mining large graphs and fraud detectionchristos/talks/15-03-qatar/foils-dept-seminar/... · mining...

CMU SCS

Mining Large Graphs and Fraud Detection

Christos Faloutsos CMU

CMU SCS

Thank you!

Prof. Mohammad Hammoud

Nancy Lacson

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 2

CMU SCS

(c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 3

Roadmap

•  Introduction – Motivation – Why study (big) graphs?

•  Part#1: Patterns in graphs •  (Part#2: time-evolving graphs; tensors) •  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Graphs - why should we care?

CMU-Q 2015

~1B nodes (web sites) ~6B edges (http links) ‘YahooWeb graph’

CMU SCS



CMU-Q 2015

U Kang, Jay-Yoon Lee, Danai Koutra, and Christos Faloutsos. Net-Ray: Visualizing and Mining Billion-Scale Graphs PAKDD 2014, Tainan, Taiwan.

~1B nodes (web sites) ~6B edges (http links) ‘YahooWeb graph’

CMU SCS



>$10B; ~1B users

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS



Internet Map [lumeta.com]

Food Web [Martinez ’91]

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Graphs - why should we care? •  web-log (‘blog’) news propagation •  computer network security: email/IP traffic and

anomaly detection •  Recommendation systems •  ....

•  Many-to-many db relationship -> graph

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS

Motivating problems •  P1: patterns? Fraud detection?

•  P2: patterns in time-evolving graphs / tensors


time

destination

CMU SCS

Motivating problems •  P1: patterns? Fraud detection?

•  P2: patterns in time-evolving graphs / tensors


time

destination

Patterns anomalies

CMU SCS


Roadmap


•  Part#1: Patterns & fraud detection •  Part#2: time-evolving graphs; tensors •  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Part 1: Patterns, &

fraud detection

CMU SCS


Laws and patterns •  Q1: Are real graphs random?

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Laws and patterns •  Q1: Are real graphs random? •  A1: NO!!

– Diameter (‘6 degrees’; ‘Kevin Bacon’) –  in- and out- degree distributions –  other (surprising) patterns

•  So, let’s look at the data

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Solution# S.1 •  Power law in the degree distribution [Faloutsos x 3

SIGCOMM99]

log(rank)

log(degree)

internet domains

att.com

ibm.com

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Solution# S.1 •  Power law in the degree distribution [Faloutsos x 3

SIGCOMM99]

log(rank)

log(degree)

-0.82

internet domains

att.com

ibm.com

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Solution# S.2: Eigen Exponent E

•  A2: power law in the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix (‘eig()’)

E = -0.48

Exponent = slope

Eigenvalue

Rank of decreasing eigenvalue

May 2001

CMU-Q 2015

A x = λ x

CMU SCS


Solution# S.3: Triangle ‘Laws’

•  Real social networks have a lot of triangles

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Solution# S.3: Triangle ‘Laws’

•  Real social networks have a lot of triangles –  Friends of friends are friends

•  Any patterns? –  2x the friends, 2x the triangles ?

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Triangle Law: #S.3 [Tsourakakis ICDM 2008]

SN Reuters

Epinions X-axis: degree Y-axis: mean # triangles n friends -> ~n1.6 triangles

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Triangle Law: Computations [Tsourakakis ICDM 2008]

But: triangles are expensive to compute (3-way join; several approx. algos) – O(dmax

2) Q: Can we do that quickly? A:

details

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Triangle Law: Computations [Tsourakakis ICDM 2008]

But: triangles are expensive to compute (3-way join; several approx. algos) – O(dmax

2) Q: Can we do that quickly? A: Yes!

#triangles = 1/6 Sum ( λi3 )

(and, because of skewness (S2) , we only need the top few eigenvalues! - O(E)

CMU-Q 2015

A x = λ x

details

CMU SCS

Triangle counting for large graphs?

Anomalous nodes in Twitter(~ 3 billion edges) [U Kang, Brendan Meeder, +, PAKDD’11]

23 CMU-Q 2015 23 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

? ?

?

CMU SCS




CMU SCS

MORE Graph Patterns


✔ ✔ ✔

RTG: A Recursive Realistic Graph Generator using Random Typing Leman Akoglu and Christos Faloutsos. PKDD’09.

CMU SCS

MORE Graph Patterns


•  Mary McGlohon, Leman Akoglu, Christos Faloutsos. Statistical Properties of Social Networks. in "Social Network Data Analytics” (Ed.: Charu Aggarwal)

•  Deepayan Chakrabarti and Christos Faloutsos, Graph Mining: Laws, Tools, and Case Studies Oct. 2012, Morgan Claypool.

CMU SCS


Roadmap

•  Introduction – Motivation •  Part#1: Patterns in graphs

– Patterns – Anomaly / fraud detection

•  CopyCatch •  Spectral methods (‘fBox’) •  Belief Propagation

•  Part#2: time-evolving graphs; tensors •  Conclusions CMU-Q 2015

Patterns anomalies

CMU SCS

Fraud •  Given

– Who ‘likes’ what page, and when

•  Find – Suspicious users and suspicious

products


CopyCatch: Stopping Group Attacks by Spotting Lockstep Behavior in Social Networks, Alex Beutel, Wanhong Xu, Venkatesan Guruswami, Christopher Palow, Christos Faloutsos WWW, 2013.

CMU SCS

Fraud •  Given

– Who ‘likes’ what page, and when

•  Find – Suspicious users and suspicious

products


CopyCatch: Stopping Group Attacks by Spotting Lockstep Behavior in Social Networks, Alex Beutel, Wanhong Xu, Venkatesan Guruswami, Christopher Palow, Christos Faloutsos WWW, 2013.

