated
depends only on the distance in the feature space, and not in the neural distance, as most of the tree-based
SOM families.
In [46], the authors have proposed a tree-structured NN called the Evolving Tree (ET), which takes
advantage of a sub-optimal procedure (adapted from the one utilized by the TSVQ) to identify the BMU
in O(log |V |) time, where V is the set of neurons. The ET adds neurons dynamically, and incorporates
the concept of a “frozen” neuron (explained above), which is a non-leaf node that does not participate in
the training process, and which is thus removed from the BoA. Similar to the TSVQ, the training phase
terminates when all the nodes become frozen.
The Tree-based Topology Oriented SOM (TTOSOM) [8], which is central to this paper, is a tree-based
SOM in which each node can possess an arbitrary number of children. Furthermore, it is assumed that the
user has the ability to describe/create such a tree whose topological configuration is preserved through the
training process. The TTOSOM uses a particular BoA that includes nodes (leaf and non-leaf ones) that are
within a certain neural distance (the so-called “radius”). An interesting property displayed by this strategy
is its ability to reproduce the results obtained by Kohonen, when the nodes of the SOM are arranged linearly,
i.e., in a list. In this case, the TTOSOM is able to adapt this 1-dimensional grid to a 2-dimensional (or
multi-dimensional) object in the same way as the SOM algorithm does [8]. This was a phenomenon that
was not possessed by prior hierarchical SOM-based networks reported in the literature4 . Additionally, if the
original topology of the tree followed the overall shape of the data distribution, the results reported in [8]
(and also depicted in the motivational section) showed that is also possible to obtain a symmetric topology
for the codebook vectors. In a more recent work [9], the authors have enhanced the TTOSOM to perform
classification in a semi-supervised fashion. The method presented in [9] first learns the data distribution in an
unsupervised manner. Once labeled instances become available, the clusters are labeled using the evidence.
According to the results presented in [9], the number of neurons required to accurately predict the category
4 The SOM possesses the ability to learn the data distribution by utilizing a unidimensional topology [36], i.e., the neighbors
are defined along a grid in each direction. Further, when this is the case, one can encounter that the unidimensional topology
forms a so-called Peano curve [47]. The TTOSOM also possesses this interesting property, when the tree topology is linear. The
details of how this is achieved is presented in detail in [8], including the explanation of how other tree-based techniques fail to
achieve this task.
8
of novel data are only a small portion of the cardinality of the input set.
3
Merging ADS and TTOSOM
3.1
Adaptive Data Structures (ADSs) for BSTs
One of the primary goals of the area of ADS is to achieve an optimal arrangement of the elements, placed
at the nodes of the structure, as the number of iterations increases. This reorganization can be perceived to
be both automatic and adaptive, such that on convergence, the DS tends towards an optimal configuration
with a minimum average access time. In most cases, the most probable element will be positioned at the
root (head) of the tree (DS), while the rest of the tree is recursively positioned in the same manner. The
solution to obtain the optimal BST is well known when the access probabilities of the nodes are known a
priori [35]. However, our research concentrates on the case when these access probabilities are not known a
priori. In this setting, one effective solution is due to Cheetham et al. and uses the concept of CONROT
[16], which reorganizes the BST so as to asymptotically produce the optimal form. Additionally, unlike most
of the algorithms that are otherwise reported in the literature, this move is not done on every data access
operation – it is performed if and only if the overall Weighted Path Length (WPL) of the resulting BST
decreases.
A BST may be used to store records whose keys are members of an ordered set A = {A1 , A2 , . . . , AN }.
The records are stored in such a way that a symmetric-order traversal of the tree will yield the records
in an ascending order. If we are given A and the set of access probabilities Q = {Q1 , Q2 , . . . , QN }, the
problem of constructing efficient BSTs has been extensively studied. The optimal algorithm due to Knuth
[35], uses dynamic programming and produces the optimal BST using O(N 2 ) time and space. In this paper,
we consider the scenario in which Q, the access probability vector, is not known a priori. We seek a scheme
which dynamically rearranges itself and asymptotically generates a tree which minimizes the access cost of
the keys.
The primitive tree restructuring operation used in most BST schemes is the well known operation of
Rotation [1]. We describe this operation as follows. Suppose that there exists a node i in a BST, and that
it has a parent node j, a left child, iL , and a right child, iR . The function P (i) = j relates node i with its
parent j (if it exists). Also, let B(i) = k relate node i with its sibling k, i.e., the node (if it exists) that shares
the same parent as i. Consider the case when i is itself a left child (see Figure 2a). A rotation is performed
on node i as follows: j now becomes the right child, iR becomes the left child of node j, and all the other
nodes remain in their same relative positions (see Figure 2b). The case when node i is a right child is treated
in a symmetric manner. This operation has the effect of raising (or promoting) a specified node in the tree
structure while preserving the lexicographic order of the elements (refer again to Figure2b).
A few memory-less tree reorganizing schemes5 which use this operation have been presented in the literature among which are the Move-to-Root and the simple Exchange rules [4]. In the Move-to-Root Heuristic,
each time a record is accessed, rotations are performed on it in an upwards direction until it becomes the
5 This
review is necessary brief. A more detailed version is found in [18, 38].
9
(a) The tree before a rotation is performed. The contents of the nodes are
their data values, which in this case
are the characters {a, b, c, d, e}.
(b) The tree after a rotation is
performed on node i.
Figure 2: The BST before and after a Rotation is performed.
root of the tree. On the other hand, the simple Exchange rule rotates the accessed element one level towards
the root.
Sleator and Tarjan [54] introduced a technique, which also moves the accessed record up to the root of
the tree using a restructuring operation called “Splaying”, which actually is a multi-level generalization of
the rotation. Their structure, called the Splay Tree, was shown to have an amortized time complexity of
O(log N ) for a complete set of tree operations which included insertion, deletion, access, split, and join.
The literature also records various schemes which adaptively restructure the tree with the aid of additional
memory locations. Prominent among them is the Monotonic Tree (MT) [12] and Mehlhorn’s D-Tree (DT)
[41]. The MT is a dynamic version of a tree structuring method originally suggested by Knuth [35].
In spite of all their advantages, all of the schemes mentioned above have drawbacks, some of which are
more serious than others. The memory-less schemes have one major disadvantage, which is that both the
Move-to-Root and Splaying rules always move the accessed record up to the root of the tree. This means
that if a nearly-optimal arrangement is reached, a single access of a seldomly-used record will disarrange the
tree along the entire access path, as the element is moved upwards to the root.
As opposed to these schemes, the MT rule does not move the accessed element to the root every time.
But, as reported in [16], in practice, it does not perform well. The weakness of the MT lies in the fact that
it considers only the frequency counts for the records, which leads to the undesirable property that a single
rotation may move a subtree with a relatively large probability weight downwards, thus increasing the cost
of the tree.
This paper uses a particular heuristic, namely, the Conditional Rotations for a BST (CONROT-BST)
[16], which has been shown to reorganize a BST so as to asymptotically arrive at an optimal form. In its
optimized version, the scheme, referred to Algorithm CONROT-BST, requires the maintenance of a single
memory location per record, which keeps track of the number of accesses to the subtree rooted at that record.
The CONROT-BST algorithm specifies how an accessed element can be rotated towards the root of the tree
so as to minimize the overall cost of the entire tree. Finally, unlike most of the algorithms that are currently
10
in the literature, this move is not done on every data access operation. It is performed if and only if the
overall WPL of the resulting BST decreases. In essence Algorithm CONROT-BST attempts to minimize
the WPL by incorporating the statistical information about the accesses to the various nodes and subtrees
rooted at the corresponding nodes.
The basic condition for the rotation of a node is that the WPL of the entire tree must decrease as a
result of a single rotation. This is achieved by a so-called Conditional Rotation. To define the concept of
a Conditional Rotation, we define τi (n) as the total number of accesses to the subtree rooted at node i.
One of the biggest advantages of the CONROT-BST heuristic is that it only requires the maintenance and
processing of the values stored at a specific node and its direct neighbors, i.e., its parent and both children,
if they exist.
Algorithm CONROT-BST, formally given in Algorithm 2, describes the process of the conditional rotations for a BST. The algorithm receives two parameters, the first of which corresponds to a pointer to the
root of the tree, and the second which corresponds to the key to be searched, which is assumed to be present
in the tree. When a node access is requested, the algorithm seeks for the node from the root down towards
the leaves.
