I've seen some posts say that the average of the word vectors perform better in some tasks than the doc vectors learned through PV_DBOW. What is the relationship between the document's vector and the average/sum of its words' vectors? Can we say that vector d
is approximately equal to the average or sum of its word vectors?
Thanks!
No. The PV-DBOW vector is calculated by a different process, based on how well the PV-DBOW-vector can be incrementally nudged to predict each word in the text in turn, via a concurrently-trained shallow neural network.
But, a simple average-of-word-vectors often works fairly well as a summary vector for a text.
So, let's assume both the PV-DBOW vector and the simple-average-vector are the same dimensionality. Since they're bootstrapped from exactly the same inputs (the same list of words), and the neural-network isn't significantly more sophisticated (in its internal state) than a good set of word-vectors, the performance of the vectors on downstream evaluations may not be very different.
For example, if the training data for the PV-DBOW model is meager, or meta-parameters not well optimized, but the word-vectors used for the average-vector are very well-fit to your domain, maybe the simple-average-vector would work better for some downstream task. On the other hand, a PV-DBOW model trained on sufficient domain text could provide vectors that outperform a simple-average based on word-vectors from another domain.
Note that FastText's classification mode (and similar modes in Facebook's StarSpace) actually optimizes word-vectors to work as parts of a simple-average-vector used to predict known text-classes. So if your end-goal is to have a text-vector for classification, and you have a good training dataset with known-labels, those techniques are worth considering as well.
Related
What is the difference between word2vec and glove?
Are both the ways to train a word embedding? if yes then how can we use both?
Yes, they're both ways to train a word embedding. They both provide the same core output: one vector per word, with the vectors in a useful arrangement. That is, the vectors' relative distances/directions roughly correspond with human ideas of overall word relatedness, and even relatedness along certain salient semantic dimensions.
Word2Vec does incremental, 'sparse' training of a neural network, by repeatedly iterating over a training corpus.
GloVe works to fit vectors to model a giant word co-occurrence matrix built from the corpus.
Working from the same corpus, creating word-vectors of the same dimensionality, and devoting the same attention to meta-optimizations, the quality of their resulting word-vectors will be roughly similar. (When I've seen someone confidently claim one or the other is definitely better, they've often compared some tweaked/best-case use of one algorithm against some rough/arbitrary defaults of the other.)
I'm more familiar with Word2Vec, and my impression is that Word2Vec's training better scales to larger vocabularies, and has more tweakable settings that, if you have the time, might allow tuning your own trained word-vectors more to your specific application. (For example, using a small-versus-large window parameter can have a strong effect on whether a word's nearest-neighbors are 'drop-in replacement words' or more generally words-used-in-the-same-topics. Different downstream applications may prefer word-vectors that skew one way or the other.)
Conversely, some proponents of GLoVe tout that it does fairly well without needing metaparameter optimization.
You probably wouldn't use both, unless comparing them against each other, because they play the same role for any downstream applications of word-vectors.
Word2vec is a predictive model: trains by trying to predict a target word given a context (CBOW method) or the context words from the target (skip-gram method). It uses trainable embedding weights to map words to their corresponding embeddings, which are used to help the model make predictions. The loss function for training the model is related to how good the model’s predictions are, so as the model trains to make better predictions it will result in better embeddings.
The Glove is based on matrix factorization techniques on the word-context matrix. It first constructs a large matrix of (words x context) co-occurrence information, i.e. for each “word” (the rows), you count how frequently (matrix values) we see this word in some “context” (the columns) in a large corpus. The number of “contexts” would be very large, since it is essentially combinatorial in size. So we factorize this matrix to yield a lower-dimensional (word x features) matrix, where each row now yields a vector representation for each word. In general, this is done by minimizing a “reconstruction loss”. This loss tries to find the lower-dimensional representations which can explain most of the variance in the high-dimensional data.
Before GloVe, the algorithms of word representations can be divided into two main streams, the statistic-based (LDA) and learning-based (Word2Vec). LDA produces the low dimensional word vectors by singular value decomposition (SVD) on the co-occurrence matrix, while Word2Vec employs a three-layer neural network to do the center-context word pair classification task where word vectors are just the by-product.
The most amazing point from Word2Vec is that similar words are located together in the vector space and arithmetic operations on word vectors can pose semantic or syntactic relationships, e.g., “king” - “man” + “woman” -> “queen” or “better” - “good” + “bad” -> “worse”. However, LDA cannot maintain such linear relationship in vector space.
The motivation of GloVe is to force the model to learn such linear relationship based on the co-occurreence matrix explicitly. Essentially, GloVe is a log-bilinear model with a weighted least-squares objective. Obviously, it is a hybrid method that uses machine learning based on the statistic matrix, and this is the general difference between GloVe and Word2Vec.
If we dive into the deduction procedure of the equations in GloVe, we will find the difference inherent in the intuition. GloVe observes that ratios of word-word co-occurrence probabilities have the potential for encoding some form of meaning. Take the example from StanfordNLP (Global Vectors for Word Representation), to consider the co-occurrence probabilities for target words ice and steam with various probe words from the vocabulary:
As one might expect, ice co-occurs more frequently with solid than it
does with gas, whereas steam co-occurs more frequently with gas than
it does with solid.
Both words co-occur with their shared property water frequently, and both co-occur with the unrelated word fashion infrequently.
Only in the ratio of probabilities does noise from non-discriminative words like water and fashion cancel out, so that large values (much greater than 1) correlate well with properties specific to ice, and small values (much less than 1) correlate well with properties specific of steam.
However, Word2Vec works on the pure co-occurrence probabilities so that the probability that the words surrounding the target word to be the context is maximized.
In the practice, to speed up the training process, Word2Vec employs negative sampling to substitute the softmax fucntion by the sigmoid function operating on the real data and noise data. This emplicitly results in the clustering of words into a cone in the vector space while GloVe’s word vectors are located more discretely.
I am trying to Classify Document Vector pairs (Doc2Vec, 300 Features per Document) as similar/not similar. I tried Distance Messures (Cosine etc.) with additional Features like document size etc. but did not achieve perfect results, especially because I suspect, that only some of the features are meaningful for my problem.
What is the simple, but effective way to feed two vectors to a Classifier (LogisticRegression, SVM etc.)
I already tested the subtraction of one vector from the other and use the absolute result as feature vector: abs(vec1 -vec2) but this was worse than distance messures
I also tried the concatenation of both vectors, also with worse results. I suspect the doubling of dimension will increase the need of training samples, at least for some classifiers?
Is there a state-of-the-art way to classify similaritys or relationships between feature vectors? Or if there are concurent methods, which one is to prefer for which problem/classifier?
Generally, you'd aim for your vectorization of the documents (eg via Doc2Vec) to give vectors where the similarities between vectors are a useful continuous similarity measure. (Most often this is cosine-similarity, but in some cases euclidean-distance may be worth trying as well.)
If the vectors coming out of the Doc2Vec stage don't already exhibit that, the first thing to do would be to debug and optimize that process. That could involve:
double-checking everything, including logged output of the process, for errors
tweaking document preprocessing, to perhaps ensure salient document features are retained and noise discarded
tuning Doc2Vec meta-parameters and modes, to ensure the resulting vectors are sensitive to the kinds of similarity that are important in your end-goals.
It'd be hard to say more about improving that step without more details about your data size and character, Doc2Vec choices/code so far, and end-goals.
How are you deciding whether two documents are "similar enough" or not? How much such evaluative data do you have to help score different Doc2Vec models in a repeatable, quantitative way. (Being able to do such automated scoring will let you test far more Doc2Vec permutations.) Are there examples of doc pairs where simple doc-vector cosine-similarity is working well, or not working well?
I see two red flags in the word you've chosen so far:
"did not achieve perfect results" - getting "perfect" results is an unrealistic goal. You want to find something close to the state of the art, given the resources & tolerance-for-complexity of your project
"300 Features per Document" - Doc2Vec doesn't really find "300 Features" that are independent. It's a single 300-dimensional "dense" "embedded" vector. Every direction – not just the 300 axes – may be meaningful. So even if certain "directions" are more significant for your needs, they're unlikely to be fully correlated with exact dimension axes.
It's possible a classifier on the (v1 - v2) difference, or (v1 || v2) concatenation, could help refine a "similar enough or not" decision, but you'd need a lot of training data, and perhaps a very sophisticated classifier.
I've got a problem where I've potentially got a huge number of features. Essentially a mountain of data points (for discussion let's say it's in the millions of features). I don't know what data points are useful and what are irrelevant to a given outcome (I guess 1% are relevant and 99% are irrelevant).
I do have the data points and the final outcome (a binary result). I'm interested in reducing the feature set so that I can identify the most useful set of data points to collect to train future classification algorithms.
My current data set is huge, and I can't generate as many training examples with the mountain of data as I could if I were to identify the relevant features, cut down how many data points I collect, and increase the number of training examples. I expect that I would get better classifiers with more training examples given fewer feature data points (while maintaining the relevant ones).
What machine learning algorithms should I focus on to, first,
identify the features that are relevant to the outcome?