Users Pages

A

B

C

D

E

1

2

3

4

40 Z

Likes

CMU SCS

Our intuition ▪  Lockstep behavior: Same Likes, same time

Graph Patterns and Lockstep Behavior

Pages

Users

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tim

e

Users Pages

A

B

C

D

E

1

2

3

4

40 Z

Likes CMU-Q 2015 33 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

CMU SCS



Users Pages

A

B

C

D

E

1

2

3

4

40 Z

Pages

Users

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tim

e

B CD A E

Reordered Pages

4

3 2 1

Reord

ere

d U

sers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tim

e

Likes CMU-Q 2015 34 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

CMU SCS



Users Pages

A

B

C

D

E

1

2

3

4

40 Z

Pages

Users

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tim

e

B CD A E

Reordered Pages

4

3 2 1

Reord

ere

d U

sers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tim

e

Suspicious Lockstep Behavior Likes

CMU-Q 2015 35 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

CMU SCS

MapReduce Overview ▪  Use Hadoop to search for

many clusters in parallel:

1.  Start with randomly seed

2.  Update set of Pages and center Like times for each cluster

3.  Repeat until convergence

Users Pages

A

B

C

D

E

1

2

3

4

40 Z

Likes


CMU SCS

Deployment at Facebook ▪  CopyCatch runs regularly (along with many other

security mechanisms, and a large Site Integrity team)

08/25 09/08 09/22 10/06 10/20 11/03 11/17 12/01

Num

ber

of u

sers

cau

ght

Date of CopyCatch run

3 months of CopyCatch @ Facebook

#users caught

time CMU-Q 2015 37 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

CMU SCS

Deployment at Facebook

23%

58%

5%9%

5%

Fake AccountsMalicious Browser ExtensionsOS MalwareCredential StealingSocial Engineering

Manually labeled 22 randomly selected clusters from February 2013

Most clusters (77%) come from real but compromised users

Fake acct


CMU SCS


Roadmap





CMU SCS


Problem: Social Network Link Fraud

CMU-Q 2015

Target: find “stealthy” attackers missed by other algorithms

Clique

Bipartite core

41.7M nodes 1.5B edges

CMU SCS


Problem: Social Network Link Fraud

CMU-Q 2015

Neil Shah, Alex Beutel, Brian Gallagher and Christos Faloutsos. Spotting Suspicious Link Behavior with fBox: An Adversarial Perspective. ICDM 2014, Shenzhen, China.

Target: find “stealthy” attackers missed by other algorithms

Takeaway: use reconstruction error between true/latent representation!

CMU SCS


Roadmap





CMU SCS


E-bay Fraud detection

w/ Polo Chau & Shashank Pandit, CMU [www’07]

CMU SCS



CMU SCS


E-bay Fraud detection - NetProbe

CMU SCS

Popular press

And less desirable attention: •  E-mail from ‘Belgium police’ (‘copy of

your code?’) CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 47

CMU SCS


Roadmap



•  CopyCatch •  Spectral methods (‘fBox’) •  Belief Propagation; fast computation & unification


CMU SCS

Unifying Guilt-by-Association Approaches: Theorems and Fast Algorithms

Danai Koutra U Kang

Hsing-Kuo Kenneth Pao

Tai-You Ke Duen Horng (Polo) Chau

Christos Faloutsos

ECML PKDD, 5-9 September 2011, Athens, Greece

CMU SCS Problem Definition:

GBA techniques


Given: Graph; & few labeled nodes Find: labels of rest (assuming network effects)

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS

Are they related? •  RWR (Random Walk with Restarts)

–  google’s pageRank (‘if my friends are important, I’m important, too’)

•  SSL (Semi-supervised learning) – minimize the differences among neighbors

•  BP (Belief propagation) –  send messages to neighbors, on what you

believe about them


CMU SCS

Are they related? •  RWR (Random Walk with Restarts)

–  google’s pageRank (‘if my friends are important, I’m important, too’)

•  SSL (Semi-supervised learning) – minimize the differences among neighbors

•  BP (Belief propagation) –  send messages to neighbors, on what you

believe about them


YES!

CMU SCS

Correspondence of Methods


Method Matrix Unknown known RWR [I – c AD-1] × x = (1-c)y SSL [I + a(D - A)] × x = y

FABP [I + a D - c’A] × bh = φh

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

? 0 1 1

final labels/ beliefs

prior labels/ beliefs

adjacency matrix

CMU-Q 2015

1 1

1

d1 d2

d3

CMU SCS Results: Scalability


FABP is linear on the number of edges.

# of edges (Kronecker graphs)

runt

ime

(min

)

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS Results: Parallelism


FABP ~2x faster & wins/ties on accuracy.

runtime (min)

% a

ccur

acy

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS

Summary of Part#1 •  *many* patterns in real graphs

– Power-laws everywhere – Long (and growing) list of tools for anomaly/

fraud detection


Patterns anomalies

CMU SCS


Roadmap

•  Introduction – Motivation •  Part#1: Patterns in graphs •  Part#2: time-evolving graphs; tensors

– P2.1: time-evolving graphs – P2.2: with side information (‘coupled’ M.T.F.) – Speed

•  Part#3: Cascades and immunization •  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Part 2: Time evolving

graphs; tensors

CMU SCS

Graphs over time -> tensors! •  Problem #2.1:

– Given who calls whom, and when – Find patterns / anomalies


smith

CMU SCS




CMU SCS




Mon Tue

CMU SCS



CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 62 callee

caller

CMU SCS

Graphs over time -> tensors! •  Problem #2.1’:

– Given author-keyword-date – Find patterns / anomalies

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 63 keyword

author

MANY more settings, with >2 ‘modes’

CMU SCS

Graphs over time -> tensors! •  Problem #2.1’’:

– Given subject – verb – object facts – Find patterns / anomalies

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 64 object

subject

MANY more settings, with >2 ‘modes’

CMU SCS

Graphs over time -> tensors! •  Problem #2.1’’’:

– Given <triplets> – Find patterns / anomalies

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 65 mode2

mode1

MANY more settings, with >2 ‘modes’ (and 4, 5, etc modes)

CMU SCS

Graphs & side info •  Problem #2.2: coupled (eg., side info)

– Given subject – verb – object facts •  And voxel-activity for each subject-word

– Find patterns / anomalies

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 66 object

subject

fMRI voxel activity `apple tastes sweet’

CMU SCS

Graphs & side info •  Problem #2.2: coupled (eg., side info)

– Given subject – verb – object facts •  And voxel-activity for each subject-word

– Find patterns / anomalies

CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos 67 ‘sweet’

‘apple’

fMRI voxel activity `apple tastes sweet’

‘apple’

CMU SCS


Roadmap


– P2.1: time-evolving graphs – P2.2: with side information (‘coupled’ M.T.F.) – Speed

•  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS Answer to both: tensor

factorization •  Recall: (SVD) matrix factorization: finds

blocks


N users

M products

‘meat-eaters’ ‘steaks’

‘vegetarians’ ‘plants’

‘kids’ ‘cookies’

~ + +

CMU SCS Answer to both: tensor

factorization •  PARAFAC decomposition


= + + subject

object

politicians artists athletes

CMU SCS

Answer: tensor factorization •  PARAFAC decomposition •  Results for who-calls-whom-when

–  4M x 15 days


= + + caller

callee

?? ?? ??

CMU SCS Anomaly detection in time-

evolving graphs

•  Anomalous communities in phone call data: – European country, 4M clients, data over 2 weeks

~200 calls to EACH receiver on EACH day!