Algorithm 2 CONROT-BST(j,ki)
Input:
i) j, A pointer to the root of a binary search tree T
ii) ki , A search key, assumed to be in T
Output:
i) The restructured tree T ′
ii) A pointer to the record i containing ki
Method:
1: τj ← τj + 1
2: if ki = kj then
3:
if is-left-child(j) = TRUE then
4:
Ψj ← 2τj − τjR − τP (j)
5:
else
6:
Ψj ← 2τj − τjL − τP (j)
7:
end if
8:
if Ψj > 0 then
9:
rotate-upwards(j)
10:
recalculate-tau(j)
11:
recalculate-tau(P (j))
12:
end if
13:
return record j
14: else
15:
if ki < kj then
16:
CONROT-BST( left-child(j) , ki )
17:
else
18:
CONROT-BST( right-child(j) , ki )
19:
end if
20: end if
End Algorithm
The first task accomplished by the Algorithm CONROT-BST is the updating of the counter τ for the
present node along the path traversed. After that, the next step consists of determining whether or not the
11
node with the requested key has been found. When this occurs, the quantities defined by Equations (1) and
(2) are computed to determine the value of a quantity referred to as Ψ, where:
Ψj = 2τj − τjR − τP (j)
(1)
when j is the left child of its parent, P (j), and
Ψj = 2τj − τjL − τP (j)
(2)
when j is a right descendant of P (j).
When Ψ is less than zero, an upward rotation is performed. The authors of [16] have shown that this
single rotation leads to a decrease in the overall WPL of the entire tree. This occur in line 9 of the algorithm,
in which the method rotate-upwards is invoked. The parameter to this method is a pointer to the node
j. The method does the necessary operations required to rotate the node upwards, which means that if
the node j is the left child of the parent, then this is equivalent to performing a right rotation over P (j),
the parent of j. Analogously, when j is the right child of its parent, the parent of j is left-rotated instead.
Once the rotation takes place, it is necessary to update the corresponding counters, τ . Fortunately this task
only involve the updating of τi , for the rotated node, and the counter of its parent, τP (i) . The last part of
the algorithm, namely lines 14–19, deals with the further search for the key, which in this case is achieved
recursively.
The reader will observe that all the tasks invoked in the algorithm are performed in constant time, and
in the worst case, the recursive call is done from the root down to the leaves, leading to a O(h) running
complexity, where h is the height of the tree.
3.2
The TTOSOM with Conditional Rotations (TTOCONROT)
This section concentrates on the details of the integration between the fields of ADS and the SOM, and in
particular, the TTOSOM. Although merging ADS and the SOM is relevant to a wide spectrum of DSs,
we focus our scope by considering only tree-based structures. More specifically we shall concentrate on the
integration of the CONROT-BST heuristic [16] into a TTOSOM [8], both of which were explained in the
preceding sections.
We can conceptually distinguish our method, namely, the Tree-based Topology Oriented SOM with Conditional Rotations (TTOCONROT) from its components and properties.
In terms of components, we detect five elements. First of all, the TTOCONROT has a set of neurons, which, like all SOM-based methods, represents the data space in a condensed manner. Secondly, the
TTOCONROT possesses a connection between the neurons, where the neighbor of any specific neuron is
based on a nearness measure that is tree-based. The third and fourth components involve the migration of
the neurons. Similar to the reported families of SOMs, a subset of neurons closest to the winning neuron
are moved towards the sample point using a Vector Quantization (VQ) rule. However, unlike the reported
families of SOMs, the identity of the neurons that are moved is based on the tree-based proximity and not on
12
the feature-space proximity. Finally, the TTOCONROT possesses tree-based mutating operations, namely
the above-mentioned conditional rotations.
With respect to the properties of the TTOCONROT, we mention the following. First of all, it is adaptive,
with regard to the migration of the points. Secondly, it is also adaptive with regard to the identity of the
neurons moved. Thirdly, the distribution of the neurons in the feature space mimics the distribution of the
sample points. Finally, by virtue of the conditional rotations, the entire tree is optimized with regard to the
overall accesses, which is a unique phenomenon (when compared to the reported family of SOMs) as far as
we know.
As mentioned in the introductory section, the general dynamic adaptation of SOM lattices reported in
the literature considers essentially adding (and in some cases deleting) nodes/edges. However the concept
of modifying the underlying structure’s shape itself has been unrecorded. Our hypothesis is that this is
advantageous by means of a repositioning of the nodes and the consequent edges, as seen when one performs
rotations on a BST. In other words, we place our emphasis on the self-arrangement which occurs as a result
of restructuring the DS representing the SOM. In this case, as alluded to earlier, the restructuring process is
done between the connections of the neurons so as to attain an asymptotically optimal configuration, where
nodes that are accessed more frequently will tend to be placed close to the root. We thus obtain a new
species of tree-based SOMs which is self-arranged by performing rotations conditionally, locally and in a
constant number of steps.
The primary goal of the field of ADS is to have the structure and its elements attain an optimal configuration as the number of iterations increases. Particularly, among the ADSs that use trees as the underlying
topology, the common goal is to minimize the overall access cost, and this roughly means that one places
the most frequently accessed nodes close to the root, which is also what CONROT-BST moves towards. Although such an adaptation can be made on any SOM paradigm, the CONROT is relevant to a tree structure,
and thus to the TTOSOM. This further implies that some specific settings/modifications must be applied
to achieve the integration between the two paradigms.
We start by defining a Binary Search Tree SOM (BSTSOM) as a special instantiation of a SOM which
uses a BST as the underlying topology. An Adaptive BSTSOM (ABSTSOM) is a further refinement of the
BSTSOM which, during the training process, employs a technique that automatically modifies the configuration of the tree. The goal of this adaptation is to facilitate and enhance the search process. This assertion
must be viewed from the perspective that for a SOM, neurons that represent areas with a higher density, will
be queried more often.
Every ABSTSOM is characterized by the following properties. First, it is adaptive, where, by virtue
of the BST representation this adaptation is done by means of rotations, rather than by merely deleting or
adding nodes. Second, the neural network corresponds to a BST. The goal is that the NN maintains the
essential stochastic and topological properties of the SOM.
3.2.1
Neural Distance
As in the case of the TTOSOM [8], the Neural Distance, dN , between two neurons depends on the number of
unweighted connections that separate them in the user-defined tree. It is consequently the number of edges
13
in the shortest path that connects the two given nodes. More explicitly, the distance between two nodes in
the tree, is defined as the minimum number of edges required to go from one to the other. In the case of
trees, the fact that there is only a single path connecting two nodes implies the uniqueness of the shortest
path, and permits the efficient calculation of the distance between them by a node traversal algorithm. Note
however, that in the case of the TTOSOM, since the tree itself was static, the inter-node distances can
be pre-computed a priori, simplifying the computational process. The situation changes when the tree is
dynamically modified as we shall explain below.
The implications of having the tree which describes the SOM to be dynamic, are three-fold. First of all,
the siblings of any given node may change at every time instant. Secondly, the parents and ancestors of the
node under consideration could also change at every instant. But most importantly, the structure of the
tree itself could change, implying that nodes that were neighbors at any time instant may not continue to
be neighbors at the next. Indeed, in the extreme case, if a node was migrated to become the root, the fact
that it had a parent at a previous time instant is irrelevant at the next. This, of course, changes the entire
landscape, rendering the resultant SOM to be unique and distinct from the state-of-the-art. An example will
clarify this.
Consider Figure 3, which illustrates the computation of the neural distance for various scenarios. First,
in Figure 3a, we present the scenario when the node accessed is B. Observe that the distances are depicted
with dotted arrows, with an adjacent numeric index specifying the current distance from node B. In the
example, prior to an access, nodes H, C and E are all at a distance of 2 from node B, even though they are
at different levels in the tree. The reader should be aware that non-leaf nodes may also be involved in the
calculation, as in the case of node H. Figures 3b and 3c show the process when node B is queried, which in
turn triggers a rotation of node B upwards. Observe that the rotation itself only requires local modifications,
leaving the rest of the tree untouched. For the sake of simplicity and explicitness, unmodified areas of the
tree are represented by dashed lines. Finally, Figure 3d depicts the configuration of the tree after the rotation
is performed. At this time instant, C and E are both at distance of 3 from B, which means that they have
increased their distance to B by unity. Moreover, although node H has changed its position, its distance to
B remains unmodified. Clearly, the original distances are not necessarily preserved as a consequence of the
rotation.
