While I was classifying and clustering the documents written in natural language, I came up with a question ...
As word2vec and glove, and or etc, vectorize the word in distributed spaces, I wonder if there are any method recommended or commonly used for document vectorization USING word vectors.
For example,
Document1: "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."
can be vectorized as,
[0.1425, 0.2718, 0.8187, .... , 0.1011]
I know about the one also known as doc2vec, that this document has n dimensions just like word2vec. But this is 1 x n dimensions and I have been testing around to find out the limits of using doc2vec.
So, I want to know how other people apply the word vectors for applications with steady size.
Just stacking vectors with m words will be formed m x n dimensional vectors. In this case, the vector dimension will not be uniformed since dimension m will depends on the number of words in document.
If: [0.1018, ... , 0.8717]
you: [0.5182, ... , 0.8981]
..: [...]
m th word: [...]
And this form is not favorable form to run some machine learning algorithms such as CNN. What are the suggested methods to produce the document vectors in steady form using word vectors?
It would be great if it is provided with papers as well.
Thanks!
The most simple approach to get a fixed-size vector from a text, when all you have is word-vectors, to average all the word-vectors together. (The vectors could be weighted, but if they haven't been unit-length-normalized, their raw magnitudes from training are somewhat of an indicator of their strength-of-single-meaning – polysemous/ambiguous words tend to have vectors with smaller magnitudes.) It works OK for many purposes.
Word vectors can be specifically trained to be better at composing like this, if the training texts are already associated with known classes. Facebook's FastText in its 'classification' mode does this; the word-vectors are optimized as much or more for predicting output classes of the texts they appear in, as they are for predicting their context-window neighbors (classic word2vec).
The 'Paragraph Vector' technique, often called 'doc2vec', gives every training text a sort-of floating pseudoword, that contributes to every prediction, and thus winds up with a word-vector-like position that may represent that full text, rather than the individual words/contexts.
There are many further variants, including some based on deeper predictive networks (eg 'Skip-thought Vectors'), or slightly different prediction targets (eg neighboring sentences in 'fastSent'), or other genericizations that can even include a mixture of symbolic and numeric inputs/targets during training (an option in Facebook's StarSpace, which explores other entity-vectorization possibilities related to word-vectors and FastText-like classification needs).
If you don't need to collapse a text to fixed-size vectors, but just compare texts, there are also techniques like "Word Mover's Distance" which take the "bag of word-vectors" for one text, and another, and give a similarity score.
Related
In deep learning, in particularly NLP, words are transformed into a vector representation to be fed into a neural network such as an RNN. By referring to the link:
http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-07-NLP-RNNs-Representations/#Word%20Embeddings
In the section of Word Embeddings, it is said that:
A word embedding W:words→Rn is a paramaterized function mapping words
in
some language to high-dimensional vectors (perhaps 200 to 500 dimensions)
I do not understand the purpose of the dimension of the vectors. What does it mean to have a vector of 200 dimensions compared to a vector of 20 dimensions?
Does it improve the overall accuracy of the model? Could anyone give me a simple example regarding the choice of dimension of the vectors.
These word embeddings also called Distributed Word Embedding is based on
you know a word by the company it keeps
as quoted by John Rupert Firth
So we know the meaning of a word by its context. You can think of each scalar in the vector (of a word) represents its strength for a concept. This slide from Prof. Pawan Goyal explains it all.
So you want good vector size to capture decent amount of concepts but you do not want a too huge vector because it will then become the bottleneck in training of models where these embeddings are used.
Also the vector size is mostly fixed as most do not train their own embedding but rather use openly available embeddings as they are trained for many hours on huge data. So using them will force us to use an embedding layers with dimensions as given by the openly available embedding you are using (word2vec, glove etc)
Distributed Word Embeddings is a major milestone in the area of deep learning in NLP. They give better accuracy as compared of tfidf based embeddings.
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'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.
I want to find the opinion of a sentence either positive or negative. For example talk about only one sentence.
The play was awesome
If change it to vector form
[0,0,0,0]
After searching through the Bag of words
bad
naughty
awesome
The vector form becomes
[0,0,0,1]
Same for other sentences. Now I want to pass it to the machine learning algorithm for training it. How can I train the network using these multiple vectors? (for finding the opinion of unseen sentences) Obviously not! Because the input is fix in neural network. Is there any way? The above procedure is just my thinking. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.
Since your intuitive input format is "Sentence". Which is, indeed, a string of tokens with arbitrary length. Abstracting sentences as token series is not a good choice for many existing algorithms only works on determined format of inputs.
Hence, I suggest try using tokenizer on your entire training set. This will give you vectors of length of the dictionary, which is fixed for given training set.
Because when the length of sentences vary drastically, then size of the dictionary always keeps stable.
Then you can apply Neural Networks(or other algorithms) to the tokenized vectors.
However, vectors generated by tokenizer is extremely sparse because you only work on sentences rather than articles.
You can try LDA (supervised, not PCA), to reduce the dimension as well as amplify the difference.
That will keep the essential information of your training data as well as express your data at fixed size, while this "size" is not too large.
By the way, you may not have to label each word by its attitude since the opinion of a sentence also depends on other kind of words.
Simple arithmetics on number of opinion-expressing words many leave your model highly biased. Better label the sentences and leave the rest job to classifiers.
For the confusions
PCA and LDA are Dimensional Reduction techniques.
difference
Let's assume each tuple of sample is denoted as x (1-by-p vector).
p is too large, we don't like that.
Let's find a matrix A(p-by-k) in which k is pretty small.
So we get reduced_x = x*A, and most importantly, reduced_x must
be able to represent x's characters.
Given labeled data, LDA can provide proper A that can maximize
distance between reduced_x of different classes, and also minimize
the distance within identical classes.
In simple words: compress data, keep information.
When you've got
reduced_x, you can define training data: (reduced_x|y) where y is
0 or 1.
I work on classifying some reviews (paragraphs) consists of multiple sentences. I classified them with bag-of-word features in Weka via libSVM. However, I had another idea which I don't know how to implement :
I thought creating syntactical and shallow-semantics based features per sentence in the reviews is worth to try. However, I couldn't find any way to encode those features sequentially, since a paragraph's sentence size varies. The reason that I wanted to keep those features in an order is that the order of sentence features may give a better clue for classification. For example, if I have two instances P1 (with 3 sentences) and P2 (2 sentences), I would have a space like that (assume each sentence has one binary feature as a or b):
P1 -> a b b /classX
P2 -> b a /classY
So, my question is that whether I can implement that classification of different feature sizes in feature space or not? If yes, is there any kind of classifier that I can use in Weka, scikit-learn or Mallet? I would appreciate any responses.
Thanks
Regardless of the implementation, an SVM with the standard kernels (linear, poly, RBF) requires fixed-length feature vectors. You can encode any information in those feature vectors by encoding as booleans; e.g. collect all syntactical/semantic features that occur in your corpus, then introduce booleans that represent that "feature such and such occurred in this document". If it's important to capture the fact that these features occur in multiple sentences, count them and use put the frequency in the feature vector (but be sure to normalize your frequencies by document length, as SVMs are not scale-invariant).
In case you are classifying textual data, I would suggest looking at "Rational Kernels" which are made on weighted finite transducers for classifying natural language texts. Rational Kernels can be applied on varied length vectors and are already implemented as an open source project (OpenFST).
It is the library's problem, since SVM itself does not require fixed-length feature vectors, it only need a kernel function, if you can provide a kernel function with varied length vector, it should be OK for SVM