1 caller 5 receivers 4 days of activity


=


evolving graphs


~200 calls to EACH receiver on EACH day!

1 caller 5 receivers 4 days of activity


=


evolving graphs


~200 calls to EACH receiver on EACH day! CMU-Q 2015 74 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

=

Miguel Araujo, Spiros Papadimitriou, Stephan Günnemann, Christos Faloutsos, Prithwish Basu, Ananthram Swami, Evangelos Papalexakis, Danai Koutra. Com2: Fast Automatic Discovery of Temporal (Comet) Communities. PAKDD 2014, Tainan, Taiwan.

CMU SCS


Roadmap


– P2.1: Discoveries @ phonecall network – P2.2: Discoveries in neuro-semantics – Speed

•  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS Coupled Matrix-Tensor Factorization

(CMTF)

Y X

a1 aF

b1 bF

c1 cF

a1 aF

d1 dF


+

+

CMU SCS

Neuro-semantics

13�

�

3.�Additional�Figures�and�legends��

Figure�S1.�Presentation�and�set�of�exemplars�used�in�the�experiment. Participants were presented 60 distinct word-picture pairs describing common concrete nouns. These consisted of 5 exemplars from each of 12 categories, as shown above. A slow event-related paradigm was employed, in which the stimulus was presented for 3s, followed by a 7s fixation period during which an X was presented in the center of the screen. Images were presented as white lines and characters on a dark background, but are inverted here to improve readability. The entire set of 60 exemplars was presented six times, randomly permuting the sequence on each presentation.

To fully specify a model within this com-putational modeling framework, one must firstdefine a set of intermediate semantic featuresf1(w) f2(w)…fn(w) to be extracted from the textcorpus. In this paper, each intermediate semanticfeature is defined in terms of the co-occurrencestatistics of the input stimulus word w with aparticular other word (e.g., “taste”) or set of words(e.g., “taste,” “tastes,” or “tasted”) within the textcorpus. The model is trained by the application ofmultiple regression to these features fi(w) and theobserved fMRI images, so as to obtain maximum-likelihood estimates for the model parameters cvi(26). Once trained, the computational model can beevaluated by giving it words outside the trainingset and comparing its predicted fMRI images forthese words with observed fMRI data.

This computational modeling framework isbased on two key theoretical assumptions. First, itassumes the semantic features that distinguish themeanings of arbitrary concrete nouns are reflected

in the statistics of their use within a very large textcorpus. This assumption is drawn from the field ofcomputational linguistics, where statistical worddistributions are frequently used to approximatethe meaning of documents and words (14–17).Second, it assumes that the brain activity observedwhen thinking about any concrete noun can bederived as a weighted linear sum of contributionsfrom each of its semantic features. Although thecorrectness of this linearity assumption is debat-able, it is consistent with the widespread use oflinear models in fMRI analysis (27) and with theassumption that fMRI activation often reflects alinear superposition of contributions from differentsources. Our theoretical framework does not take aposition on whether the neural activation encodingmeaning is localized in particular cortical re-gions. Instead, it considers all cortical voxels andallows the training data to determine which loca-tions are systematically modulated by which as-pects of word meanings.

Results. We evaluated this computational mod-el using fMRI data from nine healthy, college-ageparticipants who viewed 60 different word-picturepairs presented six times each. Anatomically de-fined regions of interest were automatically labeledaccording to the methodology in (28). The 60 ran-domly ordered stimuli included five items fromeach of 12 semantic categories (animals, body parts,buildings, building parts, clothing, furniture, insects,kitchen items, tools, vegetables, vehicles, and otherman-made items). A representative fMRI image foreach stimulus was created by computing the meanfMRI response over its six presentations, and themean of all 60 of these representative images wasthen subtracted from each [for details, see (26)].

To instantiate our modeling framework, we firstchose a set of intermediate semantic features. To beeffective, the intermediate semantic features mustsimultaneously encode thewide variety of semanticcontent of the input stimulus words and factor theobserved fMRI activation intomore primitive com-

Predicted“celery” = 0.84

“celery” “airplane”

Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage

Predicted “celery”:

+ 0.35 + 0.32

“eat” “taste” “fill”

Fig. 2. Predicting fMRI imagesfor given stimulus words. (A)Forming a prediction for par-ticipant P1 for the stimulusword “celery” after training on58 other words. Learned cvi co-efficients for 3 of the 25 se-mantic features (“eat,” “taste,”and “fill”) are depicted by thevoxel colors in the three imagesat the top of the panel. The co-occurrence value for each of these features for the stimulus word “celery” isshown to the left of their respective images [e.g., the value for “eat (celery)” is0.84]. The predicted activation for the stimulus word [shown at the bottom of(A)] is a linear combination of the 25 semantic fMRI signatures, weighted bytheir co-occurrence values. This figure shows just one horizontal slice [z =

–12 mm in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space] of the predictedthree-dimensional image. (B) Predicted and observed fMRI images for“celery” and “airplane” after training that uses 58 other words. The two longred and blue vertical streaks near the top (posterior region) of the predictedand observed images are the left and right fusiform gyri.

A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5

Fig. 3. Locations ofmost accurately pre-dicted voxels. Surface(A) and glass brain (B)rendering of the correla-tion between predictedand actual voxel activa-tions for words outsidethe training set for par-

ticipant P5. These panels show clusters containing at least 10 contiguous voxels, each of whosepredicted-actual correlation is at least 0.28. These voxel clusters are distributed throughout thecortex and located in the left and right occipital and parietal lobes; left and right fusiform,postcentral, and middle frontal gyri; left inferior frontal gyrus; medial frontal gyrus; and anteriorcingulate. (C) Surface rendering of the predicted-actual correlation averaged over all nineparticipants. This panel represents clusters containing at least 10 contiguous voxels, each withaverage correlation of at least 0.14.

30 MAY 2008 VOL 320 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1192

RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

•  Brain Scan Data*

•  9 persons •  60 nouns

•  Questions •  218 questions •  ‘is it alive?’, ‘can

you eat it?’








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


*Mitchell et al. Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science,2008. Data@ www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/theo-73/www/science2008/data.html

CMU SCS

Neuro-semantics

13�

�






you eat it?’


Patterns?








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

CMU SCS

Neuro-semantics

13�

�






you eat it?’