Generally speaking, there are four regions of the tree that remain unchanged. These are, namely, the
portion of the tree above the parent of the node being rotated, the portion of tree rooted at the right child of
the node being rotated, the portion of tree rooted at the left child of the node being rotated, and the portion
of tree rooted at the sibling of the node being rotated. Even though these four regions remain unmodified,
the neural distance in these regions are affected, because the rotation could lead to a modification of the
distances to the nodes.
Another consequence of this operation that is worth mentioning is the following: The distance between
any two given nodes that belong to the same unmodified region of the tree is preserved after a rotation is
performed. The proof of this assertion is obvious, inasmuch as the fact remains that every path between
nodes in any unmodified sub-tree remains with the same sub-tree. This property is interesting because it has
the potential to accelerate the computation of the respective neural distances.
14
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3: Example of the neural distance before and after a rotation. In Figure 3a nodes H, C and E are
equidistant from B even though they are at different levels in the tree. Figures 3b and 3c show the process
of rotating node A upwards. Finally, Figure 3d depicts the state of the tree after the rotation when only C
and E are equidistant from B, and their distance to B has increased by unity. On the other hand, although
H has changed its position, its distance to B remains the same.
3.2.2
The Bubble of Activity
A concept closely related to the neural distance, is the one referred to as the Bubble of Activity (BoA) which
is the subset of nodes within a distance of r away from the node currently examined. Those nodes are in
essence those which are to be migrated toward the signal presented to the network. This concept is valid for
all SOM-like NNs, and in particular for the TTOSOM. We shall now consider how this bubble is modified
in the context of rotations. The concept of the bubble involves the consideration of a quantity, the so-called
radius, which establishes how big the BoA is, and which therefore has a direct impact on the number of nodes
to be considered. The BoA can be formally defined as [8]
B(vi ; T, r) = {v|dN (vi , v; T ) ≤ r},
(3)
where vi is the node currently being examined, and v is an arbitrary node in the tree T , whose nodes are V .
Note that B(vi , T, 0) = {vi }, B(vi , T, i) ⊇ B(vi , T, i − 1) and B(vi , T, |V |) = V which generalizes the special
case when the tree is a (simple) directed path.
To clarify how the bubble changes in the context of rotations, we first describe the context when the tree
is static. As presented in [8], the function TTOSOM Calculate Neighborhood (see Algorithm 3) specifies the
steps involved in the calculation of the subset of neurons that are part of the neighborhood of the BMU. This
computation involves a collection of parameters, including B, the current subset of neurons in the proximity
of the neuron being examined, v, the BMU itself, and r ∈ IN the current radius of the neighborhood. When
the function is invoked for the first time, the set B contains only the BMU marked as the current node, and
15
Algorithm 3 TTOSOM Calculate Neighborhood(B,v,r)
Input:
i) B, the set of the nodes in the bubble of activity identified so far.
ii) v, the node from where the bubble of activity is calculated.
iii) r, the current radius of the bubble of activity.
Output:
i) The set of nodes in the bubble of activity.
Method:
1: if r ≤ 0 then
2:
return
3: else
4:
for all child ∈ v.getChildren() do
5:
if child ∈
/ B then
6:
B ← B + {child }
7:
TTOSOM Calculate Neighborhood(B,child , r − 1)
8:
end if
9:
end for
10:
parent =v.getParent();
11:
if parent 6= NULL and parent ∈
/ B then
12:
B ← B + {parent }
13:
TTOSOM Calculate Neighborhood(B,parent , r − 1)
14:
end if
15: end if
End Algorithm
through a recursive call, B will end up storing the entire set of units within a radius r of the BMU. The tree
is recursively traversed for all the direct topological neighbors of the current node, i.e., in the direction of the
direct parent and children. Every time a new neuron is identified as part of the neighborhood, it is added to
B and a recursive call is made with the radius decremented by one unit6 , marking the recently added neuron
as the current node.
The question of whether or not a neuron should be part of the current bubble, depends on the number
of connections that separate the nodes rather than the distance that separate the networks in the solution
space (for instance, the Euclidean distance). Figure 4 depicts how the BoA differs from the one defined by
the TTOSOM as a result of applying a rotation. Figure 4a shows the BoA around the node B, using the
same configuration of the tree as in Figure 3a, i.e., before the rotation takes place. Here, the BoA when r = 1
involves the nodes {B, A, D, F }, and when r = 2 the nodes contained in the bubble are {B, A, D, F, C, E, H}.
Subsequently, considering a radius equal to 3, the resulting BoA contains the nodes {B, A, D, F, C, E, H, G, I}.
Finally, the r = 5 case leads to a BoA which includes the whole set of nodes. Now, observe the case presented
in Figure 4b, which corresponds to the BoA around B after the rotation upwards has been effected, i.e., the
same configuration of the tree used in Figure 3d. In this case, when the radius is unity, nodes {B, A, F } are
the only nodes within the bubble, which is different from the corresponding bubble before the rotation is
invoked. Similarly, when r = 2, we obtain a set different from the analogous pre-rotation case, which in this
case is {B, A, F, D, H}. Note that coincidentally, for the case of a radius equal to 3, the bubbles are identical
before and after the rotation, i.e., they invoke the nodes {B, A, D, F, G, I}. Trivially, again, when r = 5, the
BoA invokes the entire tree.
6 This
fact will ensure that the algorithm reaches the base case when r = 0.
16
(a) Before.
(b) After.
Figure 4: The BoA associated with the TTOSOM before and after a rotation is invoked at node B.
As explained, Equation (3) describes the criteria for a BoA calculated on a static tree. It happens that,
as a result of the conditional rotations, the tree will be dynamically adapted, and so the entire phenomenon
has to be re-visited. Consequently, the BoA around a particular node becomes a function of time, and, to
reflect this fact, Equation (3) should be reformulated as:
B(vi ; T, r, t) = {v|dN (vi , v; T, t) ≤ r},
(4)
where t is the discrete time index.
The algorithm to obtain the BoA for a specific node in such a setting is identical to Algorithm 3, except
that the input tree itself dynamically changes. Further, even though the formal notation includes the time
parameter, “t”, it happens that, in practice, the latter is needed only if the user/application requires a history
of the BoA for any or all the nodes. Storing the history of BoAs will require the maintenance of a DS that
will primarily store the changes made to the tree itself. Although storing the history of changes made to the
tree can be done optimally [31], the question of explicitly storing the entire history of the BoAs for all the
nodes in the tree remains open.
3.2.3
Enforcing the BST Property
The CONROT-BST heuristic [16] requires that the tree should possess the BST property [18]:
Let x be a node in a BST. If y is a node in the left subtree of x, then key[y] ≤ key[x]. Further, if y is a
node in the right subtree of x, then key[x] ≤ key[y].
To satisfy the BST property, first of all we see that, the tree must be binary7 . As a general TTOSOM
utilizes an arbitrary number of children per node, one possibility is to bound the value of the branching factor
to be 2. In other words, the tree trained by the TTOSOM is restricted to contain at most two children per
node. Additionally, the tree must implicitly involve a comparison operator between the two children so as
to discern between the branches and thus perform the search process. This comparison can be achieved by
defining a unique key that must be maintained for each node in the tree, and which will, in turn, allow a
7 Of course, this is a severe constraint. But we are forced to require this, because the phenomenon of achieving conditional
rotations for arbitrary k-ary trees is unsolved. This research, however, is currently being undertaken.
17
lexicographical arrangement of the nodes.
This leads to a different, but closely related concept, which concerns the preservation of the topology of
the SOM. During the training process, the configuration of the tree will change as the tree evolves, positioning
nodes that are accessed more often closer to the root. This probability-based ordering, will hopefully, be
preserved by the rotations.
A particularly interesting case occurs when the imposed tree corresponds to a list of neurons, i.e., a
1-ary tree. If the TTOSOM is trained using such a tree where each node has at most two children, then
the adaptive process will alter the original list. The rotations will then modify the original configuration,
generating a new state, where the non-leaf nodes might have one or two children each. In this case the
consequence of incorporating ADS-based enhancements to the TTOSOM will imply that the results obtained
will be significantly different from those shown in [8].
As shown in [35], an optimal arrangement of the nodes of the tree can be obtained using the probabilities
of accesses. If these probabilities are not known a priori, then the CONROT-BST heuristic offers a solution,
which involves a decision of whether or not to perform a single rotation towards the root. It happens that
the concept of the “just accessed” node in the CONROT-BST is compatible with the corresponding BMU
defined for the CL model. In CL, a neuron may be accessed more often than others and some techniques
take advantage of this phenomenon through the inclusion of strategies that add or delete nodes
The CONROT-BST implicitly stores the information acquired by the currently accessed node by incrementing a counter for that node. This is (in a distant sense) akin to the concept of a BMU counter which
adds or delete nodes in competitive networks.
