1 / 36

Pair-HMMs and CRFs

Pair-HMMs and CRFs. Chuong B. Do CS262, Winter 2009 Lecture #8. Outline. I’ll cover two different topics today pair-HMMs conditional random fields (CRFs) Other resources For more information on pair-HMMs, see the Durbin et al. book For more information on CRFs, see the materials online.

fayola
Download Presentation

Pair-HMMs and CRFs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pair-HMMs and CRFs Chuong B. Do CS262, Winter 2009 Lecture #8

  2. Outline • I’ll cover two different topics today • pair-HMMs • conditional random fields (CRFs) • Other resources • For more information on pair-HMMs, see the Durbin et al. book • For more information on CRFs, see the materials online.

  3. Part I: Pair-HMMs

  4. Quick recap of HMMs • Formally, an HMM = (Σ, Q, A, a0, e). • alphabet: Σ = {b1, …, bM} • set of states: Q = {1, …, K} • transition probabilities: A = [aij] • initial state probabilities: a0i • emission probabilities: ei(bk) • Example: 0.05 0.95 0.95 FAIR LOADED 0.05

  5. 3 basic questions for HMMs • Evaluation: Given a sequence of observations x and a sequence of states π, compute P(x, π) • Decoding: Given a sequence of observations x, compute the maximum probability sequence of states πML = arg maxπ P(x, π) • Learning: Given an HMM with unspecified parameters θ = (A, a0, b), compute the parameters that maximize the likelihood of x and π, i.e., θML = arg maxθ P(x, π | θ)

  6. Pair-HMMs • Roughly speaking, the generalization of HMMs with 1 observation sequence to 2 observation sequences. • Unfortunately, the usage of the term “pair-HMM” has come to mean two very different types of models in computational biology. I’ll talk about both.

  7. Pair-HMMs: Usage #1 • Consider the HMM = (Σ1 x Σ2, Q, A, a0, e). • Alphabet consists of pairs of letters – one letter from Σ1 paired with one letter from Σ2. • Example: Dishonest casino dealer playing two games at once. 0.05 0.95 0.95 HONEST CHEAT 0.05

  8. Pair-HMMs: Usage #1 (continued) • QUESTION: How do we handle the 3 basic questions? (evaluation, decoding, learning) • QUESTION: How would you generalize to 3 sequences? What about K sequences? Why might this be a bad idea? • Where this version of pair-HMMs comes up in practice: • Comparative gene recognition using pairwise alignments • Protein secondary structure prediction using pairwise alignments as input • etc.

  9. Pair-HMMs: Usage #2 • Consider the HMM = ((Σ1 U {η}) x (Σ2 U {η}), Q, A, a0, e). • Similar to Usage #1, except that this time, instead of emitting a pair of letters in every state, in some states we may choose to emit a letter paired with η (the empty string). • For simplicity, we’ll assume that η is never emitted for both observation sequences simultaneously. • We’ll call the two observation sequences x and y.

  10. Application: sequence alignment • Consider the following pair-HMM: 1 – 2 • QUESTION: What are the interpretations of P(c,d) and Q(c) for c,d Σ? • QUESTION: What does this model have to do with alignments? • QUESTION: What is the average length of a gapped region in alignments generated by this model? Average length of matched regions? M P(xi, yj) 1 –  1 –      I P(xi, η) J P(η, yj) optional c Σ, P(η, c) = P(c, η) = Q(c)

  11. Pair-HMMs: Usage #2 (continued) • Key difference from Usage #1: In these pair-HMMs, we cannotrely on the algorithms for single-sequence HMMs in order to do inference.  • However, we can modify the algorithms for single sequence HMMs to work for alignment pair-HMMs. 

  12. Recap: Viterbi for single-sequence HMMs • Algorithm: • Define Vk(i) = max π1 … πi-1 P(x1 … xi-1, π1 … πi-1, xi, πi = k) • Compute using dynamic programming! 1 1 1 1 1 … 2 2 2 2 2 2 … … … … … K K K K K … x1 x2 x3 xK

  13. (Broken) Viterbi for pair-HMMs • In the single sequence case, we defined Vk(i) = max π1 … πi-1 P(x1 … xi-1, π1 … πi-1, xi, πi = k) = ek(xi) ∙ maxjajkVj(i - 1) • QUESTION: What’s the computational complexity of DP? • Observation: In the pairwise case (x1, y1) … (xi -1, yi-1) no longer correspond to the first i– 1 letters of x and y respectively. • QUESTION: Why does this cause a problem in the pair-HMM case?