Tofullyspecify

amodelwithint

hiscom-

putationalmode

lingframework,o

nemustfirst

defineasetofin

termediateseman

ticfeatures

f 1(w)f 2(w)…f n(w)tobeextract

edfromthetext

corpus.Inthispa

per,eachintermed

iatesemantic

featureisdefined

intermsoftheco

-occurrence

statisticsofthein

putstimuluswo

rdwwitha

particularotherwo

rd(e.g.,“taste”)or

setofwords

(e.g.,“taste,”“tas

tes,”or“tasted”)w

ithinthetext

corpus.Themode

listrainedbythe

applicationof

multipleregressio

ntothesefeature

sf i(w)andthe

observedfMRIim

ages,soastoobt

ainmaximum-

likelihoodestima

tesforthemodel

parametersc vi

(26).Oncetrained,

thecomputational

modelcanbe

evaluatedbygivin

gitwordsoutside

thetraining

setandcomparin

gitspredictedfM

RIimagesfor

thesewordswith

observedfMRIda

ta.Thiscom

putationalmodeli

ngframeworkis

basedontwokey

theoreticalassump

tions.First,it

assumesthesema

nticfeaturesthatd

istinguishthe

meaningsofarbit

raryconcretenoun

sarereflected

inthestatisticsof

theirusewithina

verylargetext

corpus.Thisassum

ptionisdrawnfro

mthefieldof

computationallin

guistics,wherest

atisticalword

distributionsare

frequentlyusedt

oapproximate

themeaningofd

ocumentsandw

ords(14–17).

Second,itassume

sthatthebrainact

ivityobserved

whenthinkinga

boutanyconcrete

nouncanbe

derivedasaweig

htedlinearsumo

fcontributions

fromeachofits

semanticfeatures.

Althoughthe

correctnessofthis

linearityassumpt

ionisdebat-

able,itisconsist

entwiththewide

spreaduseof

linearmodelsin

fMRIanalysis(2

7)andwiththe

assumptionthatf

MRIactivationo

ftenreflectsa

linearsuperpositio

nofcontributions

fromdifferent

sources.Ourtheore

ticalframeworkdo

esnottakea

positiononwheth

ertheneuralactiv

ationencoding

meaningislocali

zedinparticular

corticalre-

gions.Instead,it

considersallcort

icalvoxelsand

allowsthetrainin

gdatatodetermin

ewhichloca-

tionsaresystemat

icallymodulated

bywhichas-

pectsofwordme

anings.

Results.Weevaluated

thiscomputational

mod-elusing

fMRIdatafromn

inehealthy,college

-ageparticipan

tswhoviewed60

differentword-pic

turepairspre

sentedsixtimes

each.Anatomicall

yde-finedreg

ionsofinterestwe

reautomaticallyla

beledaccording

tothemethodolog

yin(28).The60

ran-domlyo

rderedstimuliinc

ludedfiveitems

fromeachof1

2semanticcatego

ries(animals,body

parts,buildings

,buildingparts,clo

thing,furniture,in

sects,kitcheni

tems,tools,vegeta

bles,vehicles,and

otherman-mad

eitems).Areprese

ntativefMRIimage

foreachstim

uluswascreatedb

ycomputingthem

eanfMRIre

sponseoveritssi

xpresentations,a

ndthemeanof

all60oftheserep

resentativeimages

wasthensub

tractedfromeach

[fordetails,see(

26)].Toinstan

tiateourmodeling

framework,wefir

stchoseas

etofintermediate

semanticfeatures.

Tobeeffective,

theintermediatese

manticfeaturesm

ustsimultane

ouslyencodethew

idevarietyofsema

nticcontento

ftheinputstimul

uswordsandfacto

rtheobserved

fMRIactivationin

tomoreprimitivec

om-

Predicted

“celery” = 0.84

“celery”“airplan

e”

Predicted:

Observed:

AB

+...

high

average below average

Predicted “celer

y”:+ 0.35+ 0.32

“eat”“taste”

“fill”

Fig.2.Predicting

fMRIimages

forgivenstimulus

words.(A)

Formingapredict

ionforpar-

ticipantP1fort

hestimulus

word“celery”afte

rtrainingon

58otherwords.Le

arnedc vico-efficients

for3ofthe25s

e-manticfe

atures(“eat,”“tast

e,”and“fill”

)aredepictedby

thevoxelcolo

rsinthethreeima

gesatthetop

ofthepanel.Thec

o-occurrenc

evalueforeacho

fthesefeaturesfor

thestimulusword

“celery”is

showntothelefto

ftheirrespectiveim

ages[e.g.,thevalu

efor“eat(celery)”i

s0.84].The

predictedactivation

forthestimuluswo

rd[shownatthebo

ttomof(A)]isal

inearcombinationo

fthe25semantic

fMRIsignatures,w

eightedby

theirco-occurrence

values.Thisfigure

showsjustonehor

izontalslice[z=

–12mminMontr

ealNeurological

Institute(MNI)spa

ce]ofthepredict

edthree-dim

ensionalimage.(

B)Predictedand

observedfMRIima

gesfor“celery”a

nd“airplane”after

trainingthatuses5

8otherwords.The

twolongredandb

lueverticalstreaks

nearthetop(post

eriorregion)ofthe

predictedandobse

rvedimagesaret

heleftandrightfu

siformgyri.

A B

C

Mean overparticipants

Participant P5

Fig.3.Locations

ofmostac

curatelypre-

dictedvoxels.Sur

face(A)andg

lassbrain(B)

renderingofthecor

rela-tionbetw

eenpredicted

andactualvoxelac

tiva-tionsfor

wordsoutside

thetrainingsetfor

par-ticipantP

5.Thesepanelssho

wclusterscontaining

atleast10contigu

ousvoxels,eachof

whosepredicted-

actualcorrelationis

atleast0.28.These

voxelclustersared

istributedthroughou

tthecortexan

dlocatedinthelef

tandrightoccipit

alandparietallobe

s;leftandrightfu

siform,postcentra

l,andmiddlefronta

lgyri;leftinferiorfr

ontalgyrus;medial

frontalgyrus;anda

nteriorcingulate.

(C)Surfacerenderi

ngofthepredicted-

actualcorrelation

averagedoveralln

ineparticipan

ts.Thispanelrepres

entsclusterscontai

ningatleast10co

ntiguousvoxels,ea

chwithaveragec

orrelationofatleast

0.14.

30MAY2008V

OL320SCIENC

Ewww.science

mag.org1192RESEAR

CHARTICLES

on May 30, 2008 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from

Tofullyspecify

amodelwithin

thiscom-

putationalmode

lingframework

,onemustfirst

defineasetof

intermediatese

manticfeatures

f 1(w)f 2(w)…f n(w)tobeextrac

tedfromthetext

corpus.Inthisp

aper,eachinter

mediatesemanti

cfeature

isdefinedinte

rmsoftheco-o

ccurrence

statisticsofthe

inputstimulus

wordwwitha

particularotherw

ord(e.g.,“taste”

)orsetofword

s(e.g.,“ta

ste,”“tastes,”or

“tasted”)within

thetextcorpus.