During the training phase, when a neuron is a frequent winner of the CL, it gains prominence in the sense
that it can represent more points from the original data set. This phenomenon is registered by increasing
the BMU counter for that neuron. We propose that during the training phase, we can verify if it is worth
modifying the configuration of the tree by moving this neuron one level up towards the root as per the
CONROT-BST algorithm, and consequently explicitly recording the relevant role of the particular node with
respect to its nearby neurons. CONROT-BST achieves this by performing a local movement of the node,
where only its direct parent and children are aware of the neuron promotion.
Neural Promotion is the process by which a neuron is relocated in a more privileged position8 in
the network with respect to the other neurons in the NN. Thus, while all “all neurons are born equal”,
their importance in the society of neurons is determined by what they represent. This is achieved, by an
explicit advancement of its rank or position. Given this premise, the nodes in the tree will be adapted in
such a way that neurons that have been BMUs more frequently, will tend to move towards the root if an
only if a reduction in the overall WPL is obtained as a consequence of such a promotion. The properties of
CONROT-BST guarantee this.
Once the SOM and BST are “tied” together in a symbiotic manner (where one enhances the other and vice
versa), the adaptation can be achieved by affecting the configuration of the BST. This task will be performed
every time a training step of the SOM is performed. Clearly, it is our task to achieve an integration of the
8 As far as we know, we are not aware of any research which deals with the issue of Neural Promotion. Thus, we believe that
this concept, itself, is pioneering.
18
BST and the SOM, and Figure 5 depicts the main architecture used to accomplish this. It transforms the
structure of the SOM by modifying the configuration of the BST that, in turn, holds the structure of the
neurons.
Figure 5: Architectural view of an Adaptive Tree-Based SOM.
As this work constitutes the first attempt to constraint a tree-based SOM using a BST, our focus is
placed on the self-adaptation of the nodes. In this sense, the unique identifiers of the nodes are employed
to maintain the BST structure and to promote nodes that are frequently accessed towards the root. We are
currently examining ways to enhance this technique so as to improve the time required to identify the BMU
as well.
3.2.4
Initialization
Initialization, in the case of the BST-based TTOSOM, is accomplished in two main steps which involve
defining the initial value of each neuron and the connections among them. The initialization of the codebook
vectors are performed in the same manner as in the basic TTOSOM. The neurons can assume a starting
value arbitrarily, for instance, by placing them on randomly selected input samples. On the other hand, a
major enhancement with respect to the basic TTOSOM lays in the way the neurons are linked together. The
basic definition of the TTOSOM utilizes connections that remain static through time. The beauty of such
an arrangement is that it is capable of reflecting the user’s perspective at the time of describing the topology,
and it is able to preserve this configuration until the algorithm reaches convergence. The inclusion of the
rotations renders this dynamic.
3.2.5
The Required Local Information
In our proposed approach, the codebooks of the SOM correspond to the nodes of a BST. Apart from the
information regarding the codebooks themselves in the feature space, each neuron requires the maintenance
of additional fields to achieve the adaptation. Besides this, each node inherits the properties of a BST Node,
and it thus includes a pointer to the left and right children, as well as (to make the implementation easier),
a pointer to its parent. Each node also contains a label which is able to uniquely identify the neuron when
it is in the “company” of other neurons. This identification index constitutes the lexicographical key used to
sort the nodes of the tree and remains static as time proceeds. Figure 6 depicts all the fields included in a
19
neuron of a BST-based SOM.
Figure 6: Fields included in a BST-based SOM neuron.
3.2.6
The Neural State
The different states that a neuron may assume during its lifetime are illustrated in Figure 7. At first, when
the node is created, it is assigned a unique identifier, and the rest of the data fields are populated with their
initial values. Here, the codebook vector assumes a starting value in the feature space, and the pointers are
configured so as to appropriately link the neuron with the rest of the neurons in the tree in a BST configuration. Next, during the most significant portion of the algorithm, the NN enters a main loop, where training
is effected. This training phase, involves adjusting the codebooks and may also trigger optional modules that
affect the neuron. Once the BMU is identified, the neuron might assume the “restructured” state, which
means that a restructuring technique, such as the CONROT algorithm, will be applied. Alternatively, the
neuron might be ready to accept queries, i.e., be part of the CL process in the mapping mode. Additionally,
an option that we are currently investigating, involves the case when a neuron is no longer necessary and may
thus be eliminated from the main neural structure. We refer to this state as the so-called “deleted” state,
and it is depicted using dashed lines. Finally, we foresee an alternative state referred to as the “frozen” state,
in which the neuron does not participate in the CL during the training mode although it may continue to be
part of the overall NN structure.
Figure 7: Possible states that a neuron may assume.
3.2.7
The Training Step of the TTOCONROT
The training module of the TTOCONROT is responsible of determining the BMU, performing restructuring,
calculating the BoA and migrating the neurons within the BoA. Basically, what has to be done, is to integrate
the CONROT algorithm into the sequence of steps responsible for the training phase of the TTOSOM.
20
Algorithm 4 describes the details of how this integration is accomplished. Line 1 performs the first task of
the algorithm, which involves determining the BMU. After that, line 2 invokes the CONROT procedure. The
rationale for following this sequence of steps is that the parameters needed to perform the conditional rotation,
as specified in [16], includes the “key” of the element queried, which, in the present context, corresponds to
the identity of the BMU. At this stage of the algorithm, the BMU may be rotated or not depending on the
optimizing criterion given by equations (1) and (2), and the BoA is determined after this restructuring is
done. These are performed in lines 3 and 4 of the algorithm respectively. Finally, lines 5 to 7, are responsible
for the neural migration itself, and oversee the movement of the neurons within the BoA towards the input
sample.
Algorithm 4 TTOCONROT-BST train(x,p)
Input:
i) x, a sample signal.
ii) p, the pointer to the tree.
Method:
1: v ← TTOSOM Find BMU(x,p)
2: cond-rot-bst(p,v.getID())
3: B ← {v}
4: TTOSOM Calculate Neighborhood(B,v,radius)
5: for all b ∈ B do
6:
update rule(b.getCodebook(),x)
7: end for
End Algorithm
3.2.8
Alternative Restructuring Techniques
Even though, we have explained the advantages of the CONROT algorithm, the architecture that we are
proposing allows the inclusion of alternative restructuring modules other than the CONROT. Potential
candidates which can be used to perform the adaptation are the ones mentioned in Section 3.1 and include
the splay and the MT algorithms, among others.
4
Experimental Results
To illustrate the capabilities of our method, the experiments reported in the present work are primarily
focused in lower dimensional feature spaces. This will help the reader in geometrically visualizing the results
we have obtained. However, it is important to remark that the algorithm is also capable of solving problems
in higher dimensions, although a graphical representation of the results will not be as illustrative. We know
that, as per the results obtained in [8], the TTOSOM is capable of inferring the distribution and structure of
the data. However, in this present setting, we are interested in investigating the effects of applying the neural
rotation as part of the training process. To render the results comparable, the experiments in this section
use the same schedule for the learning rate and radius, i.e., no particular refinement of the parameters has
been done for any specific data set. Additionally, the parameters follow a rather “slow” decrement of the
so-called decay parameters, allowing us to understand how the prototype vectors are moved as convergence
21
takes place. When solving practical problems, we recommend a further refinement of the parameters so as
to increase the speed of the convergence process.
4.1
TTOCONROT’s Structure Learning Capabilities
We shall describe the performance of TTOCONROT with data sets in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions, as well as
experiments in the multidimensional domain. The specific advantages of the algorithm for various scenarios
will also be highlighted.