From some reading I've done it seems like SVM provides weighting per feature that I can use to identify the most highly scored features. Can anyone confirm this? Expand on the explanation? Or should I be thinking along another line?
Feature weights in a linear model (logistic regression, naive Bayes, etc) can be thought of as measures of importance, provided your features are all on the same scale.
Your model can be combined with a regularizer for learning that penalises certain kinds of feature vectors (essentially folding feature selection into the classification problem). L1 regularized logistic regression sounds like it would be perfect for what you want.
Maybe you can use PCA or Maximum entropy algorithm in order to reduce the data set...
You can go for Chi-Square tests or Entropy depending on your data type. Supervized discretization highly reduces the size of your data in a smart way (take a look into Recursive Minimal Entropy Partitioning algorithm proposed by Fayyad & Irani).
If you work in R, the SIS package has a function that will do this for you.
If you want to do things the hard way, what you want to do is feature screening, a massive preliminary dimension reduction before you do feature selection and model selection from a sane-sized set of features. Figuring out what is the sane-size can be tricky, and I don't have a magic answer for that, but you can prioritize what order you'd want to include the features by
1) for each feature, split the data in two groups by the binary response
2) find the Komogorov-Smirnov statistic comparing the two sets
The features with the highest KS statistic are most useful in modeling.
There's a paper "out there" titled "A selctive overview of feature screening for ultrahigh-dimensional data" by Liu, Zhong, and Li, I'm sure a free copy is floating around the web somewhere.
4 years later I'm now halfway through a PhD in this field and I want to add that the definition of a feature is not always simple. In the case that your features are a single column in your dataset, the answers here apply quite well.
However, take the case of an image being processed by a convolutional neural network, for example, a feature is not one pixel of the input, rather it's much more conceptual than that. Here's a nice discussion for the case of images:
https://medium.com/#ageitgey/machine-learning-is-fun-part-3-deep-learning-and-convolutional-neural-networks-f40359318721
What the meaning of the word "support" in the context of Support Vector Machine, which is a supervised learning model?
Copy-pasted from Wikipedia:
Maximum-margin hyperplane and margins for an SVM trained with samples from two classes. Samples on the margin are called the support vectors.
In SVMs the resulting separating hyper-plane is attributed to a sub-set of data feature vectors (i.e., the ones that their associated Lagrange multipliers are greater than 0). These feature vectors were named support vectors because intuitively you could say that they "support" the separating hyper-plane or you could say that for the separating hyper-plane the support vectors play the same role as the pillars to a building.
Now formally, paraphrasing Bernhard Schoelkopf 's and Alexander J. Smola's book titled "Learning with Kernels" page 6:
"In the searching process of the unique optimal hyper-plane we consider hyper-planes with normal vectors w that can be represented as general linear combinations (i.e., with non-uniform coefficients) of the training patterns. For instance, we might want to remove the influence of patterns that are very far away from the decision boundary, either since we expect that they will not improve the generalization error of the decision function, or since we would like to reduce computational cost of evaluating the decision function. The hyper-plane will then only depend on a sub-set of the training patterns called Support Vectors."
That is, the separating hyper-plane depends on those training data feature vectors, they influence it, it's based on them, consequently they support it.
In a kernel space, the simplest way to represent the separating hyperplane is by the distance to data instances. These data instances are called "support vectors".
The kernel space could be infinite. But as long as you can compute the kernel similarity to the support vectors, you can test which side of the hyperplane an object is, without actually knowing what this infinite dimensional hyperplane looks like.
In 2d, you could of course just produce an equation for the hyperplane. But this doesn't yield any actual benefits, except for understanding the SVM.
I am using a Naive Bayes Classifier to categorize several thousand documents into 30 different categories. I have implemented a Naive Bayes Classifier, and with some feature selection (mostly filtering useless words), I've gotten about a 30% test accuracy, with 45% training accuracy. This is significantly better than random, but I want it to be better.
I've tried implementing AdaBoost with NB, but it does not appear to give appreciably better results (the literature seems split on this, some papers say AdaBoost with NB doesn't give better results, others do). Do you know of any other extensions to NB that may possibly give better accuracy?
In my experience, properly trained Naive Bayes classifiers are usually astonishingly accurate (and very fast to train--noticeably faster than any classifier-builder i have everused).
so when you want to improve classifier prediction, you can look in several places:
tune your classifier (adjusting the classifier's tunable paramaters);
apply some sort of classifier combination technique (eg,
ensembling, boosting, bagging); or you can
look at the data fed to the classifier--either add more data,
improve your basic parsing, or refine the features you select from
the data.
w/r/t naive Bayesian classifiers, parameter tuning is limited; i recommend to focus on your data--ie, the quality of your pre-processing and the feature selection.