Themodelistra

inedbytheappl

icationof

multipleregressio

ntothesefeatu

resf i(w)andthe

observedfMRI

images,soasto

obtainmaximum

-likelihoo

destimatesfor

themodelparam

etersc vi

(26).Oncetraine

d,thecomputatio

nalmodelcanbe

evaluatedbygiv

ingitwordsou

tsidethetrainin

gsetand

comparingitsp

redictedfMRIim

agesforthesew

ordswithobser

vedfMRIdata.

Thiscomputatio

nalmodeling

frameworkis

basedontwok

eytheoreticalas

sumptions.First

,itassumes

thesemanticfea

turesthatdisting

uishthemeaning

sofarbitraryco

ncretenounsare

reflected

inthestatisticso

ftheirusewithi

naverylargetex

tcorpus.

Thisassumption

isdrawnfromthe

fieldofcomputa

tionallinguistic

s,wherestatist

icalword

distributionsare

frequentlyused

toapproximate

themeaningof

documentsand

words(14–17).

Second,itassum

esthatthebrain

activityobserve

dwhenth

inkingaboutan

yconcretenou

ncanbe

derivedasawe

ightedlinearsu

mofcontributio

nsfromea

chofitsseman

ticfeatures.Alth

oughthe

correctnessofth

islinearityassu

mptionisdebat

-able,it

isconsistentw

iththewidesprea

duseof

linearmodelsin

fMRIanalysis(2

7)andwiththe

assumptiontha

tfMRIactivatio

noftenreflects

alinearsu

perpositionofc

ontributionsfrom

differentsources.

Ourtheoreticalfr

ameworkdoesn

ottakeaposition

onwhetherthen

euralactivation

encoding

meaningisloc

alizedinpartic

ularcorticalre

-gions.I

nstead,itconsid

ersallcorticalv

oxelsand

allowsthetrain

ingdatatodeterm

inewhichloca-

tionsaresystem

aticallymodulat

edbywhichas-

pectsofwordm

eanings.

Results.Weevaluate

dthiscomputatio

nalmod-

elusingfMRId

atafromninehea

lthy,college-age

participantswho

viewed60diffe

rentword-pictur

epairspr

esentedsixtime

seach.Anatom

icallyde-

finedregionsofi

nterestwereauto

maticallylabele

daccordin

gtothemethodo

logyin(28).Th

e60ran-

domlyordered

stimuliincluded

fiveitemsfrom

eachof12sema

nticcategories(a

nimals,bodypart

s,building

s,buildingparts

,clothing,furnit

ure,insects,

kitchenitems,to

ols,vegetables,

vehicles,andoth

erman-ma

deitems).Arepr

esentativefMRI

imagefor

eachstimuluswa

screatedbycomp

utingthemean

fMRIresponse

overitssixpres

entations,andth

emeanof

all60oftheser

epresentativeim

ageswas

thensubtractedf

romeach[ford

etails,see(26)]

.Toinsta

ntiateourmodeli

ngframework,w

efirstchosea

setofintermedia

tesemanticfeatu

res.Tobe

effective,theint

ermediatesema

nticfeaturesmu

stsimultan

eouslyencodeth

ewidevarietyof

semanticcontent

oftheinputstim

uluswordsand

factorthe

observedfMRIa

ctivationintomor

eprimitivecom-

Predicted

“celery” = 0.84

“celery”

“airplane”

Predicted:

Observed:

AB

+...

high

average below averag

e

Predicted “cele

ry”:+ 0.35+ 0.32


“fill”

Fig.2.Predictin

gfMRIimages

forgivenstimu

luswords.(A)

Formingapredic

tionforpar-

ticipantP1for

thestimulus

word“celery”aft

ertrainingon

58otherwords.L

earnedcvico-

efficientsfor3of

the25se-

manticfeatures

(“eat,”“taste,”

and“fill”)ared

epictedbythe

voxelcolorsinth

ethreeimages

atthetopofthe

panel.Theco-

occurrencevalue

foreachofthese

featuresforthes

timulusword“ce

lery”isshownto

theleftoftheirre

spectiveimages[

e.g.,thevaluefor

“eat(celery)”is

0.84].Thepredict

edactivationfor

thestimulusword

[shownatthebo

ttomof(A)]isa

linearcombinatio

nofthe25sema

nticfMRIsignatu

res,weightedby

theirco-occurren

cevalues.Thisf

igureshowsjust

onehorizontals

lice[z=

–12mminMont

realNeurologica

lInstitute(MNI)

space]ofthepr

edictedthree-dim

ensionalimage.

(B)Predictedan

dobservedfMR

Iimagesfor

“celery”and“air

plane”aftertrain

ingthatuses58

otherwords.The

twolongredand

blueverticalstre

aksnearthetop

(posteriorregion

)ofthepredicte

dandobs

ervedimagesare

theleftandrigh

tfusiformgyri.

A B

C


Participant P5

Fig.3.Location

sofmostac

curatelypre-

dictedvoxels.S

urface(A)and

glassbrain(B)

renderingofthe

correla-tionbet

weenpredicted

andactualvoxel

activa-tionsfor

wordsoutside

thetrainingsetf

orpar-ticipantP

5.Thesepanelssh

owclusterscontai

ningatleast10c

ontiguousvoxels,

eachofwhose

predicted-actualc

orrelationisatleas

t0.28.Thesevox

elclustersaredis

tributedthrougho

utthecortexan

dlocatedinthele

ftandrightoccip

italandparietal

lobes;leftandri

ghtfusiform,

postcentral,andm

iddlefrontalgyri;

leftinferiorfronta

lgyrus;medialfron

talgyrus;andant

eriorcingulate

.(C)Surfaceren

deringofthepr

edicted-actualcor

relationaveraged

overallnine

participants.This

panelrepresents

clusterscontaining

atleast10contig

uousvoxels,each

withaverage

correlationofatle

ast0.14.

