Cross-Lingual Adaptation using Structural Correspondence Learning

Cross-lingual adaptation, a special case of domain adaptation, refers to the transfer of classification knowledge between two languages. In this article we describe an extension of Structural Correspondence Learning (SCL), a recently proposed algorithm for domain adaptation, for cross-lingual adaptation. The proposed method uses unlabeled documents from both languages, along with a word translation oracle, to induce cross-lingual feature correspondences. From these correspondences a cross-lingual representation is created that enables the transfer of classification knowledge from the source to the target language. The main advantages of this approach over other approaches are its resource efficiency and task specificity. We conduct experiments in the area of cross-language topic and sentiment classification involving English as source language and German, French, and Japanese as target languages. The results show a significant improvement of the proposed method over a machine translation baseline, reducing the relative error due to cross-lingual adaptation by an average of 30% (topic classification) and 59% (sentiment classification). We further report on empirical analyses that reveal insights into the use of unlabeled data, the sensitivity with respect to important hyperparameters, and the nature of the induced cross-lingual correspondences

Dropout Training as Adaptive Regularization

Dropout and other feature noising schemes control overfitting by artificially corrupting the training data. For generalized linear models, dropout performs a form of adaptive regularization. Using this viewpoint, we show that the dropout regularizer is first-order equivalent to an L2 regularizer applied after scaling the features by an estimate of the inverse diagonal Fisher information matrix. We also establish a connection to AdaGrad, an online learning algorithm, and find that a close relative of AdaGrad operates by repeatedly solving linear dropout-regularized problems. By casting dropout as regularization, we develop a natural semi-supervised algorithm that uses unlabeled data to create a better adaptive regularizer. We apply this idea to document classification tasks, and show that it consistently boosts the performance of dropout training, improving on state-of-the-art results on the IMDB reviews dataset.Comment: 11 pages. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 201

A Taxonomy of Big Data for Optimal Predictive Machine Learning and Data Mining

Big data comes in various ways, types, shapes, forms and sizes. Indeed, almost all areas of science, technology, medicine, public health, economics, business, linguistics and social science are bombarded by ever increasing flows of data begging to analyzed efficiently and effectively. In this paper, we propose a rough idea of a possible taxonomy of big data, along with some of the most commonly used tools for handling each particular category of bigness. The dimensionality p of the input space and the sample size n are usually the main ingredients in the characterization of data bigness. The specific statistical machine learning technique used to handle a particular big data set will depend on which category it falls in within the bigness taxonomy. Large p small n data sets for instance require a different set of tools from the large n small p variety. Among other tools, we discuss Preprocessing, Standardization, Imputation, Projection, Regularization, Penalization, Compression, Reduction, Selection, Kernelization, Hybridization, Parallelization, Aggregation, Randomization, Replication, Sequentialization. Indeed, it is important to emphasize right away that the so-called no free lunch theorem applies here, in the sense that there is no universally superior method that outperforms all other methods on all categories of bigness. It is also important to stress the fact that simplicity in the sense of Ockham's razor non plurality principle of parsimony tends to reign supreme when it comes to massive data. We conclude with a comparison of the predictive performance of some of the most commonly used methods on a few data sets.Comment: 18 pages, 2 figures 3 table