  14. (Fixed) Viterbi for pair-HMMs • We’ll just consider this special case: • A similar trick can be used when working with the forward/backward algorithms (see Durbin et al for details) • QUESTION: What’s the computational complexity of DP? 1 – 2 • VM(i, j) = P(xi, yj) max • VI(i, j) = Q(xi) max • VJ(i, j) =Q(yj) max (1 - 2δ) VM(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) δ VM(i - 1, j) ε VI(i - 1, j) δ VM(i, j - 1) ε VJ(i, j - 1) M P(xi, yj) 1 –  1 –      I P(xi, η) J P(η, yj) optional c Σ, P(η, c) = P(c, η) = Q(c)

  15. Connection to NW with affine gaps • VM(i, j) = P(xi, yj) max • VI(i, j) = Q(xi) max • VJ(i, j) =Q(yj) max (1 - 2δ) VM(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) δ VM(i - 1, j) ε VI(i - 1, j) δ VM(i, j - 1) ε VJ(i, j - 1) • QUESTION: How would the optimal alignment change if we divided the probability for every single alignment by ∏i=1 … |x| Q(xi) ∏j = 1 … |y| Q(yj)?

  16. Connection to NW with affine gaps VM(i, j) = P(xi, yj) max VI(i, j) = max VJ(i, j) = max (1 - 2δ) VM(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) (1 - ε) VI(i - 1, j - 1) δ VM(i - 1, j) ε VI(i - 1, j) δ VM(i, j - 1) ε VJ(i, j - 1) • Account for the extra terms “along the way.” Q(xi) Q(yj)

  17. Connection to NW with affine gaps log VM(i, j) = P(xi, yj) + max log VI(i, j) = max log VJ(i, j) = max log (1 - 2δ) + log VM(i - 1, j - 1) log (1 - ε) + log VI(i - 1, j - 1) log (1 - ε) + log VI(i - 1, j - 1) log δ + VM(i - 1, j) log ε + VI(i - 1, j) log δ + VM(i, j - 1) log ε + VJ(i, j - 1) • Take logs, and ignore a couple terms. log Q(xi) Q(yj)

  18. Connection to NW with affine gaps M(i, j) = S(xi, yj) + max I(i, j) = max J(i, j) = max M(i - 1, j - 1) I(i - 1, j - 1) J(i - 1, j - 1) d + M(i - 1, j) e + I(i - 1, j) d + M(i, j - 1) e + J(i, j - 1) • Rename!

  19. Summary of pair-HMMs • We briefly discussed two types of pair-HMMs that come up in the literature. • We talked about pair-HMMs for sequence alignment. • We derived a Viterbi inference algorithm for alignment pair-HMMs and showed its rough “equivalence” to Needleman-Wunsch with affine gap penalties.

  20. Part II: Conditional random fields

  21. Motivation • So far, we’ve seen HMMs, a type of probabilistic model for labeling sequences. • For an input sequence x and a parse π, an HMM defines P(π, x) • In practice, when we want to perform inference, however, what we really care about is P(π | x). • In the case of the Viterbi algorithm, arg maxπ P(π | x) = arg maxπ P(x, π). • But when using posterior decoding, need P(π | x). • Why do need to parameterize P(x, π)? If we really are interested in the conditional distribution over possible parses π for a given input x, can’t we just model of P(π | x) directly? • Intuition: P(x, π) = P(x) P(π | x)  why waste effort modeling P(x)?

  22. Conditional random fields • Definition where F : state x state x observations x index  Rn “local feature mapping” w Rn “parameter vector” • Summation is taken over all possible state sequences π’1 … π’|x| • aTb for two vectors a, b  Rn denotes the inner product, ∑i=1 ... n ai bi exp(∑i=1 … |x| wTF(πi, πi-1, x, i)) P(π | x) = ∑π’ exp(∑i=1 … |x| wTF(π’i, π’i-1, x, i)) partition coefficient

  23. Interpretation of weights • Define “global feature mapping” Then, • QUESTION: If all features are nonnegative, what is the effect of increasing some component wj? F(x, π) = ∑i=1 … |x| wTF(πi, πi-1, x, i) exp(wTF(x, π)) P(π | x) = ∑π’ exp(wTF(x, π’))

  24. Relationship with HMMs • Recall that in an HMM, log P(x, π) = log P(π0) + ∑i=1 … |x| [ log P(πi | πi-1) + log P(xi | πi) ] = log a0(π0) + ∑i=1 … |x| [ log a(πi-1, πi) + log eπi(xi) ] • Suppose that we list the logarithms of all the parameters of our model in a long vector w. log a0(1) … log a0(K) log a11 … log aKK log e1(b1) … log eK(bM) w = Rn

  25. Relationship with HMMs log P(x, π) = log a0(π0) + ∑i=1 … |x| [ log a(πi-1, πi) + log eπi(xi) ] (*) • Now, consider a feature mapping with the same dimensionality as w. For each component wj, define Fj to be a 0/1 indicator variable indicating whether the corresponding parameter should be included in scoring x, π at position i: • Then, log P(x, π) = ∑i=1 … |x| wT F(πi, πi-1, x, i). log a0(1) … log a0(K) log a11 … log aKK log e1(b1) … log eK(bM) 1{i = 1 Λπi-1 = 1} … 1{i = 1 Λπi-1 = K} 1{πi-1 = 1 Λπi = 1} … 1{πi-1 = K Λπi = K} 1{xi = b1Λπi = 1} … 1{xi = bMΛπi = K} w = F(πi, πi-1, x, i) = Rn Rn

  26. Relationship with HMMs log P(x, π) = ∑i=1 … |x| wT F(πi, πi-1, x, i) • Equivalently, • Therefore, an HMM can be converted to an equivalent CRF. exp(∑i=1 … |x| wT F(πi, πi-1, x, i)) P(x, π) P(π | x) = = ∑π P(x, π) ∑π’ exp(∑i=1 … |x| wT F(πi, πi-1, x, i))

  27. CRFs ≥ HMMs • All HMMs can be converted to CRFs. But, the reverse does not hold true! • Reason #1: HMM parameter vectors obey certain constraints (e.g., ∑i a0i = 1) but CRF parameter vectors (w) are unconstrained! • Reason #2: CRFs can contain features that are NOT possible to include in HMMs.

  28. CRFS ≥ HMMs (continued) • In an HMM, our features were of the form • I.e., when scoring position i in the sequence, feature only considered the emission xi at position i. • Cannot look at other positions (e.g., xi-1, xi+1) since that would involve “emitting” a character more than once – double-counting of probability! • CRFs don’t have this problem. • Why? Because CRFs don’t attempt to model the observations x! F(πi, πi-1, x, i) = F(πi, πi-1, xi, i)

  29. Examples of non-local features for CRFs • Casino: • Dealer looks at previous 100 positions, and determines whether at least 50 over them had 6’s. Fj(LOADED, FAIR, x, i) = 1{ xi-100 … xi has > 50 6s } • CpG islands: • Gene occurs near a CpG island. Fj(*, EXON, x, i) = 1{ xi-1000 … xi+1000 has > 1/16 CpGs }.

  30. 3 basic questions for CRFs • Evaluation: Given a sequence of observations x and a sequence of states π, compute P(π | x) • Decoding: Given a sequence of observations x, compute the maximum probability sequence of states πML = arg maxπ P(π | x) • Learning: Given a CRF with unspecified parameters w, compute the parameters that maximize the likelihood of π given x, i.e., wML = arg maxw P(π | x, w)

  31. Viterbi for CRFs • Note that: • We can derive the following recurrence: • Notes: • Even though the features may depend on arbitrary positions in x, the sequence x is constant. The correctness of DP depends only on knowing the previous state. • Computing the partition function can be done by a similar adaptation of the forward/backward algorithms. exp(∑i=1 … |x| wTF(πi, πi-1, x, i)) argmaxπ P(π | x) = argmaxπ ∑π’ exp(∑i=1 … |x| wTF(π’i, π’i-1, x, i)) = arg maxπ exp(∑i=1 … |x| wTF(πi, πi-1, x, i)) = arg maxπ ∑i=1 … |x| wTF(πi, πi-1, x, i) • Vk(i) = maxj [ wTF(k, j, x, i) + Vj(i-1) ]

  32. 3 basic questions for CRFs • Evaluation: Given a sequence of observations x and a sequence of states π, compute P(π | x) • Decoding: Given a sequence of observations x, compute the maximum probability sequence of states πML = arg maxπ P(π | x) • Learning: Given a CRF with unspecified parameters w, compute the parameters that maximize the likelihood of π given x, i.e., wML = arg maxw P(π | x, w)

  33. Learning CRFs • Key observation: – log P(π | x, w) is a differentiable, convex function of w convex function f(x) f(y) Any local minimum is a global minimum.

  34. Learning CRFs (continued) • Compute partial derivative of log P(π | x, w) with respect to each parameter wj, and use the gradient ascent learning rule: Gradient points in the direction of greatest function increase w

  35. The CRF gradient • It turns out (you’ll show this on your homework) that • This has a very nice interpretation: • We increase parameters for which the correct feature values are greater than the predicted feature values. • We decrease parameters for which the correct feature values are less than the predicted feature values • This moves probability mass from incorrect parses to correct parses. (/wj) log P(π | x, w) = Fj(x, π) – Eπ’  P(π’ | x, w) [ Fj(x, π’) ] correct value for jth feature expected value for jth feature (given the current parameters)

  36. Summary of CRFs • We described a probabilistic model known as a CRF. • We showed how to convert any HMM into an equivalent CRF. • We mentioned briefly that inference in CRFs is very similar to inference in HMMs. • We described a gradient ascent approach to training CRFs when true parses are available.

More Related