4.1.1
One Dimensional Objects
Since our entire learning paradigm assumes that the data has a tree-shaped model, our first attempt was
to see how the philosophy is relevant to a unidimensional object (i.e., a curve), which really possesses a
“linear” topology. Thus, as a prima facie case, we tested the strength of the TTOCONROT to infer the
properties of data sets generated from linear functions in the plane. Figure 8 shows different snapshots of how
the TTOCONROT learns the data generated from a curve. Random initialization was used by uniformly
drawing points from the unit square. Observe that the original data points do not lie in the curve. Our
aim here was to show how our algorithm could learn the structure of the data using arbitrary (initial and
“non-realistic”) values for the codebook vectors. Figures 8b and 8c depict the middle phase of the training
process, where the edges connecting the neurons are omitted for simplicity. It is interesting to see how,
after a few hundred training steps, the original chaotic placement of the neurons are rearranged so as to
fall within the line described by the data points. The final configuration is shown in Figure 8d. The reader
should observe that after convergence has been achieved, the neurons are placed almost equidistantly along
the curve. Even though the codebooks are not sorted in and increasing numerical order, the hidden tree and
its root, denoted by two concentric squares, are configured in such a way that nodes that are queried more
frequently will tend to be closer to the root. In this sense, the algorithm is not only capturing the essence of
the topological properties of the data set, but at the same time rearranging the internal order of the neurons
according to their importance in terms of their probabilities of access.
4.1.2
Two Dimensional Data Points
To demonstrate the power of including ADS in SOMs, we shall now consider the same two-dimensional data
sets studied in [8]. First we consider the data generated from a triangular-spaced distribution, as shown in
Figures 9a-9d. In this case, the initial tree topology is unidirectional, i.e., a list, although, realistically, this
is quite inadvisable considering the true (unknown) topology of the distribution. In other words, we assume
that the user has no a priori information about the data distribution. Thus, for the initialization phase,
a 1-ary tree is employed as the tree structure, and the respective keys are assigned in an increasing order.
Observe that in this way we are providing minimal information to the algorithm. The root of the tree is
marked with two concentric squares, i.e., the neuron labeled with the index 0 in Figure 9a. Also, with regards
to the feature space, the prototype vectors are initially randomly placed. In the first iteration, the linear
topology is lost, which is attributable to the randomness of the data points. As the prototypes are migrated
22
1 9
5
8
7
3
4
3
2
0
7 6
9
0
5
2
1
8
4
6
(a) After 0 iterations
(b) After 1,000 iterations
7 6
7 6
8
8
4
4
9
3
0
9
3
5
5
0
2
1
1
(c) After 3,000 iterations
2
(d) After 5,000 iterations
Figure 8: A 1-ary tree, i.e., a list topology, learns a curve. For the sake of simplicity, the edges are ommitted.
and reallocated (see Figures 9b and 9c ), the 1-ary tree is modified as a consequence of the rotations. Such a
transformation is completely novel to the field of SOMs. Finally, Figure 9d depicts the case after convergence
has taken place. Here, the tree nodes are uniformly distributed over the entire triangular domain. The BST
property is still preserved, and further rotations are still possible if the training process continues.
This experiment serves as an excellent example to show the differences between our current method and
the original TTOSOM algorithm [8], where the same data set with similar settings was utilized. In the case of
the TTOCONROT the points effectively represent the entire data set. However, the reader must observe that
we do not have to provide the algorithm with any particular a priori information about the structure of the
data distribution – this is learned during the training process, as shown in Figure 9d. Thus, the specification
of the initial “user-defined” tree topology (representing his perspective of the data space) required by the
TTOSOM is no longer mandatory, and an alternative specification which only requires the number of nodes
in the initial 1-ary tree is sufficient.
A second experiment involves a Gaussian distribution. Here a 2-dimensional Gaussian ellipsoid is learned
using the TTOCONROT algorithm. The convergence of the entire training execution phase is displayed in
Figure 10. This experiment considers a complete BST of depth 4, i.e., containing 15 nodes. For simplicity
the labels of the nodes have been removed.
In Figure 10, the tree structure generated by the neurons suggest an ellipsoidal structure for the data
distribution. This experiment is a good example to show how the nodes close to the root represent dense
areas of the ellipsoid, and at the same time, those node that are far from the root (in tree space) occupy
regions with low density, e.g., in the “extremes” of the ellipse. The TTOCONROT infers this structure
without receiving any a priori information about the distribution or its structure.
The experiment shown in Figures 11a-11d considers data generated from an irregular shape with a concave
surface. Again, as in the case of the experiments described earlier, the original tree includes 15 neurons
arranged unidirectionally, i.e., as in a list. As a result of the training, the distribution is learned and the
23
2
10
14
12
8
4
5
2
7
3
9
1
0
0
3
89
10
7
1
6
4
13
14
12
11
13
6
5
11
(a) After 0 iterations
(b) After 1,000 iterations
2
2
6
6
3
3
9
1
1
0
7
4
10
12
11
8
0
9
10
7
14
13 5
11
(c) After 3,000 iterations
8
4
12
14
13
5
(d) After 5,000 iterations
Figure 9: A 1-ary tree, i.e., a list topology, learns a triangular distribution. The DS is self-adapted so
that nodes accessed more frequently are moved closer to the root conditionally. The BST property is also
preserved.
Figure 10: A tree learns a Gaussian distribution. The neurons that are accessed more frequently are promoted
closer to the root.
tree is adapted accordingly, as illustrated in Figure 11d. Observe that the random initialization is performed
by randomly selecting points from the unit square, and this points thus do not necessarily fall within the
concave boundaries. Although this initialization scheme is responsible of placing codebook vectors outside
24
of the irregular shape, the reader should observe that in a few training steps, they are repositioned inside
the contour. It is important to indicate that, even though after the convergence of the algorithm, a line
connecting two points passes outside the overall “unknown” shape, one must take into account that the
TTOCONROT tree attempts to mimic the stochastic properties in terms of access probabilities. When the
user desires the topological mimicry in terms of skeletal structure, we recommend the use of the TTOSOM
instead. The final distribution of the points is quite amazing!
6
138
7
4
7
9
10
8
10
0
6
7
8
8
3
9
6
6
9
9
10
10
0
0
1
1
5
11
5
12
13
11
12
7
14
5
11
2 3
14
1
10
(a) After 0 iterations
12
14
4
2
(b) After 1,000 iterations
2
11
13
12
4
13
2
5
3
(c) After 3,000 iterations
14
4
3
(d) After 5,000 iterations
Figure 11: A 1-ary tree, i.e., a list topology, learns different distributions from a concave object using the
TTOCONROT algorithm. The set of parameters is the same as in the other examples.
4.1.3
Three Dimensional Data Points
We will now explain the results obtained when applying the algorithm with and without CONROT. To
do this we opt to consider three-dimensional objects. The experiments utilize the data generated from the
contour of the unit sphere. It also initially involves an uni-dimensional chain of 31 neurons. Additionally, in
order to show the power of the algorithm, both cases initialize the codebooks by randomly drawing points
from the unit cube, which thus initially places the points outside the sphere itself. Figure 12 presents the case
when the basic TTO algorithm (without CONROT) learns the unit sphere without performing conditional
rotations. The illustration presented in Figure 12a show the state of the neurons before the first iteration
is completed. Here, as shown, the codebooks lie inside the unit cube, although some of the neurons are
positioned outside the boundary of the respective circumscribed sphere, which is the one we want to learn.
Secondly, Figures 12b and 12c depict intermediate steps of the learning phase. As the algorithm processes
the information provided by the sample points and the neurons are repositioned, the chain of neurons is
constantly “twisted” so as to adequately represent the entire manifold. Finally, Figure 12d illustrates the
case when the convergence is reached. In this case, the one-dimensional list of neurons is evenly distributed
over the sphere, preserving the original properties of the 3-dimensional object and also presenting a shape
which reminds the viewer of the so-called Peano curve [47].
A complimentary set of experiments which involved the learning of the same unit sphere where the TTO
scheme was augmented by conditional rotations (i.e., CONROT) was also conducted. Figure 13a shows
the initialization of the codebooks. Here, the starting positions of the neurons fall within the unit cube as
in the case displayed in Figure 12a. Figures 13b and 13c show snapshots after 1, 000 and 3, 000 iterations
respectively. In this case the tree configuration obtained in the intermediate phases differ significantly from
those obtained by the corresponding configurations shown in Figure 12, i.e., those that involved no rotations.
In this case, the list rearranges itself as per CONROT, modifying the original chain structure to yield a more25
14
7
7
19
10
8
26
28 24
22
15
25
28
1
17
27
12
4
26
31
21
121718
16
15
14
13
23
22
21
20
19
22
28
13
3
16
26
6
4
21
5
19
30
29
31
9
10
4
5
6
7
89
2
18
3
2
11
11
29
24
23
5
24
17
31 30
0
27
11
6
0 29
6
25
910
30
23
7
25
20
0
1
2
3
24
20
15
27
1
14
15
0
3
2
16
18
8
22
13
18
20 12
5
23
21
14
17
1
4
19
12
11
10
9
29
28
27
26
25
31
30
8
13
16
(a) After 0 iterations
(b) After 1,000 iter.
