instruction:
In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.
question:
Latent tree analysis seeks to model the correlations among a set of random variables using a tree of latent variables. It was proposed as an improvement to latent class analysis — a method widely used in social sciences and medicine to identify homogeneous subgroups in a population. It provides new and fruitful perspectives on a number of machine learning areas, including cluster analysis, topic detection, and deep probabilistic modeling. This paper gives an overview of the research on latent tree analysis and various ways it is used in practice. Much of machine learning is about modeling and utilizing correlations among variables. In classification, the task is to establish relationships between attributes and class variables so that unseen data can be classified accurately. In Bayesian networks, dependencies among variables are represented as directed acyclic graphs and the graphs are used to facilitate efficient probabilistic inference. In topic models, word cooccurrences are accounted for by assuming that all words are generated probabilistically from the same set of topics, and the generation process is reverted via statistical inference to determine the topics. In deep belief networks, correlations among observed units are modeled using multiple levels of hidden units, and the top-level hidden units are used as a representation of the data for further analysis. Latent tree analysis (LTA) seeks to model the correlations among a set of observed variables using a tree model, called latent tree model (LTM), where the leaf nodes represent observed variables and the internal nodes represent latent variables.The dependence between two observed variables is explained by the path between them. Despite their simplicity, LTMs subsume two classes of models widely used in academic research. The first one is latent class models (LCMs) (Lazarsfeld and Henry, 1968; Knott and Bartholomew, 1999), which are LTMs with a single latent variable. They are used for categorical data clustering in social sciences and medicine. The second class is probabilistic phylogenetic trees (Durbin et al., 1998), which are a tool for determining the evolution history of a set of species. Phylogenetic trees are special LTMs where the model structures are binary (bifurcating) trees and all the Copyright c © 2017, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. variables have the same number of possible states. LTA also provides new and fruitful perspectives on a number of machine learning areas. One area is cluster analysis. Here finite mixture models such as LCMs are commonly used. A finite mixture model has one latent variable and consequently it gives one soft partition of data. An LTM typically has multiple latent variables and hence LTA yields multiple soft partitions of data simultaneously. In other words, LTA performs multidimensional clustering (Chen et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). It is interesting because complex data usually have multiple facets and can be meaningfully clustered in multiple ways. Another area is topic detection. Applying LTA to text data, we can partition a collection of documents in multiple ways. The document clusters in the partitions can be interpreted as topics. Furthermore, it is possible to learn hierarchical LTMs where the latent variables are organized into multiple layers. This leads to an alternative method for hierarchical topic detection (Liu, Zhang, and Chen, 2014; Chen et al., 2016a), which has been shown to find more meaningful topics and topic hierarchies than the state-of-the-art method based on latent Dirichlet allocation (Paisley et al., 2015). The third area is deep probabilistic modeling. Hierarchical LTM and deep belief network (DBN) (Hinton, Osindero, and Teh, 2006) are similar in that they both consist of multiple layers of variables, with an observed layer at the bottom and multiple layers of hidden units on top of it. One difference is that, in DBN, units from adjacent layers are fully connected, while HLTM is tree-structured. It would be interesting to explore the middle ground between the two extreme and develop algorithms for learning what might be called sparse DBNs. Learning structures for deep models is an interesting open problem. Extension of LTA might offer one solution (Chen et al., 2016b). The concept of latent tree models was introduced in (Zhang, 2002, 2004), where they were referred to as hierarchical latent class models. The term “latent tree models” first appeared in (Zhang et al., 2008; Wang, Zhang, and Chen, 2008). Mourad et al. (2013) surveyed the research on latent tree models as of 2012 in details. This paper provides a concise overview of the methodology. The exposition are more conceptual and less technical than (Mourad et al., 2013). Developments after 2012 are also included. ar X iv :1 61 0. 00 08 5v 1 [ cs .L G ] 1 O ct 2 01 6
answer:
Latent Tree Analysis


question:
Domain adaptation is important in sentiment analysis as sentiment-indicating words vary between domains. Recently, multi-domain adaptation has become more pervasive, but existing approaches train on all available source domains including dissimilar ones. However, the selection of appropriate training data is as important as the choice of algorithm. We undertake – to our knowledge for the first time – an extensive study of domain similarity metrics in the context of sentiment analysis and propose novel representations, metrics, and a new scope for data selection. We evaluate the proposed methods on two largescale multi-domain adaptation settings on tweets and reviews and demonstrate that they consistently outperform strong random and balanced baselines, while our proposed selection strategy outperforms instance-level selection and yields the best score on a large reviews corpus. All experiments are available at url_redacted1
answer:
Data Selection Strategies for Multi-Domain Sentiment Analysis


question:
The ability to mimic human notions of semantic distance has widespread applications. Some measures rely only on raw text (distributional measures) and some rely on knowledge sources such as WordNet. Although extensive studies have been performed to compare WordNet-based measures with human judgment, the use of distributional measures as proxies to estimate semantic distance has received little attention. Even though they have traditionally performed poorly when compared to WordNet-based measures, they lay claim to certain uniquely attractive features, such as their applicability in resource-poor languages and their ability to mimic both semantic similarity and semantic relatedness. Therefore, this paper presents a detailed study of distributional measures. Particular attention is paid to flesh out the strengths and limitations of both WordNet-based and distributional measures, and how distributional measures of distance can be brought more in line with human notions of semantic distance. We conclude with a brief discussion of recent work on hybrid measures.
answer:

Distributional Measures of Semantic Distance: A Survey