30MAY2008

VOL320SCI

ENCEwww.sc

iencemag.org

1192RESEARCHART

ICLES


Tofullyspecify

amodelwithint

hiscom-

putationalmode

lingframework,o

nemustfirst

defineasetofin

termediateseman

ticfeatures

f 1(w)f 2(w)…f n(w)tobeextract

edfromthetext

corpus.Inthispa

per,eachintermed

iatesemantic

featureisdefined

intermsoftheco

-occurrence

statisticsofthein

putstimuluswo

rdwwitha

particularotherwo

rd(e.g.,“taste”)or

setofwords

(e.g.,“taste,”“tas

tes,”or“tasted”)w

ithinthetext

corpus.Themode

listrainedbythe

applicationof

multipleregressio

ntothesefeature

sf i(w)andthe

observedfMRIim

ages,soastoobt

ainmaximum-

likelihoodestima

tesforthemodel

parametersc vi

(26).Oncetrained,

thecomputational

modelcanbe

evaluatedbygivin

gitwordsoutside

thetraining

setandcomparin

gitspredictedfM

RIimagesfor

thesewordswith

observedfMRIda

ta.Thiscom

putationalmodeli

ngframeworkis

basedontwokey

theoreticalassump

tions.First,it

assumesthesema

nticfeaturesthatd

istinguishthe

meaningsofarbit

raryconcretenoun

sarereflected

inthestatisticsof

theirusewithina

verylargetext

corpus.Thisassum

ptionisdrawnfro

mthefieldof

computationallin

guistics,wherest

atisticalword

distributionsare

frequentlyusedt

oapproximate

themeaningofd

ocumentsandw

ords(14–17).

Second,itassume

sthatthebrainact

ivityobserved

whenthinkinga

boutanyconcrete

nouncanbe

derivedasaweig

htedlinearsumo

fcontributions

fromeachofits

semanticfeatures.

Althoughthe

correctnessofthis

linearityassumpt

ionisdebat-

able,itisconsist

entwiththewide

spreaduseof

linearmodelsin

fMRIanalysis(2

7)andwiththe

assumptionthatf

MRIactivationo

ftenreflectsa

linearsuperpositio

nofcontributions

fromdifferent

sources.Ourtheore

ticalframeworkdo

esnottakea

positiononwheth

ertheneuralactiv

ationencoding

meaningislocali

zedinparticular

corticalre-

gions.Instead,it

considersallcort

icalvoxelsand

allowsthetrainin

gdatatodetermin

ewhichloca-

tionsaresystemat

icallymodulated

bywhichas-

pectsofwordme

anings.

Results.Weevaluated

thiscomputational

mod-elusing

fMRIdatafromn

inehealthy,college

-ageparticipan

tswhoviewed60

differentword-pic

turepairspre

sentedsixtimes

each.Anatomicall

yde-finedreg

ionsofinterestwe

reautomaticallyla

beledaccording

tothemethodolog

yin(28).The60

ran-domlyo

rderedstimuliinc

ludedfiveitems

fromeachof1

2semanticcatego

ries(animals,body

parts,buildings

,buildingparts,clo

thing,furniture,in

sects,kitcheni

tems,tools,vegeta

bles,vehicles,and

otherman-mad

eitems).Areprese

ntativefMRIimage

foreachstim

uluswascreatedb

ycomputingthem

eanfMRIre

sponseoveritssi

xpresentations,a

ndthemeanof

all60oftheserep

resentativeimages

wasthensub

tractedfromeach

[fordetails,see(

26)].Toinstan

tiateourmodeling

framework,wefir

stchoseas

etofintermediate

semanticfeatures.

Tobeeffective,

theintermediatese

manticfeaturesm

ustsimultane

ouslyencodethew

idevarietyofsema

nticcontento

ftheinputstimul

uswordsandfacto

rtheobserved

fMRIactivationin

tomoreprimitivec

om-

Predicted

“celery” = 0.84

“celery”“airplan

e”

Predicted:

Observed:

AB

+...

high

average below average

Predicted “celer

y”:+ 0.35+ 0.32


“fill”

Fig.2.Predicting

fMRIimages

forgivenstimulus

words.(A)

Formingapredict

ionforpar-

ticipantP1fort

hestimulus

word“celery”afte

rtrainingon

58otherwords.Le

arnedc vico-efficients

for3ofthe25s

e-manticfe

atures(“eat,”“tast

e,”and“fill”

)aredepictedby

thevoxelcolo

rsinthethreeima

gesatthetop

ofthepanel.Thec

o-occurrenc

evalueforeacho

fthesefeaturesfor

thestimulusword

“celery”is

showntothelefto

ftheirrespectiveim

ages[e.g.,thevalu

efor“eat(celery)”i

s0.84].The

predictedactivation

forthestimuluswo

rd[shownatthebo

ttomof(A)]isal

inearcombinationo

fthe25semantic

fMRIsignatures,w

eightedby

theirco-occurrence

values.Thisfigure

showsjustonehor

izontalslice[z=

–12mminMontr

ealNeurological

Institute(MNI)spa

ce]ofthepredict

edthree-dim

ensionalimage.(

B)Predictedand

observedfMRIima

gesfor“celery”a

nd“airplane”after

trainingthatuses5

8otherwords.The

twolongredandb

lueverticalstreaks

nearthetop(post

eriorregion)ofthe

predictedandobse

rvedimagesaret

heleftandrightfu

siformgyri.

A B

C


Participant P5

Fig.3.Locations

ofmostac

curatelypre-

dictedvoxels.Sur

face(A)andg

lassbrain(B)

renderingofthecor

rela-tionbetw

eenpredicted

andactualvoxelac

tiva-tionsfor

wordsoutside

thetrainingsetfor

par-ticipantP

5.Thesepanelssho

wclusterscontaining

atleast10contigu

ousvoxels,eachof

whosepredicted-

actualcorrelationis

atleast0.28.These

voxelclustersared

istributedthroughou

tthecortexan

dlocatedinthelef

tandrightoccipit

alandparietallobe

s;leftandrightfu

siform,postcentra

l,andmiddlefronta

lgyri;leftinferiorfr

ontalgyrus;medial

frontalgyrus;anda

nteriorcingulate.

(C)Surfacerenderi

ngofthepredicted-

actualcorrelation

averagedoveralln

ineparticipan

ts.Thispanelrepres

entsclusterscontai

ningatleast10co

ntiguousvoxels,ea

chwithaveragec

orrelationofatleast

0.14.

30MAY2008V

OL320SCIENC

Ewww.science

mag.org1192RESEAR

CHARTICLES


Tofullyspecify

amodelwithin

thiscom-

putationalmode

lingframework

,onemustfirst

defineasetof

intermediatese

manticfeatures

f 1(w)f 2(w)…f n(w)tobeextrac

tedfromthetext

corpus.Inthisp

aper,eachinter

mediatesemanti

cfeature

isdefinedinte

rmsoftheco-o

ccurrence

statisticsofthe

inputstimulus

wordwwitha

particularotherw

ord(e.g.,“taste”

)orsetofword

s(e.g.,“ta

ste,”“tastes,”or

“tasted”)within

thetextcorpus.