(c) After 3,000 iter.
(d) After 5,000 iter.
Figure 12: A 1-ary tree, i.e., a list topology, learns a sphere distribution when the algorithm does not utilize
any conditional rotation.
or-less balanced tree. Finally, from the results obtained after convergence, and illustrated in Figure 13d, it
is possible to compare both scenarios. In both cases, we see that the tree is accurately learned. However, in
the first case, the structure of the nodes is maintained as a list throughout the learning phase, while, in the
case when CONROT is applied, the configuration of the tree is constantly revised, promoting those neurons
that are queried more frequently. Additionally, the experiments show us how the dimensionality reduction
property evidenced in the traditional SOM, is also present in the TTOCONROT. Here, an object in the
3-dimensional domain is successfully learned by our algorithm, and the properties of the original manifold
are captured from the perspective of a tree.
13
24
25
9
9
11
7
25
18
9
10
30
30
10
24
11
4
6
27
12
8
20
23
19
8
14
1
02
3
15
14
27
19
6
24
12
16
14
15
13
30
18
17
15
17
21
20
21
13
22
13
22
26
29
30 28
27
11
14
0
20
17
21
15
28
22
8
5
11
10
20
3
16
16
25
23
5
7
2421
22
23
16
4
23
26
2
4
25
5
7
29
98
29
12
27
26
2
29
26
10
18
18
6
28
0
4
17
12
75
6
19
0
28
3
19 3
1
1
1
2
(a) After 0 iterations
(b) After 1,000 iter.
(c) After 3,000 iter.
(d) After 5,000 iter.
Figure 13: A 1-ary tree, i.e., a list topology, learns a sphere distribution.
4.1.4
Multidimensional Data Points
The well known Iris dataset was chosen for showing the power of our scheme in a scenario when the dimensionality is increased. This data set gives the measurements (in centimeters) of the variables which are the
sepal length, sepal width, petal length and petal width, respectively, for 50 flowers from each of 3 species of
the iris family. The species are the Iris Setosa, Versicolor, and Virginica.
In this set of experiments, the Iris data set was learned under three different configurations, using a fixed
schedule for the learning rate and radius but with a distinct tree configuration. The results of the experiments
are depicted in Figure 14 and involve a complete binary tree of depth 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Taking into
26
account that the dataset possesses a high dimensionality, we present the projection in the 2-dimensional
space to facilitate the visualization. We also removed the labels from the nodes in Figure 14c to improve
understandability.
(a) Using 7 nodes.
(b) Using 15 nodes.
(c) Using 31 nodes.
Figure 14: Three different experiments where the TTOCONROT effectively captures the fundamental structure of the iris dataset (2-dimensional projection of the data is shown).
The experiment utilizes a underlying tree topology of a complete binary tree with different levels of depth.
By this we attempt to show examples of how exactly the same parameters of the TTOCONROT, can be
utilized to learn the structure from data belonging to the 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and also 4-dimensional
spaces. After executing the TTO-SOM, each of the main branches of the tree were migrated towards the
center of mass of the cloud of points in the hyper-space belonging to each of the three categories of flowers,
respectively.
Since the TTOCONROT is an unsupervised learning algorithm, it performs learning without knowing
the true labels of the samples. However, when these labels are available, one can use them to evaluate the
quality of the tree. To do so, each sample is assigned to its closest neuron, and tagging the neuron with the
class which is most frequent. Table 1 presents the evaluation for the tree in Figure 14a.
Assigned to neuron →
Iris-setosa
Iris-versicolor
Iris-virginica
1
0
0
12
2
0
0
22
3
0
20
0
4
0
7
0
5
0
20
1
6
50
0
0
7
0
3
15
Table 1: “Cluster to class” evaluation for the tree in Figure 14a.
Using the simple voting scheme explained above, it is possible to see from Table 1, that only 4 instances
are incorrectly classified, i.e., 97.3% of the instances are correctly classified. Additionally, observe that node
6 contains all the 50 instances corresponding to the class Iris-setosa. It is well known that the Iris-setosa
class is linearly separable from the other two classes, and our algorithm was able to discover this without
providing it with the labels. We find this result quite fascinating!
The experimental results shown in Table 1, not only demonstrate the potential capabilities of the TTOCONROT
for performing clustering, but also suggest the possibilities of using it for pattern classification. According to
[23], there are several reasons for performing pattern classification using an unsupervised approach. We are
currently investigating such a classification strategy.
27
4.2
Skeletonization
In general, the main objective of skeletonization consists of generating a simpler representation of the shape
of an object. The authors of [44] refer to skeletonization in the plane as the process by which a 2-dimensional
shape is transformed into a 1-dimensional one, similar to a “stick” figure. The applications of skeletonization
are diverse, including the fields of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
As explained in [8], the traditional methods for skeletonization assume the connectivity of the data points
and when this is not the case, more sophisticated methods are required. Previous efforts involving SOM
variants to achieve skeletonization has been proposed [8, 19, 53]. We remark that the TTOSOM [8] is the
only one which uses a tree-based structure. The TTOSOM assumed that the shape of the object is not
known a priori. Rather, this is learned by accessing a single point of the entire shape at any time instant.
Our results reported in [8] confirm that this is actually possible, and we now focus on how the conditional
rotations will affect such a skeletonization.
Figure 15 shows how the TTOCONROT learned the skeleton of different objects in the 2-dimensional and
the 3-dimensional domain. In all the cases the same schedule of parameters were used, and only the number
of neurons employed was chosen proportionally to the number of data points contained in the respective
data sets. It is important to remark that we did not invoke any post-processing of the edges, e.g., minimum
spanning tree, and that the skeleton observed was exactly what our BSTSOM learned. Firstly, Figures
15a-15d illustrate the shapes of the silhouette of a human, a rhinoceros, a 3d representation of a head, and
a 3d representation of a woman. The figures also show the trees learned from the respective data sets.
Additionally figures 15e-15h display only the data points, which in our opinion are capable of representing
the fundamental structure of the four objects in a 1-dimensional way effectively.
As a final comment, we stress that all the shapes employed in the experiments involve the learning of the
“external” structure of the objects. For the case of solid objects, if the internal data points are also provided,
the TTOCONROT is able to give an approximation of the so-called endo-skeleton, i.e., a representation in
which the skeleton is built inside the solid object.
4.3
Theoretical Analysis
According to Kiviluoto [34], there are three different criteria for evaluating the quality of a map. The first
criterion indicates how continuous the mapping is, implying that input signals that are close (in the input
space) should be mapped to codebooks that are close in the output space as well. A second criterion involves
the resolution of the mapping. Maps with high resolution possess the additional property that input signals
that are distant in the input space should be represented by distant codebooks in the output space. A third
criterion imposed on the accuracy of the mapping is aimed to reflect the probability distribution of the input
set. There exist a variety of measures for quantifying the quality of the topology preservation [5]. The author
of [49] surveys a number of relevant measures for the quality of maps, and these include the Quantization
Error, the Topographic Product [11], the Topographic Error [34] and the Trustworthiness and Neighborhood
Preservation [55]. Although we are currently investigating [6] how the quality of any tree-based SOM (not
just our scheme) can be quantified using these metrics. The following arguments are pertinent.
28
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Figure 15: TTOCONROT effectively captures the fundamental structure of four objects in a 1-dimensional
way. Figures 15a-15d show the silhouette of a human, a rhinoceros, a 3d representation of a head, and a 3d
representation of a woman, as well as the respective trees learned. Figures 15e-15h show only the respective
data points.
The ordering of the weights (with respect to the position) of the neurons of the SOM has been proved
for unidimensional topologies [17, 36, 51]. Extending these results to higher dimensional configurations or
topologies leads to numerous unresolved problems. First of all, the question of what one means by “ordering”
in higher dimensional spaces has to be defined. Further, the issue of the “absorbing” nature of the “ordered
state” is open. Budinich, in [14], explains intuitively the problems related to the ordering of neurons in
higher dimensional configurations. Huang et al. [29] introduce a definition of the ordering and show that
even though the position of the codebook vectors of the SOM have been ordered, there is still the possibility
that a sequence of stimuli will cause their disarrangement. Some statistical indexes of correlation between
the measures of the weights and distances of the related positions have been introduced in [10].
