skip to main content
10.1145/3394486.3403187acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Catalysis Clustering with GAN by Incorporating Domain Knowledge

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Clustering is an important unsupervised learning method with serious challenges when data is sparse and high-dimensional. Generated clusters are often evaluated with general measures, which may not be meaningful or useful for practical applications and domains. Using a distance metric, a clustering algorithm searches through the data space, groups close items into one cluster, and assigns far away samples to different clusters. In many real-world applications, the number of dimensions is high and data space becomes very sparse. Selection of a suitable distance metric is very difficult and becomes even harder when categorical data is involved. Moreover, existing distance metrics are mostly generic, and clusters created based on them will not necessarily make sense to domain-specific applications. One option to address these challenges is to integrate domain-defined rules and guidelines into the clustering process. In this work we propose a GAN-based approach called Catalysis Clustering to incorporate domain knowledge into the clustering process. With GANs we generate catalysts, which are special synthetic points drawn from the original data distribution and verified to improve clustering quality when measured by a domain-specific metric. We then perform clustering analysis using both catalysts and real data. Final clusters are produced after catalyst points are removed. Experiments on two challenging real-world datasets clearly show that our approach is effective and can generate clusters that are meaningful and useful for real-world applications.

References

  1. L. N. Allen and L. C. Rose. 2006. Financial Survival Analysis of Defaulted Debtors. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, 6 (2006), 630 -- 636.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. 2017. Wasserstein gan. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07875 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yale Chang, Junxiang Chen, Michael H Cho, Peter J Castaidi, Edwin K Silverman, and Jennifer G Dy. 2017. Clustering with domain-specific usefulness scores. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 207--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Nitesh V Chawla, Kevin W Bowyer, Lawrence O Hall, and W Philip Kegelmeyer. 2002. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research, Vol. 16 (2002), 321--357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Xi Chen, Yan Duan, Rein Houthooft, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Pieter Abbeel. 2016. Infogan: Interpretable representation learning by information maximizing generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 2172--2180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. The International Cancer Genome Consortium. 2010. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature, Vol. 464 (15 04 2010), 993 -- 998. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08987Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pietro Coretto, Angela Serra, Roberto Tagliaferri, and Jonathan Wren. 2018. Robust clustering of noisy high-dimensional gene expression data for patients subtyping. Bioinformatics (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamran Ghasedi, Xiaoqian Wang, Cheng Deng, and Heng Huang. 2019. Balanced self-paced learning for generative adversarial clustering network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4391--4400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Manish Kumar Goel, Pardeep Khanna, and Jugal Kishore. 2010. Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimate. International journal of Ayurveda research, Vol. 1, 4 (2010), 274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 2672--2680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pranab Haldar, Ian D Pavord, Dominic E Shaw, Michael A Berry, Michael Thomas, Christopher E Brightling, Andrew J Wardlaw, and Ruth H Green. 2008. Cluster analysis and clinical asthma phenotypes. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, Vol. 178, 3 (2008), 218--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hui Han, Wen-Yuan Wang, and Bing-Huan Mao. 2005. Borderline-SMOTE: a new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning. In International Conference on Intelligent Computing. Springer, 878--887.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong. 1979. Algorithm AS 136: A K-Means Clustering Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), Vol. 28, 1 (1979), 100--108. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346830Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Haibo He, Yang Bai, Edwardo A Garcia, and Shutao Li. 2008. ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning. In Neural Networks, 2008. IJCNN 2008.(IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence). IEEE International Joint Conference on. IEEE, 1322--1328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Haibo He and Edwardo A Garcia. 2009. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, Vol. 21, 9 (2009), 1263--1284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Matan Hofree, John P Shen, Hannah Carter, Andrew Gross, and Trey Ideker. 2013. Network-based stratification of tumor mutations. Nature Methods, Vol. 10 (15 09 2013), 1108 -- 1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2651Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Christian O Jacke, Iris Reinhard, and Ute S Albert. 2013. Using relative survival measures for cross-sectional and longitudinal benchmarks of countries, states, and districts: the BenchRelSurv-and BenchRelSurvPlot-macros. BMC public health, Vol. 13, 1 (2013), 34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael S Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Craig H Mermel, James T Robinson, Levi A Garraway, Todd R Golub, Matthew Meyerson, Stacey B Gabriel, Eric S Lander, and Gad Getz. 2014. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature, Vol. 505, 7484 (2014), 495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael S Lawrence, Petar Stojanov, Paz Polak, Gregory V Kryukov, Kristian Cibulskis, Andrey Sivachenko, Scott L Carter, Chip Stewart, Craig H Mermel, Steven A Roberts, et al. 2013. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature, Vol. 499, 7457 (2013), 214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Daniel D Lee and H Sebastian Seung. 1999. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature, Vol. 401, 6755 (1999), 788--791.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Fang Liu, Licheng Jiao, and Xu Tang. 2019. Task-oriented GAN for PolSAR image classification and clustering. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, Vol. 30, 9 (2019), 2707--2719.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Stefano Monti, Pablo Tamayo, Jill Mesirov, and Todd Golub. 2003. Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data. Machine learning, Vol. 52, 1--2 (2003), 91--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Sudipto Mukherjee, Himanshu Asnani, Eugene Lin, and Sreeram Kannan. 2019. Clustergan: Latent space clustering in generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 4610--4617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. 2011. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature, Vol. 474 (29 06 2011), 609 -- 615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10166Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. 2013. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature, Vol. 497 (01 05 2013), 67 -- 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12113Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. José Pereira. 2014. Survival Analysis Employed in Predicting Corporate Failure: A Forecasting Model Proposal., Vol. 7 (04 2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Catherine R Planey and Olivier Gevaert. 2016. CoINcIDE: A framework for discovery of patient subtypes across multiple datasets. Genome medicine, Vol. 8, 1 (2016), 27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jost Tobias Springenberg. 2015. Unsupervised and semi-supervised learning with categorical generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06390 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Michael Steinbach, Levent Ertöz, and Vipin Kumar. 2004. The challenges of clustering high dimensional data. In New directions in statistical physics. Springer, 273--309.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mark Stevenson and IVABS EpiCentre. 2009. An introduction to survival analysis. EpiCentre, IVABS, Massey University (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mike Stoolmiller and James Snyder. 2013. Embedding multilevel survival analysis of dyadic social interaction in structural equation models: hazard rates as both outcomes and predictors. Journal of pediatric psychology, Vol. 39, 2 (2013), 222--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Kelly C Vranas, Jeffrey K Jopling, Timothy E Sweeney, Meghan C Ramsey, Arnold S Milstein, Christopher G Slatore, Gabriel J Escobar, and Vincent X Liu. 2017. Identifying Distinct Subgroups of Intensive Care Unit Patients: a Machine Learning Approach. Critical care medicine, Vol. 45, 10 (2017), 1607.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Catalysis Clustering with GAN by Incorporating Domain Knowledge

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        KDD '20: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
        August 2020
        3664 pages
        ISBN:9781450379984
        DOI:10.1145/3394486

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 August 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader