 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
A topdown supervised learning approach to hierarchical multilabel classification in networks
Applied Network Science volume 7, Article number: 8 (2022)
Abstract
Node classification is the task of inferring or predicting missing node attributes from information available for other nodes in a network. This paper presents a general prediction model to hierarchical multilabel classification, where the attributes to be inferred can be specified as a strict poset. It is based on a topdown classification approach that addresses hierarchical multilabel classification with supervised learning by building a local classifier per class. The proposed model is showcased with a case study on the prediction of gene functions for Oryza sativa Japonica, a variety of rice. It is compared to the Hierarchical BinomialNeighborhood, a probabilistic model, by evaluating both approaches in terms of prediction performance and computational cost. The results in this work support the working hypothesis that the proposed model can achieve good levels of prediction efficiency, while scaling up in relation to the state of the art.
Introduction
Network representations provide a formal framework to specify relationships between interconnected entities (nodes). In a number of scenarios, such frameworks annotate nodes with attributes to naturally identify groups whose members are related by, e.g., a particular similarity measure. In analyzing networks with node attributes, most studies assume that a node can take a finite number of possible values, each of which is called a class. A class may represent the gender of a user in a social network or the function associated to a protein in a proteinprotein interaction network.
The problem
The task of inferring or predicting missing node attributes from information available for other nodes in a network is called node classification (also referred to as attribute prediction) (Bhagat et al. 2011). Several formulations to the node classification problem have been proposed over the past decades. The problem of inferring an attribute from exactly one of two classes is referred to as binary classification (Khan and Madden 2010). The extension of the binary classification problem to any finite (nonzero) number of classes is referred to as multiclass classification (Mills 2021). Furthermore, each type of problem is categorized as a multilabel classification, if a node is allowed to be simultaneously associated to more than one class (Prajapati et al. 2012).
For most techniques that address the abovementioned problems, node classification is generally carried out independently for each class (AbuElHaija et al. 2019; Bhagat et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2017; Kipf and Welling 2017; Xiao et al. 2021). The main limitation of such compartmentalized approaches is that they ignore hidden relationships among classes, even when certain class relationships may serve as an input to improve the accuracy of attribute prediction.
In practice, classes may have explicit relations specifying their dependencies. For example, this is the case with the Gene Ontology hierarchy because genes and proteins associated to a function must also be associated to the ancestors of such function. The authors in Silla and Freitas (2011), amid this limitation, define dependencies between classes as ancestral relations by means of a hierarchy represented by a directed acyclic graph. A connection from class \(C_1\) to class \(C_2\) in the hierarchy means that every node with attribute \(C_1\) also has attribute \(C_2\) (i.e., the nodes having attribute \(C_1\) are a subclass of the nodes having attribute \(C_2\)).
Formally, a classification problem is considered hierarchical if and only if its hierarchy of classes is a strict partial order (i.e., a strict poset or, equivalently, a directed acyclic graph). A strict poset \((C,\prec )\) over a finite set C of classes defines a binary relation \(\prec\) on C that is asymmetric, antireflexive, and transitive. For instance, the hierarchy of biological processes can be defined over a strict poset according to which the functions cell death, programmed cell death, and apoptotic process are ordered by \(\textit{cell death} \prec \textit{programmed cell death} \prec \textit{apoptotic process}\) (Gene Ontology Consortium 2019). Note that the transitive property of the order \(\prec\) guarantees that cell death is also the ancestor of apoptotic process. Note also that since the strict poset is antireflexive, no process can be ancestor of itself. Finally, the asymmetry property guarantees that apoptotic process cannot be ancestor of programmed cell death. Indeed, any strict poset is isomorphic to a directed acyclic graph (DAG), a concept more closely related to graph and network analysis.
Given a graph with some labeled nodes (i.e., nodes associated to classes) and a class hierarchy, the expected outcome of a hierarchical classification problem is a collection of predicted associations between nodes and classes. An inconsistent prediction for a hierarchical multilabel classification problem refers to the fact that a node is inferred to have a particular class C, but the outcome of the classifier fails to infer the node’s association to all ancestor classes of C. In other words, an inconsistent prediction states that the prediction does not satisfy the ancestral relations for some class C. In many scenarios, it is desirable to rule out inconsistent prediction: that is, if a classifier predicts a particular class C for a node, then it should also predict all the ancestors of C for that node; conversely, if a classifier does not predict C for a node, then it should not predict any of C’s descendants for that node. This constraint is often referred to as the truepath rule in Gene Ontology (Ashburner et al. 2000; Valentini 2009).
The efforts to classify nodes generally aim to comply with the underlying ancestral relations between classes in scenarios where such a hierarchy is known (and thus avoid inconsistent prediction). Consider a social network where nodes represent individuals and node attributes represent different levels of education. If a predictor outputs an individual without an undergraduate degree as candidate to have graduate degree, it fails to comply with the hierarchical organization of educational levels, in many reasonable scenarios, thereby violating the truepath rule.