With regard to the topographic product, the authors of [11] have shown the power of the metric by
applying it on different artificial and real-world data sets, and also compared it with different measures to
quantify the topology [10]. Their study concentrates on the traditional SOM, implying that the topologies
evaluated were of a “linear” nature, with the consequential extension to 2-dimensions and 3-dimensions by
means of grids only. In [28], Haykin mention that the Topographic Product may be employed to compare
the quality of different maps, even when these maps possess different dimensionality. However, he also noted
that this measurement is only possible when the dimensionality of the topological structure is the same as
the dimensionality of the feature space. Further, tree-like topologies were not considered in their study. To
be more precise, most of the effort towards determining the concept of topology preservation for dimensions
greater than unity are specifically focused on the SOM [11, 17, 36, 14, 29, 10], and do not define how a treelike topology should be measured nor how to define the order in topologies which are not grid-based. Thus,
we believe that even the tools to analyze the TTOCONROT are currently not available. The experimental
29
results obtained in our paper, suggest that the TTOCONROT is able to train the NN so as to preserve
the stimuli. However, in order to quantify the quality of this topology, the matter of defining a concept of
ordering on tree-based structure has yet to be resolved. Although this issue is of great interest to us, this
rather ambitious task lies beyond the scope of our present manuscript.
5
Conclusions and Discussions
5.1
Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we have proposed a novel integration between the areas of Adaptive Data Structures (ADSs)
and the Self-Organizing Maps (SOMs). In particular we have shown how a tree-based SOM can be adaptively
transformed by the employment of an underlying Binary Search Tree (BST) structure and subsequently, restructured using rotations that are performed conditionally. These rotations on the nodes of the tree are
local, can be done in constant time, and performed so as to decrease the Weighted Path Length (WPL) of
the entire tree. One of the main advantages of the algorithm, is that the user does not need to have a priori
knowledge about the topology of the input data set. Instead, our proposed method, namely the TTOSOM
with Conditional Rotations (TTOCONROT), infers the topological properties of the stochastic distribution,
and at the same time, attempt to build the best BST that represents the data set.
Incorporating the data structure’s constraints in this ways has not being achieved by any of the related
approaches included in the state-of-the-art. Our premise is that regions of the hyper-space that are accessed
more often should be promoted to preferential spots in the tree representation, which yields to an improved
stochastic representation.
As our experimental results suggest, the TTOCONROT tree is indeed able to absorb the stochastic
properties of the input manifold. It is also possible to obtain a tree configuration that can learn both, the
stochastic properties in terms of access probabilities and at the same time preserve the topological properties
in terms of its skeletal structure.
5.2
Discussions and Future Work
As explained in Section 4.3, the work associated with measuring the topology preservation of the SOM,
including the proof of its convergence for the unidimensional case, has been performed for the traditional
SOM only. The questions are unanswered for how a tree-like topology should be measured, and for defining
the order in topologies which are not grid-based. Thus, we believe that even the tools for formally analyzing
the TTOCONROT are currently not available. The experimental results obtained in our paper, suggest that
the TTOCONROT is able to train the Neural Network (NN) so as to preserve the stimuli for which the
concept of ordering on tree-based structures has yet to be resolved.
Even though our principal goal was to obtain a more accurate representation of the stochastic distribution,
our results also suggest that the special configuration of the tree obtained by the TTOCONROT can be further
exploited so as to improve the time required for identifying the Best Matching Unit (BMU). The state-ofthe-art includes different strategies that expand trees by inserting nodes (which can be a single neuron or a
30
SOM-layer) that essentially are based on a Quantization Error (QE) measure. In some of these strategies,
the error measure is based on the “hits”, i.e., the number of times a neuron has been selected as the BMU,
which is, in principle, the same type of counter utilized by the Conditional Rotations (CONROT). Our
strategy, TTOCONROT, which asymptotically positions frequently accessed nodes close to the root, might
incorporate a module, that taking advantage of the “optimal” tree and the BMU counters already present
in the TTOCONROT, splits the node at the root level. Thus, the splitting operation will occur without the
necessity of searching for the node with the largest QE, under the assumption that a higher number of hits
indicates that the degree of granularity of a particular neuron is lacking refinement. The concept of using
the root of the tree for growing a tree-based SOM is itself pioneering, as far as we know, and the design and
implementation details of this are currently being investigated.
References
[1] M. Adelson-Velskii and M. E. Landis. An algorithm for the organization of information. Sov. Math.
DokL, 3:1259–1262, 1962.
[2] M. U. Akram, S. Khalid, and S. A. Khan. Identification and classification of microaneurysms for early
detection of diabetic retinopathy. Pattern Recognition, 46(1):107–116, 2013.
[3] D. Alahakoon, S. K. Halgamuge, and B. Srinivasan. Dynamic self-organizing maps with controlled
growth for knowledge discovery. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 11(3):601–614, 2000.
[4] B. Allen and I. Munro. Self-organizing binary search trees. J. ACM, 25(4):526–535, 1978.
[5] E. Arsuaga Uriarte and F. Dı́az Martı́n. Topology preservation in SOM. International Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Computer Sciences, 1(1):19–22, 2005.
[6] C. A. Astudillo. Self Organizing Maps Constrained by Data Structures. PhD thesis, Carleton University,
2011.
[7] C. A. Astudillo and B. J. Oommen. On using adaptive binary search trees to enhance self organizing
maps. In A. Nicholson and X. Li, editors, 22nd Australasian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
(AI 2009), pages 199–209, 2009.
[8] C. A. Astudillo and B. J. Oommen. Imposing tree-based topologies onto self organizing maps. Information Sciences, 181(18):3798–3815, 2011.
[9] C. A. Astudillo and B. J. Oommen. On achieving semi-supervised pattern recognition by utilizing
tree-based SOMs. Pattern Recognition, 46(1):293 – 304, 2013.
[10] H. U. Bauer, M. Herrmann, and T. Villmann. Neural maps and topographic vector quantization. Neural
Networks, 12(4-5):659 – 676, 1999.
[11] H. U. Bauer and K. R. Pawelzik. Quantifying the neighborhood preservation of self-organizing feature
maps. Neural Networks, 3(4):570–579, July 1992.
31
[12] J. R. Bitner. Heuristics that dynamically organize data structures. SIAM J. Comput., 8:82–110, 1979.
[13] J. Blackmore. Visualizing high-dimensional structure with the incremental grid growing neural network.
Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1995.
[14] M. Budinich. On the ordering conditions for self-organizing maps. Neural Computation, 7(2):284–289,
1995.
[15] G. A. Carpenter and S. Grossberg. The art of adaptive pattern recognition by a self-organizing neural
network. Computer, 21(3):77–88, 1988.
[16] R. P. Cheetham, B. J. Oommen, and D. T. H. Ng. Adaptive structuring of binary search trees using
conditional rotations. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., 5(4):695–704, 1993.
[17] P. L. Conti and L. De Giovanni. On the mathematical treatment of self organization: extension of some
classical results. In Artificial Neural Networks - ICANN 1991, International Conference, volume 2, pages
1089–1812, 1991.
[18] T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein. Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition.
McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, July 2001.
[19] A. Datta, S. M. Parui, and B. B. Chaudhuri. Skeletal shape extraction from dot patterns by selforganization. Pattern Recognition, 1996., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on, 4:80–84
vol.4, Aug 1996.
[20] D. Deng. Content-based image collection summarization and comparison using self-organizing maps.
Pattern Recognition, 40(2):718 – 727, 2007.
[21] M. Dittenbach, D. Merkl, and A. Rauber. The growing hierarchical self-organizing map. In Neural
Networks, 2000. IJCNN 2000, Proceedings of the IEEE-INNS-ENNS International Joint Conference on,
volume 6, pages 15–19 vol.6, 2000.
[22] J. Dopazo and J. M. Carazo. Phylogenetic reconstruction using an unsupervised growing neural network
that adopts the topology of a phylogenetic tree. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 44(2):226–233, February
1997.
[23] R. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification (2nd Edition). Wiley-Interscience, 2000.
[24] B. Fritzke. Growing Cell Structures – a self-organizing network for unsupervised and supervised learning.
Neural Networks, 7(9):1441–1460, 1994.
[25] B. Fritzke. Growing Grid - a self-organizing network with constant neighborhood range and adaptation
strength. Neural Processing Letters, 2(5):9–13, 1995.
[26] B. Fritzke. A growing neural gas network learns topologies. In G. Tesauro, D. S. Touretzky, and T. K.