Themodelistra

inedbytheappl

icationof

multipleregressio

ntothesefeatu

resf i(w)andthe

observedfMRI

images,soasto

obtainmaximum

-likelihoo

destimatesfor

themodelparam

etersc vi

(26).Oncetraine

d,thecomputatio

nalmodelcanbe

evaluatedbygiv

ingitwordsou

tsidethetrainin

gsetand

comparingitsp

redictedfMRIim

agesforthesew

ordswithobser

vedfMRIdata.

Thiscomputatio

nalmodeling

frameworkis

basedontwok

eytheoreticalas

sumptions.First

,itassumes

thesemanticfea

turesthatdisting

uishthemeaning

sofarbitraryco

ncretenounsare

reflected

inthestatisticso

ftheirusewithi

naverylargetex

tcorpus.

Thisassumption

isdrawnfromthe

fieldofcomputa

tionallinguistic

s,wherestatist

icalword

distributionsare

frequentlyused

toapproximate

themeaningof

documentsand

words(14–17).

Second,itassum

esthatthebrain

activityobserve

dwhenth

inkingaboutan

yconcretenou

ncanbe

derivedasawe

ightedlinearsu

mofcontributio

nsfromea

chofitsseman

ticfeatures.Alth

oughthe

correctnessofth

islinearityassu

mptionisdebat

-able,it

isconsistentw

iththewidesprea

duseof

linearmodelsin

fMRIanalysis(2

7)andwiththe

assumptiontha

tfMRIactivatio

noftenreflects

alinearsu

perpositionofc

ontributionsfrom

differentsources.

Ourtheoreticalfr

ameworkdoesn

ottakeaposition

onwhetherthen

euralactivation

encoding

meaningisloc

alizedinpartic

ularcorticalre

-gions.I

nstead,itconsid

ersallcorticalv

oxelsand

allowsthetrain

ingdatatodeterm

inewhichloca-

tionsaresystem

aticallymodulat

edbywhichas-

pectsofwordm

eanings.

Results.Weevaluate

dthiscomputatio

nalmod-

elusingfMRId

atafromninehea

lthy,college-age

participantswho

viewed60diffe

rentword-pictur

epairspr

esentedsixtime

seach.Anatom

icallyde-

finedregionsofi

nterestwereauto

maticallylabele

daccordin

gtothemethodo

logyin(28).Th

e60ran-

domlyordered

stimuliincluded

fiveitemsfrom

eachof12sema

nticcategories(a

nimals,bodypart

s,building

s,buildingparts

,clothing,furnit

ure,insects,

kitchenitems,to

ols,vegetables,

vehicles,andoth

erman-ma

deitems).Arepr

esentativefMRI

imagefor

eachstimuluswa

screatedbycomp

utingthemean

fMRIresponse

overitssixpres

entations,andth

emeanof

all60oftheser

epresentativeim

ageswas

thensubtractedf

romeach[ford

etails,see(26)]

.Toinsta

ntiateourmodeli

ngframework,w

efirstchosea

setofintermedia

tesemanticfeatu

res.Tobe

effective,theint

ermediatesema

nticfeaturesmu

stsimultan

eouslyencodeth

ewidevarietyof

semanticcontent

oftheinputstim

uluswordsand

factorthe

observedfMRIa

ctivationintomor

eprimitivecom-

Predicted

“celery” = 0.84

“celery”

“airplane”

Predicted:

Observed:

AB

+...

high

average below averag

e

Predicted “cele

ry”:+ 0.35+ 0.32


“fill”

Fig.2.Predictin

gfMRIimages

forgivenstimu

luswords.(A)

Formingapredic

tionforpar-

ticipantP1for

thestimulus

word“celery”aft

ertrainingon

58otherwords.L

earnedcvico-

efficientsfor3of

the25se-

manticfeatures

(“eat,”“taste,”

and“fill”)ared

epictedbythe

voxelcolorsinth

ethreeimages

atthetopofthe

panel.Theco-

occurrencevalue

foreachofthese

featuresforthes

timulusword“ce

lery”isshownto

theleftoftheirre

spectiveimages[

e.g.,thevaluefor

“eat(celery)”is

0.84].Thepredict

edactivationfor

thestimulusword

[shownatthebo

ttomof(A)]isa

linearcombinatio

nofthe25sema

nticfMRIsignatu

res,weightedby

theirco-occurren

cevalues.Thisf

igureshowsjust

onehorizontals

lice[z=

–12mminMont

realNeurologica

lInstitute(MNI)

space]ofthepr

edictedthree-dim

ensionalimage.

(B)Predictedan

dobservedfMR

Iimagesfor

“celery”and“air

plane”aftertrain

ingthatuses58

otherwords.The

twolongredand

blueverticalstre

aksnearthetop

(posteriorregion

)ofthepredicte

dandobs

ervedimagesare

theleftandrigh

tfusiformgyri.

A B

C


Participant P5

Fig.3.Location

sofmostac

curatelypre-

dictedvoxels.S

urface(A)and

glassbrain(B)

renderingofthe

correla-tionbet

weenpredicted

andactualvoxel

activa-tionsfor

wordsoutside

thetrainingsetf

orpar-ticipantP

5.Thesepanelssh

owclusterscontai

ningatleast10c

ontiguousvoxels,

eachofwhose

predicted-actualc

orrelationisatleas

t0.28.Thesevox

elclustersaredis

tributedthrougho

utthecortexan

dlocatedinthele

ftandrightoccip

italandparietal

lobes;leftandri

ghtfusiform,

postcentral,andm

iddlefrontalgyri;

leftinferiorfronta

lgyrus;medialfron

talgyrus;andant

eriorcingulate

.(C)Surfaceren

deringofthepr

edicted-actualcor

relationaveraged

overallnine

participants.This

panelrepresents

clusterscontaining

atleast10contig

uousvoxels,each

withaverage

correlationofatle

ast0.14.

30MAY2008

VOL320SCI

ENCEwww.sc

iencemag.org

1192RESEARCHART

ICLES


…

airplane

dog

noun

s

questions

voxels CMU-Q 2015 79 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

Patterns?








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from








Predicted:

Observed:

A B

+.. .

high

average

belowaverage


+ 0.35 + 0.32




A

B

C

Mean over

participants

Participant P

5




RESEARCH ARTICLES

on

May

30,

200

8 w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from

CMU SCS Neuro-semantics

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3

beetle can it cause you pain?pants do you see it daily?bee is it conscious?


