Directed Probabilistic Watershed

1 Introduction . In the last years , machine learning has experienced a great boost thanks to the large quantity of available data and increasing accessibility of less expensive and more powerful processing capacities . However , the acquisition of labeled data is still laborious in some applications like computer-aided diagnosis or drug discovery . Semi-supervised learning is the subfield of machine learning that utilizes both labeled and unlabeled data . It permits exploiting the large amount of unlabeled data available in many use cases jointly with frequently smaller sets of labeled data . When data is encoded as a network , graph-based semi-supervised learning aims to assign a label or class to each of the nodes of a network based on its topology and a given set of labeled nodes / seeds . Graph-based semi-supervised learning has been applied in multiple domains like computer vision [ 6 , 15 , 17 ] , NLP [ 2 , 28 , 31 ] , social networks [ 1 , 45 ] and biomedical science [ 24 ] . Most graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithms focus on undirected weighted graphs [ 5 , 36 ] , though directed graphs appear naturally in many cases like in k-Nearest Neighbors graphs or citation and recommendation networks among others . Instances of methods proposed for directed graphs are [ 9 , 11 , 42 , 48 , 49 ] . Recently , [ 12 ] proposed the transductive graph-based semi-supervised learning algorithm Probabilistic Watershed ( ProbWS ) . It envisages a Gibbs distribution over the labeled nodes separating forests ( forests whose trees contain a unique labeled node ) that span a weighted undirected graph . The probability of each forest is proportional to its weight . By means of the Matrix Tree Theorem [ 19 , 40 ] , the ProbWS computes the probability of sampling a seed separating forest such that a query node is connected to a single labeled node / seed . This approach turns out to be equivalent computationally and by result to the Random Walker / Harmonic energy minimization [ 3 , 15 , 47 , 50 ] . The Matrix Tree Theorem [ 19 , 40 ] has been generalized to directed graphs [ 25 ] . We propose an extension of the ProbWS , the “ Directed Probabilistic Watershed '' ( DProbWS ) , that can be applied 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems ( NeurIPS 2021 ) . to directed graphs . Instead of considering seed separating spanning forests , we deal with incoming directed forests rooted at the seed nodes ( see Figure 1 ) . We analyze the DProbWS from a theoretical point of view and generalize the results presented in [ 12 ] to directed graphs . Building on the arguments used in the original ProbWS paper , we • analytically compute the probability that a graph node is assigned to a particular seed in an ensemble of Gibbs distributed incoming directed spanning forests rooted at the seeds , • demonstrate the equivalence of the Directed Probabilistic Watershed and the directed version of the Random Walker presented in [ 15 ] , • propose a natural extension of the Power Watershed [ 6 ] to directed graphs , • run an illustrative experiment to show the empirical performance of the Directed Probabilistic Watershed and compare it with other semi-supervised transductive methods . 1.1 Related work . Semi-supervised learning is an important subfield of machine learning due to is ability to exploit both labeled and unlabeled data [ 41 ] . If data is represented as a graph , graph based semi-supervised learning exploits , in addition to the labeled samples , the topology of the graph to infer the class of the unlabeled nodes . Undirected graphs have received more attention in this field than the directed ones [ 5 , 36 ] . Nonetheless , there have been methods proposed for directed graphs . In [ 48 , 49 ] the labels are inferred by minimizing a regularized function that forces highly connected subgraphs to have the same label . The paper [ 42 ] builds a symmetric pairwise similarity via co-linkage analysis from the directed graph in order to apply algorithms for undirected graphs . The work presented in [ 11 ] proposes a method based on game theory , where the game ’ s Nash equilibrium defines the labeling of the data . Related to our work by the use of absorbing random walks is the one proposed in [ 9 ] . Their algorithm assigns the label of the seed that maximizes the accumulated expected number of visits from the unlabeled query node before being absorbed by an artificially added metanode . We , instead , prove that the DProbWS turns out to assign the label of the seed that maximizes the probability of absorption of a random walker . Our method extends the Probabilistic Watershed ( ProbWS ) [ 12 ] , which , in turn , is based on the Watershed algorithm [ 7 ] . The ProbWS paper established a link between the Watershed [ 7 ] and the Random Walker [ 3 , 15 , 47 , 50 ] . Another such connection was made by the Power Watershed paper [ 6 ] . We extend these relations to the directed graph framework . We smooth the combinatorial minimum spanning in-forest via entropic regularization . More specifically , we consider a Gibbs distribution over all spanning in-forests , as was proposed in the original ProbWS paper [ 12 ] . Entropic regularization has been applied in other situations like the randomized shortest path framework [ 14 , 20 ] or optimal transport [ 8 ] . If applied in conjunction with deep networks , it allows end-to-end training [ 32 ] . The Matrix Tree Theorem ( MTT ) is key to the theory developed in our work . The directed version of the MTT [ 25 ] allows us to compute in closed form the weight of a set of incoming forests . The MTT has been also applied in NLP [ 22 ] , biology [ 38 ] and network analysis [ 37 , 39 ] . A generalization of the MTT , the Matrix Forest Theorem ( MFT ) , was used by [ 4 ] to define a distance between the nodes of a graph . Similar to our approach , [ 34 ] defines a Gibbs distribution over the forests using the MFT . 