Leen, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 7, pages 625–632, Cambridge MA,
1995. MIT Press.
32
[27] L. Guan. Self-organizing trees and forests: A powerful tool in pattern clustering and recognition.
In Image Analysis and Recognition, Third International Conference, ICIAR 2006, Póvoa de Varzim,
Portugal, September 18-20, 2006, Proceedings, Part I, pages I: 1–14, 2006.
[28] S. Haykin. Neural Networks and Learning Machines. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition edition, 2008.
[29] G. Huang, H. A. Babri, and H. Li. Ordering of self-organizing maps in multi-dimensional cases. Neural
Computation, 10:19–24, 1998.
[30] H.-G. Kang and D. Kim. Real-time multiple people tracking using competitive condensation. Pattern
Recognition, 38(7):1045 – 1058, 2005.
[31] H. Kaplan. Handbook of Data Structures and Applications, chapter 31: Persistent Data Structures, pages
31.1 – 31.26. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004.
[32] S. Kaski, J. Kangas, and T. Kohonen. Bibliography of self-organizing map (SOM) papers: 1981–1997.
Neural Computing Surveys, 1:102–350, 1998.
[33] M. H. Khosravi and R. Safabakhsh. Human eye sclera detection and tracking using a modified timeadaptive self-organizing map. Pattern Recognition, 41(8):2571–2593, 2008.
[34] K. Kiviluoto. Topology preservation in self-organizing maps. In P. IEEE Neural Networks Council, editor,
Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks, ICNN’96, volume 1, pages 294–299, New
Jersey, USA, 1996.
[35] D. E. Knuth. The art of computer programming, volume 3: (2nd ed.) sorting and searching. Addison
Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1998.
[36] T. Kohonen. Self-Organizing Maps. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 1995.
[37] P. Koikkalainen and E. Oja. Self-organizing hierarchical feature maps. IJCNN International Joint
Conference on Neural Networks, 2:279–284, June 1990.
[38] T. W. H. Lai. Efficient maintenance of binary search trees. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ont., Canada, 1990.
[39] Y. Liang, M. C. Fairhurst, and R. M. Guest. No titlea synthesised word approach to word retrieval in
handwritten documents. Pattern Recognition, 45(12):4225–4236, 2012.
[40] M. Martinetz and K. J. Schulten. A “neural-gas” network learns topologies. In in Proceedings of International Conference on Articial Neural Networks, volume I, pages 397–402, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1991.
[41] K. Mehlhorn. Dynamic binary search. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8(2):175–198, 1979.
[42] D. Merkl, S. Hui-He, M. Dittenbach, and A. Rauber. Adaptive hierarchical incremental grid growing:
An architecture for high-dimensional data visualization. In In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on
Self-Organizing Maps, Advances in Self-Organizing Maps, pages 293–298, 2003.
33
[43] R. Miikkulainen. Script recognition with hierarchical feature maps. Connection Science, 2(1&2):83–101,
1990.
[44] R. L. Ogniewicz and O. Kübler. Hierarchic voronoi skeletons. Pattern Recognition, 28(3):343–359, 1995.
[45] M. Oja, S. Kaski, and T. Kohonen. Bibliography of self-organizing map (SOM) papers: 1998-2001
addendum. Neural Computing Surveys, 3:1–156, 2003.
[46] J. Pakkanen, J. Iivarinen, and E. Oja. The Evolving Tree — a novel self-organizing network for data
analysis. Neural Processing Letters, 20(3):199–211, December 2004.
[47] G. Peano. Sur une courbe, qui remplit toute une aire plane. Mathematische Annalen, 36(1):157–160,
1890.
[48] M. Pöllä, T. Honkela, and T. Kohonen. Bibliography of self-organizing map (SOM) papers: 20022005 addendum. Technical Report TKK-ICS-R23, Helsinki University of Technology, Department of
Information and Computer Science, Espoo, Finland, December 2009.
[49] G. Pölzlbauer. Survey and comparison of quality measures for self-organizing maps. In Ján Paralič,
Georg Pölzlbauer, and Andreas Rauber, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Data Analysis
(WDA’04), pages 67–82, Sliezsky dom, Vysoké Tatry, Slovakia, June 24–27 2004. Elfa Academic Press.
[50] A. Rauber, D. Merkl, and M. Dittenbach. The Growing Hierarchical Self-Organizing Map: exploratory
analysis of high-dimensional data. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13(6):1331–1341, 2002.
[51] R. Rojas. Neural networks: a systematic introduction. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY,
USA, 1996.
[52] E. V. Samsonova, J. N. Kok, and A. P. IJzerman. Treesom: Cluster analysis in the self-organizing map.
Neural Networks, 19(6–7):935 – 949, 2006. Advances in Self Organising Maps - WSOM’05.
[53] R. Singh, V. Cherkassky, and N. Papanikolopoulos. Self-Organizing Maps for the skeletonization of
sparse shapes. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on, 11(1):241–248, Jan 2000.
[54] D. D. Sleator and R. E. Tarjan. Self-adjusting binary search trees. J. ACM, 32(3):652–686, 1985.
[55] J. Venna and S. Kaski. Neighborhood preservation in nonlinear projection methods: An experimental
study. In Georg Dorffner, Horst Bischof, and Kurt Hornik, editors, ICANN, volume 2130 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pages 485–491. Springer, 2001.
[56] K. C. Yao, M. Mignotte, C. Collet, P. Galerne, and G. Burel. Unsupervised segmentation using a selforganizing map and a noise model estimation in sonar imagery. Pattern Recognition, 33(9):1575 – 1584,
2000.
34
| 9cs.NE
|
"Robust Satisfaction of Temporal Logic Specifications via Reinforcement\nLearning\n\narXiv:1510.0646(...TRUNCATED) | 3cs.SY
|
"BATCHED QR AND SVD ALGORITHMS ON GPUS WITH APPLICATIONS\nIN HIERARCHICAL MATRIX COMPRESSION\n\narXi(...TRUNCATED) | 8cs.DS
|
"Analytical and simplified models for dynamic analysis\nof short skew bridges under moving loads\n\n(...TRUNCATED) | 5cs.CE
|
"Efficient PAC Learning from the Crowd\n\narXiv:1703.07432v2 [cs.LG] 13 Apr 2017\n\nPranjal Awasthi(...TRUNCATED) | 8cs.DS
|
"Automated Identification of Trampoline Skills\nUsing Computer Vision Extracted Pose Estimation\nPau(...TRUNCATED) | 1cs.CV
|
"Parsing methods streamlined\n\narXiv:1309.7584v1 [cs.FL] 29 Sep 2013\n\nLuca Breveglieri\n\nStefano(...TRUNCATED) | 6cs.PL
|
"I/O-Efficient Similarity Join⋆\nRasmus Pagh, Ninh Pham, Francesco Silvestri⋆⋆ , and Morten St(...TRUNCATED) | 8cs.DS
|
"arXiv:1207.0612v2 [math.AC] 21 Jan 2013\n\nCOMPLETION BY DERIVED DOUBLE CENTRALIZER\nMARCO PORTA, L(...TRUNCATED) | 0math.AC
|
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Arxiv Classification: a classification of Arxiv Papers (11 classes).
This dataset is intended for long context classification (documents have all > 4k tokens).
Copied from "Long Document Classification From Local Word Glimpses via Recurrent Attention Learning"
@ARTICLE{8675939,
author={He, Jun and Wang, Liqun and Liu, Liu and Feng, Jiao and Wu, Hao},
journal={IEEE Access},
title={Long Document Classification From Local Word Glimpses via Recurrent Attention Learning},
year={2019},
volume={7},
number={},
pages={40707-40718},
doi={10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2907992}
}
- See: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8675939
- See: https://github.com/LiqunW/Long-document-dataset
It contains 11 slightly unbalanced classes, 33k Arxiv Papers divided into 3 splits: train (28k), val (2.5k) and test (2.5k).
2 configs:
- default
- no_ref, removes references to the class inside the document (eg: [cs.LG] -> [])
Compatible with run_glue.py script:
export MODEL_NAME=roberta-base
export MAX_SEQ_LENGTH=512
python run_glue.py \
--model_name_or_path $MODEL_NAME \
--dataset_name ccdv/arxiv-classification \
--do_train \
--do_eval \
--max_seq_length $MAX_SEQ_LENGTH \
--per_device_train_batch_size 8 \
--gradient_accumulation_steps 4 \
--learning_rate 2e-5 \
--num_train_epochs 1 \
--max_eval_samples 500 \
--output_dir tmp/arxiv
- Downloads last month
- 503