I am trying to do a Sentiment Analysis on Song Lyrics using Python.
After studying many simple classification problems, with known labels (such as Email classification Spam/Not Spam), I thought that the Lyrics Sentiment Analysis lies on the Classification field.
While actually coding it, i discovered that I had to compute the sentiment for each song's lyrics, and probably adding a column to the original dataset, marking it positive or negative, or using the actual sentiment score.
Couldn't this be done using a clustering approach? Since we don't know each song's class in the first place (positive sentiment / negative sentiment) the algorithm will cluster the data using sentiment analysis.
Clustering usually won't produce sentiments.
It a more likely to produce e.g., a cluster for rap and one for non-rap. Or one for lyrics with an even song length, and one for odd length.
There is more in the data than sentiment. So why would clustering produce sentiment clusters?
If you want particular labels (positive sentiment, negative sentiment) then you need to provide training data and use a supervised approach.
You are thinking of Clustering without supervision i.e, unsupervised clustering which might result in low accuracy results because you actually dont know what is the threshold value of score which seperates the positive and negative classes.So first try to find the threshold which will be your parameter which seperates your classes.Use supervised learning to find the threshold
Related
I am working on a classification problem with Tweeter data. User labeled tweets (relevant, not relevant) are used to train a machine learning classifier to predict if an unseen tweet is relevant or not to the user.
I use a simple preprocessing techniques like removal of stopwords, stemming etc and a sklearn Tfidfvectorizer to convert the words into numbers before feeding them into a classifier e.g. SVM, kernel SVM , Naïve Bayes.
I would like to determine which words (features) have the higher predictive power. What is the best way to do so?
I have tried wordcloud but it just shows the words with highest frequency in the sample.
UPDATE:
The following approach along with sklearns feature_selection seem to provide the best answer so far to my problem:
top features Any other suggestions?
Have you tried using tfidf? It creates a weighted matrix providing greater weight to the more semantically meaningful words of each text. It compares the individual text( in this case a tweet) to all of the texts (all of the tweets). It is much more helpful than using raw term counts for classification and other tasks. https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_extraction.text.TfidfVectorizer.html
I have a dataset of 5331 positive and 5331 negative reviews. I want to mark Intensity of each review. Intensity can either be "0" or "1".
Is their any technique that I can manually mark 1000 reviews and train a classifier. If the classifier performs very good (say 90% s-fold validation) then I can fill the remaining review using the classifier's output? Will it be a justified assumption to fill 1/10th of data manually and predict the remaining?
I am new to Machine Learning.
The phrase you are looking for is sentiment analysis and is a well known problem in machine learning society. It is one of the easier tasks of NLP classification, so with great probability you can achieve even more than 90% accuracy. In general scors of 10-CV are a quite reasonable approximation of the real classifier's behaviour, assuming big enough dataset. There are also other (often considered better) techniques, like those based on bootstrap - google for Err^0.632 for an example.
I would like to know what are the various techniques and metrics used to evaluate how accurate/good an algorithm is and how to use a given metric to derive a conclusion about a ML model.
one way to do this is to use precision and recall, as defined here in wikipedia.
Another way is to use the accuracy metric as explained here. So, what I would like to know is whether there are other metrics for evaluating an ML model?
I've compiled, a while ago, a list of metrics used to evaluate classification and regression algorithms, under the form of a cheatsheet. Some metrics for classification: precision, recall, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, Matthews correlation, etc. They are all based on the confusion matrix. Others exist for regression (continuous output variable).
The technique is mostly to run an algorithm on some data to get a model, and then apply that model on new, previously unseen data, and evaluate the metric on that data set, and repeat.
Some techniques (actually resampling techniques from statistics):
Jacknife
Crossvalidation
K-fold validation
bootstrap.
Talking about ML in general is a quite vast field, but I'll try to answer any way. The Wikipedia definition of ML is the following
Machine learning, a branch of artificial intelligence, concerns the construction and study of systems that can learn from data.
In this context learning can be defined parameterization of an algorithm. The parameters of the algorithm are derived using input data with a known output. When the algorithm has "learned" the association between input and output, it can be tested with further input data for which the output is well known.
Let's suppose your problem is to obtain words from speech. Here the input is some kind of audio file containing one word (not necessarily, but I supposed this case to keep it quite simple). You'd record X words N times and then use (for example) N/2 of the repetitions to parameterize your algorithm, disregarding - at the moment - how your algorithm would look like.
Now on the one hand - depending on the algorithm - if you feed your algorithm with one of the remaining repetitions, it may give you some certainty estimate which may be used to characterize the recognition of just one of the repetitions. On the other hand you may use all of the remaining repetitions to test the learned algorithm. For each of the repetitions you pass it to the algorithm and compare the expected output with the actual output. After all you'll have an accuracy value for the learned algorithm calculated as the quotient of correct and total classifications.
Anyway, the actual accuracy will depend on the quality of your learning and test data.
A good start to read on would be Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning by Christopher M Bishop
There are various metrics for evaluating the performance of ML model and there is no rule that there are 20 or 30 metrics only. You can create your own metrics depending on your problem. There are various cases wherein when you are solving real - world problem where you would need to create your own custom metrics.
Coming to the existing ones, it is already listed in the first answer, I would just highlight each metrics merits and demerits to better have an understanding.
Accuracy is the simplest of the metric and it is commonly used. It is the number of points to class 1/ total number of points in your dataset. This is for 2 class problem where some points belong to class 1 and some to belong to class 2. It is not preferred when the dataset is imbalanced because it is biased to balanced one and it is not that much interpretable.
Log loss is a metric that helps to achieve probability scores that gives you better understanding why a specific point is belonging to class 1. The best part of this metric is that it is inbuild in logistic regression which is famous ML technique.
Confusion metric is best used for 2-class classification problem which gives four numbers and the diagonal numbers helps to get an idea of how good is your model.Through this metric there are others such as precision, recall and f1-score which are interpretable.
I 've used a part of reuters 21578 dataset and mahout k-means for clustering.To be more specific I extracted only the texts that has a unique value for category 'topics'.So I ve been left with 9494 texts that belong to one among 66 categories. I ve used seqdirectory to create sequence files from texts and then seq2sparse to crate the vectors. Then I run k-means with cosine distance measure (I ve tried tanimoto and euclidean too, with no better luck), cd=0.1 and k=66 (same as the number of categories). So I tried to evaluate the results with silhouette measure using custom Java code and the matlab implementation of silhouette (just to be sure that there is no error in my code) and I get that the average silhouette of the clustering is 0.0405. Knowing that the best clustering could give an average silhouette value close to 1, I see that the clustering result I get is no good at all.
So is this due to Mahout or the quality of catgorization on reuters dataset is low?
PS: I m using Mahout 0.7
PS2: Sorry for my bad English..
I've never actually worked with Mahout, so I cannot say what it does by default, but you might consider checking what sort of distance metric it uses by default. For example, if the metric is Euclidean distance on unnormalized document word counts, you can expect very poor quality cluster quality, as document length will dominate any meaningful comparison between documents. On the other hand, something like cosine distance on normalized, or tf-idf weighted word counts can do much better.
One other thing to look at is the distribution of topics in the Reuters 21578. It is very skewed towards a few topics such as "acq" or "earn", while others are used only handfuls of times. This can it difficult to achieve good external clustering metrics.
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.