Hierarchical classification problems may further be categorized depending on the approach used for training the underlying model. On the one hand, a topdown approach involves a binary classifier for each class in the hierarchy. In this case, the classifier associated to each class is trained iteratively from the roots (i.e., the classes without ancestors in the hierarchy) to the leaves (i.e., the classes without descendants in the hierarchy). In addition, local information about the ancestors and descendants of a class in the hierarchy is used to avoid independent predictions. On the other hand, a bigbang approach involves a multilabel classifier that considers the entire hierarchy of ancestral relations at once. The multilabel classifier is trained just once with the information of every class in the hierarchy and its dependencies.
Related work
Several studies have applied both topdown and bigbang approaches across different domains (Jiang et al. 2008; Dimitrovski et al. 2010; Bi and Kwok 2011; RamírezCorona et al. 2016). The authors in Jiang et al. (2008) proposes a topdown approach, called Hierarchical BinomialNeighborhood (HBN), to predict protein functions in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It is shown by the authors that the hierarchical structure of functions can be exploited to completely avoid inconsistent predictions and, at the same time, outperform approaches based on independent class prediction. However, they point out that the main limitation of their approach is the high computational effort required for assigning probability weights to every proteinfunction pair. The authors in RamírezCorona et al. (2016) introduce a topdown approach based on Chained Path Evaluation (CPE), which uses a classifier to train each nonleaf class (i.e., each class with at least one descendant) in the hierarchy. Information on ancestral relations is included in the classifier by adding an extra feature with the prediction of parents of each class. As in Jiang et al. (2008), the computational cost of the CPE model grows exponentially as a function of the number of paths in the hierarchy. The use of bigbang approaches is, in general, also limited by their high computational demands. In Dimitrovski et al. (2010), for example, the authors present a bigbang approach that addresses hierarchical multilabel classification based on Predictive Clustering Trees (PCTs). The computational cost of the PCT approach is directly proportional to the size of the hierarchy.
Other studies address the node classification problem and obtain stateoftheart performance for different case studies (see, e.g., AbuElHaija et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2021; Hamilton et al. 2017; Kipf and Welling 2017; Makrodimitris et al. 2020; Xiao et al. 2021). However, they do not take into account dependencies between classes (hierarchical or not), for they focus on multiclass instead of multilabel problems. For this reason, such developments can not be compared directly to assess hierarchical multilabel classification prediction.
Main contribution
This work introduces a topdown classification approach that addresses hierarchical multilabel classification (HMC) using supervised learning. Given a network \(\mathsf {G}=(V_{\mathsf {G}}, E_{\mathsf {G}})\), an assignment of classes to nodes in the network, and a class hierarchy specified as a directed acyclic graph \(\mathsf {H}=(V_{\mathsf {H}}, E_{\mathsf {H}})\), the hierarchical multilabel classification problem is addressed by building a binary classifier for each class. Classifiers are built iteratively from the roots of the hierarchy to the leaves. The approach uses a correction mechanism to guarantee that the truepath rule is satisfied by the classifier’s outcome; it is enforced by computing cumulative probabilities along the paths of classes in the input hierarchy.
The results in this work support the working hypothesis that the proposed approach can achieve good levels of prediction efficiency, while scaling up in relation to the state of the art. This approach is showcased with a case study on the prediction of gene functions for Oryza sativa Japonica, a variety of rice. It is compared to the probabilistic HBN model (Jiang et al. 2008), by evaluating both approaches in terms of prediction performance (by means of the true positive and true negative rates) and in terms of their computational cost (by means of a comparison of the execution time). In the case study, the prediction task uses two inputs. Namely, (i) a gene coexpression network (GCN), in which a node represents a gene and a class of a node represents a gene function; and (ii) the hierarchical structure of biological processes defined in Gene Ontology Consortium (2019). The goal of the prediction task is to infer gene attributes from 15 subhierarchies grouping 1938 biological processes associated to 19663 genes.
Outline. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. “Section Hierarchical classification” introduces the approach for node classification where classes have a hierarchical organization. “Section Gene function prediction” describes the problem of predicting gene functions. It also presents the results of applying the proposed model to Oryza sativa Japonica. Finally, “Section Conclusion and future work” draws some concluding remarks and future research directions.
Hierarchical classification
This section presents a topdown classification approach in the form of a supervised learning model for hierarchical multilabel classification.
