I have trained Gensim's WordToVec on a text corpus,converted it to DocToVec and then used cosine similarity to find the similarity between documents. I need to suggest similar documents. Now suppose among the top 5 suggestions for a particular document, we manually find that 3 of them are not similar.Can this feedback be incorporated in retraining the model?
It's not quite clear what you mean by "converted [a Word2Vec model] to DocToVec". The gensim Doc2Vec class doesn't use or require a Word2Vec model as input.
But, if you have many sets of hand-curated "this is a good suggestion" or "this is a bad suggestion" pairs for your corpus, you can use the model's scoring against all those to compare models, and train many variant models (with different model parameter values like size, window, min_count, sample, etc), picking the one that scores best on your tests.
That sort of automated-parameter-search is the most straightforward way to use performance on real evaluation data to adjust an unsupervised model like Word2Vec.
(Depending on the specifics of your data and problem-domain, you might also start to notice patterns in where the model is better or worse, that help you hand-tune parts of the data preprocessing. For example, a different handling of capitalization or tokenization might be suggested by error cases.)
Related
I am building a model that will predict the lead time of products flowing through a pipeline.
I have a lot of different features, one is a string containing a few words about the purpose of the product (often abbreviations, name of the application it will be a part of and so forth). I have previously not used this field at all when doing feature engineering.
I was thinking that it would be nice to do some type of clustering on this data, and then use the cluster ID as a feature for my model, perhaps the lead time is correlated with the type of info present in that field.
Here was my line of thinking)
1) Cleaning & tokenizing text.
2) TF-IDF
3) Clustering
But after thinking more about it, is it a bad idea? Because the clustering was based on the old data, if new words are introduced in the new data this will not be captured by the clustering algorithm, and the data should perhaps be clustered differently now. Does this mean that I would have to retrain the entire model (k-means model and then the supervised model) whenever I want to predict new data points? Are there any best practices for this?
Are there better ways of finding clusters for text data to use as features in a supervised model?
I understand the urge to use an unsupervised clustering algorithm first to see for yourself, which clusters were found. And of course you can try if such a way helps your task.
But as you have labeled data, you can pass the product description without an intermediate clustering. Your supervised algorithm shall then learn for itself if and how this feature helps in your task (of course preprocessing such as removal of stopwords, cleaining, tokenizing and feature extraction needs to be done).
Depending of your text descriptions, I could also imagine that some simple sequence embeddings could work as feature-extraction. An embedding is a vector of for example 300 dimensions, which describes the words in a manner that hp office printer and canon ink jet shall be close to each other but nice leatherbag shall be farer away from the other to phrases. For example fasText-Word-Embeddings are already trained in english. To get a single embedding for a sequence of hp office printerone can take the average-vector of the three vectors (there are more ways to get an embedding for a whole sequence, for example doc2vec).
But in the end you need to run tests to choose your features and methods!
I'm new to NLP. I'm currently building a NLP system in a specific domain. After training a word2vec and fasttext model on my documents, I found that the embedding is not really good because I didn't feed enough number of documents (e.g. the embedding can't see that "bar" and "pub" is strongly correlated to each other because "pub" only appears a few in the documents). Later, I found a word2vec model online built on that domain-specific corpus which definitely has a way better embedding (so "pub" is more related to "bar"). Is there any way to improve my word embedding using the model I found? Thanks!
Word2Vec (and similar) models really require a large volume of varied data to create strong vectors.
But also, a model's vectors are typically only meaningful alongside other vectors that were trained together in the same session. This is both because the process includes some randomness, and the vectors only acquire their useful positions via a tug-of-war with all other vectors and aspects of the model-in-training.
So, there's no standard location for a word like 'bar' - just a good position, within a certain model, given the training data and model parameters and other words co-populating the model.
This means mixing vectors from different models is non-trivial. There are ways to learn a 'translation' that moves vectors from the space of one model to another – but that is itself a lot like a re-training. You can pre-initialize a model with vectors from elsewhere... but as soon as training starts, all the words in your training corpus will start drifting into the best alignment for that data, and gradually away from their original positions, and away from pure comparability with other words that aren't being updated.
In my opinion, the best approach is usually to expand your corpus with more appropriate data, so that it has "enough" examples of every word important to you, in sufficiently varied contexts.
Many people use large free text dumps like Wikipedia articles for word-vector training, but be aware that its style of writing – dry, authoritative reference texts – may not be optimal for all domains. If your problem-area is "business reviews", you'd probably do best finding other review texts. If it's fiction stories, more fictional writing. And so forth. You can shuffle these other text-soruces in with your data to expand the vocabulary coverage.
You can also potentially shuffle in extra repeated examples of your own local data, if you want it to effectively have relatively more influence. (Generally, merely repeating a small number of non-varied examples can't help improve word-vectors: it's the subtle contrasts of different examples that helps. But as a way to incrementally boost the influence of some examples, when there are plenty of examples overall, it can make more sense.)
I am trying to do document classification. But I am really confused between feature selections and tf-idf. Are they the same or two different ways of doing classification?
Hope somebody can tell me? I am not really sure that my question will make sense to you guys.
Yes, you are confusion a lot of things.
Feature selection is the abstract term for choosing features (0 or 1). Stopword removal can be seen as feature selection.
TF is one method of extracting features from text: counting words.
IDF is one method of assigning weights to features.