2 Background . 2.1 Notation and terminology . In this section , we introduce the main definitions and notation used in the paper . Most of them have been borrowed from [ 12 , 25 ] . Let G = ( V , E , w , c ) be a directed graph where V denotes the set of nodes , E the set of edges and w and c are functions that assign a weight w ( e ) ∈ R≥0 and a cost c ( e ) ∈ R to each edge e ∈ E. The edge e = ( i , j ) indicates that there is a directed edge from i to j . If ( i , j ) /∈ E , we set c ( ( i , j ) ) =∞ and w ( ( i , j ) ) = 0 . The set S = { s1 , s2 } ⊂ V will denote the set of seed / labeled nodes and U = V \S the unlabeled ones . In order to ease the exposition we only consider the 2-seed scenario , although the method can be generalized to the n-seed scenario . We will use the terms seed and labeled node interchangeably . Definition 1 . Let t = ( Vt , Et ) be a graph then we say that it is an incoming directed spanning tree rooted at r ∈ Vt ( in-tree for short ) if : 1 ) every vertex u 6= r has one and only one outgoing edge ; 2 ) the root node r does not have any outgoing edges ; 3 ) t does not have directed cycles , i.e. , there does not exist a directed path in t such that the initial and final vertex are the same . Note that condition 3 ) , in conjunction with the other conditions , implies that no cycles ( directed or undirected ) will be formed . Equivalently , one can define an in-tree as a graph in which , for any vertex u ∈ Vt there is exactly one directed path from u to the root r , and the root does not have any out-going edges.1 Note that an in-tree becomes a tree in the classical sense if the directions of the edges are ignored . We say that an in-tree is spanning on G = ( V , E ) if t is a subgraph of G and Vt = V . The set of spanning in-trees of G rooted at r will be denoted by T −→r . Analogously , the set F−→v−→u represents the set of 2-in-trees spanning forests rooted at u and v , i.e. , the spanning graphs of G consisting of two disjoint in-trees , such that u and v are the respective roots of the in-trees . Furthermore , if we consider a third node q , we define F−→v−→u , q ⊆ F −→v−→u , as the set of all 2-in-trees spanning forests where q is connected to u by a directed path . In order to shorten the notation we will refer to 2-in-trees spanning forests simply as 2-in-forests or in-forests . We define the weight of an arbitrary graph ( e.g . in-forests ) ) as the product of the weights of all its edges , w ( G ) = ∏ e∈E w ( e ) . The weight of a set of graphs , w ( { Gi } ni=0 ) is the sum of the weights of the graphsGi . In a similar manner , we define the cost of a graph as the sum of the costs of all its edges , c ( G ) = ∑ e∈E c ( e ) . As in the Probabilistic Watershed [ 12 ] , we consider w ( e ) = exp ( −µc ( e ) ) , µ ≥ 0 , which will be a consequence of the definition of a Gibbs distribution over the 2-in-forests in F−→v−→u . Thus , a low edge-cost corresponds to a large edge-weight , and a minimum edge-cost spanning 1One can define analogously an outgoing tree ( out-tree ) rooted at r as a tree where there is exactly one directed path from the root r to any other node , and the root does not have any incoming edges . in-forest ( mSF ) is equivalent to a maximum edge-weight spanning in-forest ( MSF ) . Depending on the context , the abbreviations mSF and MSF will be also used for the undirected versions of the minimum/maximum spanning forests . Via the Directed Matrix Tree Theorem [ 25 ] , we aim to compute the weight of the set of the 2-in-forests rooted at the seeds . The theorem makes use of the out-Laplacian matrix which we define next . Definition 2 . Given a weighted directed graph G = ( V , E , w ) we define the out-Laplacian of G as L : = D −A > , ( 1 ) where A ∈ R|V |×|V | is the vertex-adjacency matrix of G represented entry-wise as Aij = w ( ( i , j ) ) and D denotes the diagonal matrix defined as Dii = ∑ j∈V Aij , i.e. , Dii is the out-degree of vertex i.2 For brevity , we will refer to the out-Laplacian just as Laplacian . For any v ∈ V , L [ v ] will stand for the Laplacian after removing the row and column indexed by v .

Summary: This is a very interesting manuscript and an enjoyable read. Essentially, it extends random walks on graphs which perform probabilistic watersheds to random walks on directed graphs which perform directed probabilistic watershed. This is not a trivial extension and is hence a significant contribution - if correct. The caveat is necessary since it will be difficult for any conference reviewer to find the time needed to verify the result.