The input of the model are a graph \({\mathsf {G}}=(V_{\mathsf {G}}, E_{\mathsf {G}})\) specifying an undirected network with nodes \(V_{\mathsf {G}}\) and edges \(E_{\mathsf {G}}\), a directed acyclic graph \(\mathsf {H}=(V_{\mathsf {H}}, E_{\mathsf {H}})\), with vertices \(V_{\mathsf {H}}\) and edges \(E_{\mathsf {H}}\) disjoint from \(V_{\mathsf {G}}\) and \(E_{\mathsf {G}}\), respectively, representing the hierarchy of classes, and a function \(\phi : V_G \mapsto 2^{V_{\mathsf {H}}}\) with a partial assignment of classes to nodes in the network. For \(v \in V_{\mathsf {G}}\), the set \(\phi (v) \subseteq V_{\mathsf {H}}\) is the collection of classes initially associated to v. It is assumed that \(\phi\) satisfies the truepath rule for the hierarchy \(\mathsf {H}\), meaning that if a node v satisfies \(C \in \phi (v)\) for a class \(C \in V_{\mathsf {H}}\), then \(\phi (v)\) must contain all the ancestors of C in \(\mathsf {H}\). As mentioned in the introduction, the DAG \(\mathsf {H}\) uniquely represents a strict poset. The goal of the model is then to build a function \(\phi ' : V_G \mapsto 2^{V_{\mathsf {H}}}\) extending \(\phi\) with new assignments of nodes in \(V_{\mathsf {G}}\) to classes in \(V_{\mathsf {H}}\). Figure 1A depicts an example of the input of the model where the nodes of the network \(\mathsf {G}\) are labeled with classes AE and the hierarchy of classes \(\mathsf {H}\) is a DAG. According to the truepath rule, nodes labeled with class E are also related to classes A, B, and C. The objective is to predict new associations between nodes and classes for either nodes with or without labels.
The rest of this section is devoted to describe the main steps behind the construction of the supervised learning model.
Hierarchy normalization
Hierarchies are represented as directed acyclic graphs where, in general, nodes can have any (finite) number of parents. Since the approach presented in this work assumes that every node has at most one parent, a topological traversal algorithm for directed graphs (see, e.g., Knuth 1997) is used to transform \(\mathsf {H}\) into a tree, when required. In this way, the resulting model can take as input any hierarchy.
This algorithm uses the structure of \(\mathsf {H}\) (not its tree version) and its distribution of classes. Given an ancestral relation \(A \rightarrow B\) (i.e., class A is a direct ancestor of class B), a weight w(A, B) for such an edge is defined as the ratio between the number of nodes associated to B (i.e., the size of the set \(\phi ^{1}(B)\)) and the number of nodes associated to A (i.e., the size of the set \(\phi ^{1}(A)\)). Since all nodes associated to B must be associated to A, then by definition each weight w(A, B) is in the range [0, 1]. For any node B with \(n\ge 1\) parents \(A_1,\ldots ,A_n\) in \(\mathsf {H}\) (i.e., \(A_i \rightarrow B\) in \(E_{\mathsf {H}}\), for \(1 \le i \le n\)), the parent of B in the resulting tree is the node \(A_j\) maximizing \(w(A_j, B)\) among all the \(A_i\)’s. Ties are broken arbitrarily. This process can be effectively computed in time and space \(O(V_{\mathsf {H}} + E_{\mathsf {H}})\), namely, in resources linear in the size of \(\mathsf {H}\). Such a process, based on a topologicalsorting traversal, is described in Algorithm 1. Finally, note that the topological sorting of the vertices of \(\mathsf {H}\) in Algorithm 1, can be exploited to compute the value of function \(w(\_,\_)\) by dynamic programming in space \(\Theta (V_{\mathsf {H}})\). More precisely, a function \(\rho : V_{\mathsf {H}} \rightarrow {\mathbb {N}}\) assigning to each class \(B_i\) its number of descendants \(\rho (B_i)\) in \(\mathsf {H}\) can be computed from the direct descendants of \(B_i\), which are processed before \(B_i\) in the topological sorting of \(V_{\mathsf {H}}\).
As an example, consider the hierarchy depicted in Fig. 1B. Note that class E has more than one parent, there exists an ancestral relation from B to E and from C to E (i.e, \(B \rightarrow E\) and \(C \rightarrow E\), respectively). By the truepath rule, nodes associated to class D are also associated to class B, and the ones associated to class E are associated to both B and C. Since there are 4 nodes associated to E, 4 to D, 4 to B, and 2 to C, the weight w(B, E) is 0.33 and the weight w(C, E) is 0.66. Therefore, the topologicalsorting traversal will remove edge \(B \rightarrow E\).
In the rest of this paper, it is assumed that hierarchy \(\mathsf {H}\) is indeed a tree \(\mathsf {T}\).
The model
Given the network \(\mathsf {G}\) and the hierarchy tree \(\mathsf {T}\), the model is built in a process comprising three stages. Figure 2 depicts the general approach.
Stage 0: data preprocessing. In this stage, topological features of \(\mathsf {G}\) and \(\mathsf {T}\), and hierarchical information in \(\mathsf {T}\) are readied and combined for supervised learning.