Nouns Questions Nouns Questions

Nouns Questions

beetle can it cause you pain?


Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions

beetle can it cause you pain?bear does it grow?cow is it alive?coat was it ever alive?

bear does it grow?cow is it alive?coat was it ever alive?

glass can you pick it up?tomato can you hold it in one hand?bell is it smaller than a golfball?’


bed does it use electricity?house can you sit on it?car does it cast a shadow?


Figure 4: Turbo-SMT finds meaningful groups of words, questions, and brain regions that are (both negativelyand positively) correlated, as obtained using Turbo-SMT. For instance, Group 3 refers to small items that canbe held in one hand,such as a tomato or a glass, and the activation pattern is very di↵erent from the one ofGroup 1, which mostly refers to insects, such as bee or beetle. Additionally, Group 3 shows high activation in thepremotor cortex which is associated with the concepts of that group.

v

1

and v

2

which were withheld from the training data,the leave-two-out scheme measures prediction accuracyby the ability to choose which of the observed brainimages corresponds to which of the two words. Aftermean-centering the vectors, this classification decisionis made according to the following rule:

kv1 � v̂1k2 + kv2 � v̂2k2 < kv1 � v̂2k2 + kv2 � v̂1k2

Although our approach is not designed to make predic-tions, preliminary results are very encouraging: Usingonly F=2 components, for the noun pair closet/watch

we obtained mean accuracy of about 0.82 for 5 out of the9 human subjects. Similarly, for the pair knife/beetle,we achieved accuracy of about 0.8 for a somewhat dif-ferent group of 5 subjects. For the rest of the humansubjects, the accuracy is considerably lower, however, itmay be the case that brain activity predictability variesbetween subjects, a fact that requires further investiga-tion.

5 Experiments

We implemented Turbo-SMT in Matlab. Our imple-mentation of the code is publicly available.5 For the par-allelization of the algorithm, we used Matlab’s ParallelComputing Toolbox. For tensor manipulation, we used

5http://www.cs.cmu.edu/

~

epapalex/src/turbo_smt.zip

the Tensor Toolbox for Matlab [7] which is optimizedespecially for sparse tensors (but works very well fordense ones too). We use the ALS and the CMTF-OPT[5] algorithms as baselines, i.e. we compare Turbo-

SMT when using one of those algorithms as their coreCMTF implementation, against the plain execution ofthose algorithms. We implemented our version of theALS algorithm, and we used the CMTF Toobox6 im-plementation of CMTF-OPT. We use CMTF-OPT forhigher ranks, since that particular algorithm is moreaccurate than ALS, and is the state of the art. All ex-periments were carried out on a machine with 4 IntelXeon E74850 2.00GHz, and 512Gb of RAM. Wheneverwe conducted multiple iterations of an experiment (dueto the randomized nature of Turbo-SMT), we reporterror-bars along the plots. For all the following experi-ments we used either portions of the BrainQ dataset,or the whole dataset.

5.1 Speedup As we have already discussed in the In-troduction and shown in Fig. 1, Turbo-SMT achievesa speedup of 50-200 on the BrainQ dataset; For allcases, the approximation cost is either same as the base-lines, or is larger by a small factor, indicating thatTurbo-SMT is both fast and accurate. Key facts that

6http://www.models.life.ku.dk/joda/CMTF_Toolbox

80 CMU-Q 2015 (c) 2015, C. Faloutsos

=



50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






Small items -> Premotor cortex

=



50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






Evangelos Papalexakis, Tom Mitchell, Nicholas Sidiropoulos, Christos Faloutsos, Partha Pratim Talukdar, Brian Murphy, Turbo-SMT: Accelerating Coupled Sparse Matrix-Tensor Factorizations by 200x, SDM 2014

Small items -> Premotor cortex

CMU SCS


Roadmap


– P2.1: Discoveries @ phonecall network – P2.2: Discoveries in neuro-semantics – Scalability & Speed

•  Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS Q: spilling to the disk?

Reminder: tensor (eg., Subject-verb-object) 144M non-zeros

NELL (Never Ending Language Learner)

@CMU


26M

26M

48M

CMU SCS A: GigaTensor

Reminder: tensor (eg., Subject-verb-object) 26M x 48M x 26M, 144M non-zeros

NELL (Never Ending Language

Learner)@CMU


U Kang, Evangelos E. Papalexakis, Abhay Harpale, Christos Faloutsos, GigaTensor: Scaling Tensor Analysis Up By 100 Times - Algorithms and Discoveries, KDD’12

CMU SCS

A: GigaTensor

•  GigaTensor solves 100x larger problem

Number of nonzero = I / 50

(J)

(I)

(K)

GigaTensor

Out of Memory

100x


CMU SCS

Part 2: Conclusions

•  Time-evolving / heterogeneous graphs -> tensors

•  PARAFAC finds patterns •  GigaTensor -> fast & scalable


50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






=

CMU SCS


Roadmap


•  Part#1: Patterns in graphs •  Part#2: time-evolving graphs; tensors •  Part#3: Cascades and immunization •  Future directions •  Acknowledgements and Conclusions

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


Thanks

CMU-Q 2015

Thanks to: NSF IIS-0705359, IIS-0534205, CTA-INARC; Yahoo (M45), LLNL, IBM, SPRINT, Google, INTEL, HP, iLab

Disclaimer: All opinions are mine; not necessarily reflecting the opinions of the funding agencies

CMU SCS


Cast

Akoglu, Leman

Chau, Polo

Kang, U

Prakash, Aditya

CMU-Q 2015

Koutra, Danai

Beutel, Alex

Papalexakis, Vagelis

Shah, Neil

Lee, Jay Yoon

Araujo, Miguel

CMU SCS


CONCLUSION#1 – Big data •  Patterns Anomalies

•  Large datasets reveal patterns/outliers that are invisible otherwise

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS


CONCLUSION#2 – tensors

•  powerful tool

CMU-Q 2015

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






=

CMU SCS


References •  D. Chakrabarti, C. Faloutsos: Graph Mining – Laws,

Tools and Case Studies, Morgan Claypool 2012 •  http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/

S00449ED1V01Y201209DMK006

CMU-Q 2015

CMU SCS

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Cross-disciplinarity


50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






=

CMU SCS

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Cross-disciplinarity


Thank you!

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

3000

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Premotor Cortex

50 100 150 200 250

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

Group1

Group 2 Group 4

Group 3




Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions



Nouns Questions








v

1

and v

2





5 Experiments



~






=

mining large graphs and fraud detectionchristos/talks/15-03-qatar/foils-dept-seminar/... · mining...

Documents