Neither of them is classification... they are popular for text classification, but they are even more popular for information retrieval, which is not classification...
However, many classifiers work on numeric data, so the common process is to 1. Extract features (e.g.: TF) 2. Select features (e.g. remove stopwords) 3. Weight features (e.g. IDF) 4. Train a classifier on the resulting numerical vectors. 5. Predict the classes of new/unlabeled documents.
Taking a look at this explanation may help a lot when it comes to understanding text classifiers.
TF-IDF is a good way to find a document that answers a given query, but it does not necessarily assigns documents with classes.
Examples that may be helpful:
1) You have a bunch of documents with subjects ranging from politics, economics, computer science and the arts. The documents belonging to each subject are separated into the appropriate directories for each subject (you have a labeled dataset). Now, you received a new document whose subject you do not know. In which directory should it be stored? A classifier can answer this question from the documents that are already labeled.
2) Now, you received a query regarding computer science. For instance, you received the query "Good methods for finding textual similarity". Which document in the directory of computer science can provide the best response to that query? TF-IDF would be a good approach to figure that out.
So, when you are classifying documents, you are trying to make a decision about whether a document is a member of a particular class (like, say, 'about birds' or 'not about birds').
Classifiers predict the value of the class given a set of features. A good set of features will be highly discriminative - they will tell you a lot about whether the document is of one class or another.
Tf-idf (term frequency inverse document frequency) is a particular feature that seems to be discriminative for document classification tasks. There are others, like word counts (tf or term frequency) or whether a regexp matches the text or what have you.
Feature selection is the task of selecting good (discriminative) features. Tfidf is probably a good feature to select.
I have a classification problem and I need to figure out the best approach to solve it. I have a set of training documents, where some the sentences and/or paragraphs within the documents are labeled with some tags. Not all sentences/paragraphs are labeled. A sentence or paragraph may have more than one tag/label. What I want to do is make some model, where given a new documents, it will give me suggested labels for each of the sentences/paragraphs within the document. Ideally, it would only give me high-probability suggestions.
If I use something like nltk NaiveBayesClassifier, it gives poor results, I think because it does not take into account the "unlabeled" sentences from the training documents, which will contain many similar words and phrases as the labeled sentences. The documents are legal/financial in nature and are filled with legal/financial jargon most of which should be discounted in the classification model.
Is there some better classification algorithm that Naive Bayes, or is there some way to push the unlabelled data into naive bayes, in addition to the labelled data from the training set?
Here's what I'd do to slightly modify your existing approach: train a single classifier for each possible tag, for each sentence. Include all sentences not expressing that tag as negative examples for the tag (this will implicitly count unlabelled examples). For a new test sentence, run all n classifiers, and retain classes scoring above some threshold as the labels for the new sentence.
I'd probably use something other than Naive Bayes. Logistic regression (MaxEnt) is the obvious choice if you want something probabilistic: SVMs are very strong if you don't care about probabilities (and I don't think you do at the moment).
This is really a sequence labelling task, and ideally you'd fold in predictions from nearby sentences too... but as far as I know, there's no principled extension to CRFs/StructSVM or other sequence tagging approaches that lets instances have multiple labels.
is there some way to push the unlabelled data into naive bayes
There is no distinction between "labeled" and "unlabeled" data, Naive Bayes builds simple conditional probabilities, in particular P(label|attributes) and P(no label|attributes) so it is heavily based on used processing pipeline but I highly doubt that it actually ignores the unlabelled parts. If it does so for some reason, and you do not want to modify the code, you can also introduce some artificial label "no label" to all remaining text segments.
Is there some better classification algorithm that Naive Bayes
Yes, NB is in fact the most basic model, and there are dozens better (stronger, more general) ones, which achieve better results in text tagging, including:
Hidden Markov Models (HMM)
Conditional Random Fields (CRF)
in general -Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGM)
I want to text classification based on the keywords appear in the text, because I do not have sample data to use naive bayes for text classification.
Example:
my document has some few words as "family, mother , father , children ... " that the categories of document are family.Or "football, tennis, score ... " that the category is sport
What is the best algorithm in this case ?.And is there any api java for this problem?
What you have are feature labels, i.e., labels on features rather than instances. There are a few methods for exploiting these, but usually it is assumed that one has instance labels (i.e., labels on documents) in addition to feature labels. This paradigm is referred to as dual-supervision.
Anyway, I know of at least two ways to learn from labeled features alone. The first is Generalized Expectation Criteria, which penalizes model parameters for diverging from a priori beliefs (e.g., that "moether" ought usually to correlate with "family"). This method has the disadvantage of being somewhat complex, but the advantage of having a nicely packaged, open-source Java implementation in the Mallet toolkit (see here, specifically).
A second option would basically be to use Naive Bayes and give large priors to the known word/class associations -- e.g., P("family"|"mother") = .8, or whatever. All unlabeled words would be assigned some prior, presumably reflecting class distribution. You would then effectively being making decisions only based on the prevalence of classes and the labeled term information. Settles proposed a model like this recently, and there is a web-tool available.
You likely will need an auxillary data set for this. You cannot rely on your data set to convey the information that "dad" and "father" and "husband" have a similar meaning.
You can try to do mine for co-occurrences to detect near-synonyms, but this is not very reliable.
Probably wordnet etc. are a good place to disambiguate such words.
You can download the freebase topic collection: http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/Topic_API.