Classes that are too specific or too general are ignored in the prediction to avoid overfitting and learning bias. In the case study presented in “Section Gene function prediction”, a class is defined as too specific or too general if it is associated to less than 5 or more than 300 genes, respectively (Jiang et al. 2008). As a result, the input hierarchy \(\mathsf {T}\) can be split into several subtrees, each one representing a subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'=(V_{\mathsf {T}'},E_{\mathsf {T}'})\) with \(V_{\mathsf {T}'}\subseteq V_{\mathsf {T}}\) and \(E_{\mathsf {T}'}\subseteq E_{\mathsf {T}}\), over which the model is applied independently. That is, a subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\) is a subset of the classes and ancestral relations in \(\mathsf {T}\). As a matter of fact, this situation arises in the case study presented in “Section Gene function prediction”. Furthermore, each subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\) is associated to the subgraph of \(\mathsf {G}\) consisting of all nodes labeled with the root class of \(\mathsf {T}'\), that is, each subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\) is related to a different subgraph \(\mathsf {G}'=(V_{\mathsf {G}}', E_{\mathsf {G}}')\) with \(V_{\mathsf {G}}'\subseteq V_{\mathsf {G}}\) and \(E_{\mathsf {G}}'\subseteq E_{\mathsf {G}}\). In this way, subhierarchies are considered independent problems with smaller inputs (à la divide and conquer).
For each subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\) in \(\mathsf {T}\), datasets are built based on two types of topological properties, namely, handcrafted features and node embeddings. For the first type, properties of nodes \(V_{\mathsf {G}}'\) such as degree, average neighbor degree, centrality, and eccentricity are computed. Additionally, for each class C in \(\mathsf {T}'\), two features are computed to represent the probability of a node being associated to C and its parent in \(\mathsf {H}\) based on the information of the neighborhood. For C and its parent, a node and its neighbors, and the associations between the neighbors and both classes, these new features represent the ratio between the number of neighbors associated to each class and the total number of neighbors. For the second type of properties, continuous representations capturing the characteristics of the nodes in \(\mathsf {G}'\) (i.e. node embeddings) are computed using node2vec (Grover and Leskovec 2016).
Stage 1: hierarchical classification. This stage comprises a topdown approach combining different supervised machine learning techniques/tools. It builds prediction classifiers for each subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\) independently. The approach uses stratified kfold crossvalidation, the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) (Chawla et al. 2002), hyperparameter tuning (Bergstra and Bengio 2012), and a binary classifier, [e.g. XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin 2016) or graph convolutional networks (Kipf and Welling 2017)]. These techniques are combined sequentially in a pipeline, which is used iteratively from the root to the leaves of each subhierarchy \(\mathsf {T}'\). Note that, since the topdown approach builds a different classifier for each class in the subhierarchy, the proposed model can be used for multiclass and multilabel problems. As a result, nodes can be independently associated to multiple classes.
The combination of the abovementioned techniques/tools makes up the core of the approach; and each technique has a different objective. Stratified kfold aims to overcome overfitting by randomly selecting independent k subsets of the dataset where the distribution of the labels is similar for all folds. In this approach, 5 folds are used for crossvalidation, that is the traintest ratio is 80/20. Oversampling aims to overcome learning bias handling imbalanced datasets for underrepresented classes. SMOTE synthesizes new examples of the minority class from the existing ones. Hyperparameter tuning aims to improve the performance of the prediction by optimizing parameters of the classifier such as, e.g., learning rate, number of estimators, and maximum depth of trees.
Two types of classifiers were used; namely, the XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin 2016) gradient boosting decision trees and graph convolutional networks (Kipf and Welling 2017). XGBoost was chosen for interpretability (Elshawi et al. 2019; Rudin 2019) and graph convolutional networks for stateoftheart performance. In general, any other binary classifier can be used in this stage. The typical parameter values used for XGBoost classifiers are: gbtree booster, area under PrecisionRecall (aucpr) evaluation metric, learning rate (eta) of 0.05, maximum tree depth (max_depth) of 6, subsample ratio (subsample) of 0.9, and minimum sum of instance weight in a child (min_child_weight) of 3. For the graph convolutional networks, the implementation by Data61 (2018) was used with the following parameters: 16 layers of 16 units each, RelU activation function, dropout rate of 50%, learning rate of 0.01, and binary crossentropy loss function. Further details of the implementation can be founded in the repository https://github.com/migueleci/node_classification.
Classifiers for each class in \(\mathsf {T}'\) are built independently, so that there is no relation between their predictions. Including information from the ancestors of a class C into its classifier is not enough to avoid inconsistent predictions. For this reason, a correction mechanism is included in this stage. Since ensuring the truepath rule is key in the proposed approach, this stage computes cumulative probabilities along the paths of classes in \(\mathsf {T}'\). Namely, the probability of association between a node v and C is directly related to the predicted probabilities of the node being associated to all ancestors of C. Intuitively, the principle is as follows: if the probability of association of C to v is close to zero, then the probability of association for all descendant classes of C to v will be close to zero as well. The main consequence of enforcing the principle is that the classification computed from the cumulative probability satisfies the truepath rule and removes the inconsistencies in the prediction.
Stage 2: performance evaluation. This stage comprises the evaluation of the metrics used for measuring the prediction performance of the classifiers. Performance evaluation focuses on recall (true positive rate) and precision scores. It also evaluates the precisionrecall curve instead of the accuracy, loss, or ROC curves. This is mainly because datasets are often imbalanced (w.r.t. the positive class in a binary classification), thus both positive and negative classes of the binary classifier need to be analyzed separately. Recall and precision scores are computed from the predicted cumulative probabilities as a function of the optimum threshold, which is defined as the threshold that maximizes the F1 score from the precisionrecall curve for the cumulative probabilities.