I. Data Parsing (pre-processing)
i assume your raw data is something like a string of raw text for each data point, which by a series of processing steps you transform each string into a structured vector (1D array) for each data point such that each offset corresponds to one feature (usually a word) and the value in that offset corresponds to frequency.
stemming: either manually or by using a stemming library? the popular open-source ones are Porter, Lancaster, and Snowball. So for
instance, if you have the terms programmer, program, progamming,
programmed in a given data point, a stemmer will reduce them to a
single stem (probably program) so your term vector for that data
point will have a value of 4 for the feature program, which is
probably what you want.
synonym finding: same idea as stemming--fold related words into a single word; so a synonym finder can identify developer, programmer,
coder, and software engineer and roll them into a single term
neutral words: words with similar frequencies across classes make poor features
II. Feature Selection
consider a prototypical use case for NBCs: filtering spam; you can quickly see how it fails and just as quickly you can see how to improve it. For instance, above-average spam filters have nuanced features like: frequency of words in all caps, frequency of words in title, and the occurrence of exclamation point in the title. In addition, the best features are often not single words but e.g., pairs of words, or larger word groups.
III. Specific Classifier Optimizations
Instead of 30 classes use a 'one-against-many' scheme--in other words, you begin with a two-class classifier (Class A and 'all else') then the results in the 'all else' class are returned to the algorithm for classification into Class B and 'all else', etc.
The Fisher Method (probably the most common way to optimize a Naive Bayes classifier.) To me,
i think of Fisher as normalizing (more correctly, standardizing) the input probabilities An NBC uses the feature probabilities to construct a 'whole-document' probability. The Fisher Method calculates the probability of a category for each feature of the document then combines these feature probabilities and compares that combined probability with the probability of a random set of features.
I would suggest using a SGDClassifier as in this and tune it in terms of regularization strength.
Also try to tune the formula in TFIDF you're using by tuning the parameters of TFIFVectorizer.
I usually see that for text classification problems SVM or Logistic Regressioin when trained one-versus-all outperforms NB. As you can see in this nice article by Stanford people for longer documents SVM outperforms NB. The code for the paper which uses a combination of SVM and NB (NBSVM) is here.
Second, tune your TFIDF formula (e.g. sublinear tf, smooth_idf).
Normalize your samples with l2 or l1 normalization (default in Tfidfvectorization) because it compensates for different document lengths.
Multilayer Perceptron, usually gets better results than NB or SVM because of the non-linearity introduced which is inherent to many text classification problems. I have implemented a highly parallel one using Theano/Lasagne which is easy to use and downloadable here.
Try to tune your l1/l2/elasticnet regularization. It makes a huge difference in SGDClassifier/SVM/Logistic Regression.
Try to use n-grams which is configurable in tfidfvectorizer.
If your documents have structure (e.g. have titles) consider using different features for different parts. For example add title_word1 to your document if word1 happens in the title of the document.
Consider using the length of the document as a feature (e.g. number of words or characters).
Consider using meta information about the document (e.g. time of creation, author name, url of the document, etc.).
Recently Facebook published their FastText classification code which performs very well across many tasks, be sure to try it.
Using Laplacian Correction along with AdaBoost.
In AdaBoost, first a weight is assigned to each data tuple in the training dataset. The intial weights are set using the init_weights method, which initializes each weight to be 1/d, where d is the size of the training data set.
Then, a generate_classifiers method is called, which runs k times, creating k instances of the Naïve Bayes classifier. These classifiers are then weighted, and the test data is run on each classifier. The sum of the weighted "votes" of the classifiers constitutes the final classification.
Improves Naive Bayes classifier for general cases
Take the logarithm of your probabilities as input features
We change the probability space to log probability space since we calculate the probability by multiplying probabilities and the result will be very small. when we change to log probability features, we can tackle the under-runs problem.
Remove correlated features.
Naive Byes works based on the assumption of independence when we have a correlation between features which means one feature depends on others then our assumption will fail.
More about correlation can be found here
Work with enough data not the huge data
naive Bayes require less data than logistic regression since it only needs data to understand the probabilistic relationship of each attribute in isolation with the output variable, not the interactions.
Check zero frequency error
If the test data set has zero frequency issue, apply smoothing techniques “Laplace Correction” to predict the class of test data set.
More than this is well described in the following posts
Please refer below posts.
machinelearningmastery site post
Analyticvidhya site post
keeping the n size small also make NB to give high accuracy result. and at the core, as the n size increase its accuracy degrade,
Select features which have less correlation between them. And try using different combination of features at a time.