Gene function prediction
This section presents a case study on the prediction of gene functions (i.e., biological processes in which genes are involved) for the Oryza sativa Japonica rice variety. First, the problem of predicting gene functions is introduced. Then, the results after applying the approach proposed in Section 2 to this problem are described. The probabilistic approach, proposed in Jiang et al. (2008), is used to compare the novel results.
Gene coexpression networks
Highthroughput sequencing technologies have enabled the identification of numerous genes and gene products. However, biological processes in which many such genes are involved remain largely unknown (i.e., relations between genes and biological processes have not been comprehensively validated through in vivo experimentation) (Ranganathan et al. 2019). Identifying the functions of genes is key to enhance the understanding on how to characterize the genome of a particular organism. In general, traditional in silico approaches to predict gene functions consider each function as an independent class. The task is generally defined as a binary classification problem based on gene expression.
Genes (or gene products) can be associated to more than one biological process and such processes may be related (e.g., by ancestral relationships). The assignment of functions to genes obeys the truepath rule (Valentini 2009). Consequently, efforts to predict whether a gene is associated to a particular function should consider the ancestral relations of that function. Ignoring such a hierarchical structure leads to biological inconsistencies in the outcome of the prediction. On the contrary, when a gene is associated to multiple biological processes without ancestral relations, the prediction is done for each one of the functions independently.
As an example, consider two biological processes in which a gene may be involved: response to external stimulus and detection of light stimulus. According to the hierarchy of biological processes in Fig. 3, the former function is an ancestor of the latter (Ashburner et al. 2000). By the truepath rule, if a gene is associated to detection of light stimulus, it must be associated to response to external stimulus.
In addition, a common approach to integrate large volumes of transcriptional data and synthesize the hierarchical structure of gene functions is to characterize gene coexpression networks (GCNs). GCNs have been used to infer biological processes and pathways based on highly correlated expression patterns between genes (Oti et al. 2008; Dam et al. 2017; Vandepoele et al. 2009). It is wellknown that coexpressed genes, i.e., genes with similar expression profiles, tend to share the same function or be related to the same regulatory pathway (Emamjomeh et al. 2017; Serin et al. 2016; Zhou et al. 2002).
Predicting gene functions in Oryza sativa Japonica
The goal of this case study is to predict gene functions, that is, the biological processes in which some genes are involved. The problem is tackled by using the model proposed in Section 2 on the GNC of Oryza sativa Japonica (Obayashi et al. 2018) and a hierarchy of biological processes for this organism (Sakai et al. 2013). The computational experiments supporting the results in this section have been executed in a cluster with 5 nodes, each one with 64GB of memory and a AMD Opteron\(^{\mathrm{TM}}\) Processor 6376 with 64 CPU cores.
Formally, a gene coexpression network is represented as a undirected, weighted graph \(\mathsf {G}=(V_G,E_G,f)\), built from empirical data, where genes are represented by nodes \(V_G\), edges \(E_G\) denote coexpression relationships, and the weight \(f:E_G \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}_{\ge 0}\) measures the level of coexpression between genes. Additionally, the graph \(\mathsf {H}=(V_H,E_H)\) is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) which represents the hierarchical organization of biological processes, where \(E_H\) represents the ancestral relations between functions. Genes are associated to one or more biological processes through a function \(\phi : V_G \rightarrow 2^{V_H}\), where \(V_H\) denotes the set of all biological processes. The predictive model combines the existing set of labels in \(\phi\), topological properties of \(\mathsf {G}\) and the hierarchical information of \(\mathsf {H}\) to obtain a new labeling function \(\phi '\) using the hierarchical multilabel classification approach. As a result, the function \(\phi '\) contains suggestions of previously unidentified associations between genes and functions satisfying the truepath rule.
The set of known associations between genes and functions used in this work contains 19663 rice genes, 550813 coexpression relations, 3743 biological processes, 220598 assignments of functions to genes, and 7185 ancestral relations of functions (all biological processes belong to the same hierarchy). To avoid overfitting and learning bias in the proposed model, only those functions associated to more than 4 and at most 300 genes are considered (Jiang et al. 2008). Under this criterion, 1938 functions (52%) are used for prediction. As a result, the function hierarchy breaks down into 27 subhierarchies, from which 12 correspond to isolated functions or small subhierarchies (fewer than 7 functions). The 15 remaining subhierarchies are described in Table 1, sorted from the smallest to the largest in terms of the number of functions \(V_{\mathsf {T}'}\) and number genes associated with each of them.
The prediction performance of the proposed approach is compared with the HBN model presented in Jiang et al. (2008). The HBN model uses a topdown approach that integrates relational data of proteinprotein interaction network (PPI) with the hierarchical data of biological processes with the objective of predicting protein functions. For this case study, the HBN model is adapted to the problem of predicting gene functions based on GCNs. To predict the probability of a gene g being associated to function A, the local neighborhood information of g in the GCN and the ancestors of A in the hierarchy are considered. The HBN model computes the probability of gene g being associated to function A obeying the truepath rule.
The figures in this section show the mean performance for the proposed approach and the HBN model between multiple experiments, in which each experiment represents the mean performance between the k folds used for crossvalidation. In all of them, the variation (error bar o standard deviation) is not included because it is negligible (and can add visual noise to the plots). Figure 4 illustrates the performance of the proposed approach using XGBoost (XGB) and graph convolutional network (GraphCN) classifiers and the HBN model measured with the area under the ROC curve and the average precision score. Note that their performance seem to be similar in most subhierarchies and it is not possible to conclude which one performs better from Fig. 4. However, since only biological processes associated to more than 4 and less than 300 genes are considered (less than 2% of the genes in the GCN), datasets generated for the filtered biological processes are highly imbalanced. For this reason, the area under the ROC curve is not suitable for the case study (this measured is biased for the overrepresented class in the classification task), and the analysis should focus on other metrics such as recall and F1 score instead.
An outstanding difference between the performance of the proposed approach and the HBN model is observed when the confusion matrices are analyzed. Figure 5 shows the true positive rate (or the measure of recall) and the true negative rate for the 15 subhierarchies. Note that the true positive rate of the proposed approach is higher than the HBN model for most of the subhierarchies, whereas the true negative rate of the HBN model is higher for all subhierarchies. However, the HBN model is biased for the negative class because the probability predicted by the HBN model for most of the associations between genes and functions is close to zero. As the datasets are highly imbalanced, the performance in terms of the positive class are key to determine which approach is adequate. Recall that a dataset is said to be imbalanced for binary classification if one of the classes is underrepresented in relation to the other one, i.e., the number of instances related to one class is much higher than the number of instances related to the other. For example, a dataset with 1000 instances that has 900 negative and 100 positive samples is imbalanced.
The true positive rate illustrated in Fig. 5 shows that the proposed approach outperforms the HBN model in the identification of the (positive) associations between genes and functions. The performance varies between XGBoost and graph convolutional networks, but both classifiers have better overall performance than the HBN model. The results suggest that graph convolutional networks are better for small subhierarchies, while XGBoost is better for larger ones. Even though the true negative rate of the HBN model is close to 1 for all subhierarchies, as illustrated on Fig. 5, the performance of the proposed approach in terms of the average of both recall and precision (i.e., F1 score) is better than the HBN model. Figure 6 presents the F1 score of the proposed approach and the HBN model for the 15 subhierarchies. In this case study there is no observable correlation between the size/depth/span of a hierarchy and the prediction performance, according to the experiments. This is coherent with the overall computational complexity of the algorithms. On the other hand, there is no experimental evidence to suggest that some degree of correlation exists between the number of label nodes and the prediction performance. However, these observations need to be further investigated with other case studies.
Finally, the execution time of the proposed approach and the HBN model is illustrated on Fig. 7. The execution time for the graph convolutional network classifier is not included because the experiments were executed on CPUs rather than GPU. It is known that neural networks run much faster on GPUs; thus, it would not be fair to make a comparison with the available data. Note that the execution time is measured in seconds and plotted on a logarithmic scale. Except for the smallest subhierarchy (GO:0040007), the execution time of the proposed approach, using XGBoost classifier, is better than the HBN model. On average, the execution time of the HBN model is approximately 4 times as much of the proposed approach.
Conclusion and future work
By combining different techniques from machine learning, the hierarchical multilabel classification model presented in this paper introduces an approach to address the node classification problem for scenarios in which nodes can have attributes obeying a hierarchical organization. Taken into account hierarchical dependencies is shown to be a key aspect for obtaining more consistent predictions that satisfy the truepath rule.
A baseline comparison between the proposed approach using two different classification methods, namely, gradient boosting decision trees and graph convolutional networks, and the HBN model introduced by Jiang et al. (2008) is presented. Both approaches are applied to the problem of predicting gene function on the variety of rice Oryza sativa Japonica. The proposed hierarchical multilabel classification approach outperforms the HBN model in two aspects. First, using topological information of the network is a key feature to obtain the overall best performance of the prediction. In such setting, the true positive rates of the proposed approach are significantly higher than the HBN model, whereas the true negative rates yield similar values (close to one). This result suggests that the proposed approach can lead to good prediction of associations between genes and functions in Oryza sativa Japonica and, potentially, in other organisms.
For scenarios in which the classes of the hierarchy are underrepresented, i.e., datasets are imbalanced, it is important to center the performance analysis on metrics that are not biased by the imbalanced dataset. Such metrics include the true positive rate (or the measure of recall), the true negative rate, and the F1score. Other widelyused metrics, like the area under ROC curve and the measure of average precision, are misleading for evaluating the performance of a classifier under such conditions.
Second, the execution time of the proposed approach for the XGBoost classifier is, on average, 4 times better than that of the HBN model. The reduction in computational cost of the proposed topdown approach can be attributed to the fact that it predicts the probability of associations between a class and every node of the network at the same time. Also, the efficient computation of the DAG into a tree helps in making the proposed approach relevant to analyze larger networks and hierarchies.
Finally, although the performance of the proposed approach is promising, it requires to gather sufficient information from node classes, which in some cases is incomplete or unavailable. For example, information about gene functions is limited for many genes and gene products. For some organisms there is no such information available at all. The shortage of information may lead to overfitting or learning bias in the approach, and consequently to misleading conclusions. Including other networks as additional sources of information for the classification problem seems to be interesting for future work. Other networks can be added with the help of transfer learning techniques. For example, by creating new features that aggregate the information extracted from other networks that can be integrated in the proposed approach as additional input to improve the prediction performance. Furthermore, other approaches such as semisupervised and transductive learning can also be considered for future work to handle the amount of data required for training.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets analyzed for the current study are publicly available from different sources. They can be found in the following locations: (i) Gene coexpression data of Oryza sativa Japonica is available on ATTEDII (Obayashi et al. 2018). (ii) Functional data of rice genes is available on Sakai et al. (2013) and Kurata and Yamazaki (2006). The data collected, cleaned, and processed from the above sources as used in the case study can be requested to the authors. A workflow implementation is publicly available: (i) Project name: Node Classification (ii) Project home page: https://github.com/migueleci/node_classification (iii) Operating system(s): platform independent. (iv) Programming language: Python 3. (v) Other requirements: None. (vi) License: GNU GPL v3.
Abbreviations
 DAG:

Directed acyclic graph
 GO:

Gene ontology
 GCN:

Gene coexpression network
 HBN:

Hierarchical binomialneighborhood
 HMC:

Hierarchical multilabel classification
 ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic
 SMOTE:

Synthetic minority oversampling technique
References
AbuElHaija S, Perozzi B, Kapoor A, Lee J (2019) Ngcn: Multiscale graph convolution for semisupervised node classification. In: Conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI)
Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, IsselTarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G (2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nat Genet 25(1):25–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/75556
Bergstra J, Bengio Y (2012) Random search for hyperparameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res 13(10):281–305
Bhagat S, Cormode G, Muthukrishnan S (2011) Node classification in social networks. In: Aggarwal CC (ed) Social network data analytics. Springer US, Boston, pp 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781441984623_5
Bi W, Kwok JT (2011) Multilabel classification on tree and dagstructured hierarchies. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on international conference on machine learning. ICML’11. Omnipress, Madison, pp 17–24
Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP (2002) SMOTE: synthetic minority oversampling technique. J Arti Intell Res 16:321–357. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953. arXiv:1106.1813
Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 785–794 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785. arXiv:1603.02754
Chen Q, Li Y, Tan K, Qiao Y, Pan S, Jiang T, Chen YPP (2021) Networkbased methods for gene function prediction. Brief Funct Genomics 20(4):249–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/bfgp/elab006
Data61 C (2018) StellarGraph Machine Learning Library. GitHub
Dimitrovski I, Kocev D, Loskovska S, Džeroski S (2010) Detection of visual concepts and annotation of images using ensembles of trees for hierarchical multilabel classification. In: Ünay D, Çataltepe Z, Aksoy S (eds) Recognizing patterns in signals, speech, images and videos, vol 6388. Springer, Berlin, pp 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642177118_16
Elshawi R, AlMallah MH, Sakr S (2019) On the interpretability of machine learningbased model for predicting hypertension. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 19(1):146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1291101908740
Emamjomeh A, Saboori Robat E, Zahiri J, Solouki M, Khosravi P (2017) Gene coexpression network reconstruction: a review on computational methods for inferring functional information from plantbased expression data. Plant Biotechnol Rep 11(2):71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s118160170433z
Gene Ontology Consortium (2019) The Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong. Nucleic Acids Research 47(D1):330–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1055
Grover A, Leskovec J (2016) node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. arXiv:1607.00653
Hamilton WL, Ying R, Leskovec J (2017) Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In: Proceedings of the 31st international conference on neural information processing systems, NIPS’17, pp. 1025–1035. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook
Jiang X, Nariai N, Steffen M, Kasif S, Kolaczyk ED (2008) Integration of relational and hierarchical network information for protein function prediction. BMC Bioinform 9(1):350. https://doi.org/10.1186/147121059350
Khan SS, Madden MG (2010) A survey of recent trends in one class classification. In: Coyle L, Freyne J (eds) Artificial intelligence and cognitive science, vol 6206. Springer, Berlin, pp 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642170805_21
Kipf TN, Welling M (2017) Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In: International conference on learning representations (ICLR)
Knuth DE (1997) The art of computer programming, 3rd edn. AddisonWesley, Reading
Kurata N, Yamazaki Y (2006) Oryzabase. An integrated biological and genome information database for rice. Plant Physiol 140(1):12–17. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.063008
Makrodimitris S, van Ham RCHJ, Reinders MJT (2020) Automatic gene function prediction in the 2020’s. Genes 11(11):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11111264
Mills P (2021) Solving for multiclass: a survey and synthesis. arXiv:1809.05929 [cs, stat] . arXiv:1809.05929
Obayashi T, Aoki Y, Tadaka S, Kagaya Y, Kinoshita K (2018) ATTEDII in 2018: a plant coexpression database based on investigation of the statistical property of the mutual rank index. Plant Cell Physiol 59(1):3–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcx191
Oti M, van Reeuwijk J, Huynen MA, Brunner HG (2008) Conserved coexpression for candidate disease gene prioritization. BMC Bioinform 9(1):208. https://doi.org/10.1186/147121059208
Prajapati P, Thakkar A, Ganatra A (2012) A survey and current research challenges in multilabel classification methods. Int J Soft Comput Eng (IJSCE) 2(1):248–252
RamírezCorona M, Sucar LE, Morales EF (2016) Hierarchical multilabel classification based on path evaluation. Int J Approx Reason 68:179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2015.07.008
Ranganathan S, Gribskov MR, Nakai K, Schönbach C (2019) Encyclopedia of bioinformatics and computational biology. Elsevier, OCLC: 1052465484
Rudin C (2019) Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nat Mach Intell 1(5):206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s422560190048x
Sakai H, Lee SS, Tanaka T, Numa H, Kim J, Kawahara Y, Wakimoto H, Yang CC, Iwamoto M, Abe T, Yamada Y, Muto A, Inokuchi H, Ikemura T, Matsumoto T, Sasaki T, Itoh T (2013) Rice annotation project database (RAPDB): an integrative and interactive database for rice genomics. Plant Cell Physiol 54(2):6–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcs183
Serin EAR, Nijveen H, Hilhorst HWM, Ligterink W (2016) Learning from coexpression networks: possibilities and challenges. Front Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00444
Silla CN, Freitas AA (2011) A survey of hierarchical classification across different application domains. Data Min Knowl Disc 22(1–2):31–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1061801001759
Valentini G (2009) True path rule hierarchical ensembles. In: Benediktsson JA, Kittler J, Roli F (eds) Multiple classifier systems, vol 5519. Springer, Berlin, pp 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642023262_24
van Dam S, Võsa U, van der Graaf A, Franke L, de Magalhães JP (2017) Gene coexpression analysis for functional classification and genedisease predictions. Brief Bioinform. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw139
Vandepoele K, Quimbaya M, Casneuf T, De Veylder L, Van de Peer Y (2009) Unraveling transcriptional control in arabidopsis using cisregulatory elements and coexpression networks. Plant Physiol 150(2):535–546. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.136028
Xiao S, Wang S, Dai Y, Guo W (2021) Graph neural networks in node classification: survey and evaluation. Mach Vis Appl 33(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138021012510
Zhou X, Kao MCJ, Wong WH (2002) Transitive functional annotation by shortestpath analysis of gene expression data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(20):12783–12788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.192159399
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
This work was funded by the OMICAS program: Optimización Multiescala Insilico de Cultivos Agrícolas Sostenibles (Infraestructura y Validación en Arroz y Caña de Azúcar), anchored at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Cali and funded within the Colombian Scientific Ecosystem by The World Bank, the Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, the Colombian Ministry of Education and the Colombian Ministry of Industry and Turism, and ICETEX, under GRANT ID: FP448422172018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.R. proposed the original idea. J.F. and C.R. provide advice on algorithms concepts and implementation. M.R. structured the methodology and performed the analysis. M.R., J.F., and C.R. wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ information
Miguel Romero Ph.D. Student in Engineering and Applied Sciences at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, in Cali (Colombia). He earned a B.S. degree in Economics and Systems Engineering from the Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería, Bogotá (Colombia). He has experience in rewrite logic, network analysis, algorithms, and competitive programming. He works on the development of mathematical models and algorithms that allow identifying, from insilico omic characterization, the expression of phenotypic traits in different varieties of crops.
Jorge Finke Professor in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, in Cali (Colombia). He earned a B.S., a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. degree in Systems theory from The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. More than 10 years of experience in developing representations of complex, largescale data, and innovative approaches to predictive modeling and analysis, including cuttingedge research in academia as well as realworld consulting for companies across multiple industries. My motivation is to discover new and disruptive opportunities that enable organizations to solve problems and achieve strategic goals.
Camilo Rocha Associate Professor in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, in Cali (Colombia). Starting February 2020, he have been appointed Dean of Engineering and Sciences. He earned a B.S. and a M.Sc. degree in Informatics from the Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá), and a M.Sc. degree in Mathematics and a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. His main research interests are in formal methods, algorithms, and software engineering, more specifically on techniques for building reliable software systems.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Romero, M., Finke, J. & Rocha, C. A topdown supervised learning approach to hierarchical multilabel classification in networks. Appl Netw Sci 7, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109022004453
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109022004453
Keywords
 Hierarchical classification
 Supervised learning
 XGBoost
 Topdown approach
 Oryza sativa
 Gene function prediction