Currenlty what we do, check the user discussion based on some keywords on social media. As per the keywords detection we identify that this can be rumour.
Approach to automate the process:
Keyword based : verifying the conversation for 1-2 gram based keywords. If keyword present, marking it as suspected conversation
Classifier based approach : Training the classifier with some prelabeled suspected conversations. Which ever being classified with >50% probability, marked as suspected.
For 2nd approach I am thinking of naive bayes classifier, and identifying the result with precision, recall, F measure value using scikit learn.
Is there any better approach to this? Or some model which can be combination of both approach?
There's no reason that the two approaches would be mutually exclusive. If you are going to be identifying keywords anyway, then you could easily extract a feature for machine-learning. And if you are doing machine-learning, you might as well include features that capture what you know about the keywords you have identified.
Is there a reason that you have chosen a Naive Bayes model? You may want to try a number of models to compare their performance. Your statement about 'identifying the result with precision, recall, F-measure' makes it seem like you don't understand how you make predictions with a machine-learning model. Those three metrics are the result of comparing a model's predictions with 'gold-standard' labels on a number of texts. I would recommend reading through an introduction to machine-learning. If you have already decided that you want to use scikit-learn, then perhaps you could work through their tutorial here. Another python library worth looking into is nltk, which has a free companion book here.
If python is not your preferred language, then there are lots of other options, too. For example, weka is a well-known tool written in java. It has a very user-friendly graphical interface for the basic functions, but it is not difficult to use from the command line as well.
Good luck!
Related
I am trying to generate a Python program that determines if a website is harmful (porn etc.).
First, I made a Python web scraping program that counts the number of occurrences for each word.
result for harmful websites
It's a key value dictionary like
{ word : [ # occurrences in harmful websites, # of websites that contain these words] }.
Now I want my program to analyze the words from any websites to check if the website is safe or not. But I don't know which methods will suit to my data.
The key thing here is your training data. You need some sort of supervised learning technique where your training data consists of website's data itself (text document) and its label (harmful or safe).
You can certainly use the RNN but there also other natural language processing techniques and much faster ones.
Typically, you should use a proper vectorizer on your training data (think of each site page as a text document), for example tf-idf (but also other possibilities; if you use Python I would strongly suggest scikit that provides lots of useful machine learning techniques and mentioned sklearn.TfidfVectorizer is already within). The point is to vectorize your text document in enhanced way. Imagine for example the English word the how many times it typically exists in text? You need to think of biases such as these.
Once your training data is vectorized you can use for example stochastic gradient descent classifier and see how it performs on your test data (in machine learning terminology the test data means to simply take some new data example and test what your ML program outputs).
In either case you will need to experiment with above options. There are many nuances and you need to test your data and see where you achieve the best results (depending on ML algorithm settings, type of vectorizer, used ML technique itself and so on). For example Support Vector Machines are great choice when it comes to binary classifiers too. You may wanna play with that too and see if it performs better than SGD.
In any case, remember that you will need to obtain quality training data with labels (harmful vs. safe) and find the best fitting classifier. On your journey to find the best one you may also wanna use cross validation to determine how well your classifier behaves. Again, already contained in scikit-learn.
N.B. Don't forget about valid cases. For example there may be a completely safe online magazine where it only mentions the harmful topic in some article; it doesn't mean the website itself is harmful though.
Edit: As I think of it, if you don't have any experience with ML at all it could be useful to take any online course because despite the knowledge of API and libraries you will still need to know what it does and the math behind the curtain (at least roughly).
What you are trying to do is called sentiment classification and is usually done with recurrent neural networks (RNNs) or Long short-term memory networks (LSTMs). This is not an easy topic to start with machine learning. If you are new you should have a look into linear/logistic regression, SVMs and basic neural networks (MLPs) first. Otherwise it will be hard to understand what is going on.
That said: there are many libraries out there for constructing neural networks. Probably easiest to use is keras. While this library simplifies a lot of things immensely, it isn't just a magic box that makes gold from trash. You need to understand what happens under the hood to get good results. Here is an example of how you can perform sentiment classification on the IMDB dataset (basically determine whether a movie review is positive or not) with keras.
For people who have no experience in NLP or ML, I recommend using TFIDF vectorizer instead of using deep learning libraries. In short, it converts sentences to vector, taking each word in vocabulary to one dimension (degree is occurrence).
Then, you can calculate cosine similarity to resulting vector.
To improve performance, use stemming / lemmatizing / stopwords supported in NLTK libraires.
Dear all I am working on a project in which I have to categories research papers into their appropriate fields using titles of papers. For example if a phrase "computer network" occurs somewhere in then title then this paper should be tagged as related to the concept "computer network". I have 3 million titles of research papers. So I want to know how I should start. I have tried to use tf-idf but could not get actual results. Does someone know about a library to do this task easily? Kindly suggest one. I shall be thankful.
If you don't know categories in advance, than it's not classification, but instead clustering. Basically, you need to do following:
Select algorithm.
Select and extract features.
Apply algorithm to features.
Quite simple. You only need to choose combination of algorithm and features that fits your case best.
When talking about clustering, there are several popular choices. K-means is considered one of the best and has enormous number of implementations, even in libraries not specialized in ML. Another popular choice is Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. Both of them, however, require initial guess about number of classes. If you can't predict number of classes even approximately, other algorithms - such as hierarchical clustering or DBSCAN - may work for you better (see discussion here).
As for features, words themselves normally work fine for clustering by topic. Just tokenize your text, normalize and vectorize words (see this if you don't know what it all means).
Some useful links:
Clustering text documents using k-means
NLTK clustering package
Statistical Machine Learning for Text Classification with scikit-learn and NLTK
Note: all links in this answer are about Python, since it has really powerful and convenient tools for this kind of tasks, but if you have another language of preference, you most probably will be able to find similar libraries for it too.
For Python, I would recommend NLTK (Natural Language Toolkit), as it has some great tools for converting your raw documents into features you can feed to a machine learning algorithm. For starting out, you can maybe try a simple word frequency model (bag of words) and later on move to more complex feature extraction methods (string kernels). You can start by using SVM's (Support Vector Machines) to classify the data using LibSVM (the best SVM package).
The fact, that you do not know the number of categories in advance, you could use a tool called OntoGen. The tool basically takes a set of texts, does some text mining, and tries to discover the clusters of documents. It is a semi-supervised tool, so you must guide the process a little, but it does wonders. The final product of the process is an ontology of topics.
I encourage you, to give it a try.
I'd like to take a shot at characterizing incoming documents in my app as either "well" or "poorly" written. I realize this is no easy task, but even a rough idea would be useful. I feel like the way to do this would be via naïve Bayes classifier with two classes, but am open to suggestions. So two questions:
is this method the optimal (taking into account simplicity) way to do this
assuming a large enough training db?
are there libraries in ruby
(or any integratable JRuby or
whatever) that i can plug into my
rails app to make this happen with little fuss?
Thanks!
You might try using vocabulary vector analysis. Covered some here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_similarity
Basically you build up a corpus of texts that you deem "well-written" or "poorly-written" and count the frequency of certain words. Make a normalized vector for each, and then compute the distance between those to the vectors of each incoming document. I am not a statistician, but I'm told it's similar to Bayesian filtering, but seems to deal with misspellings and outliers better.
This is not perfect, by any means. Depending on how accurate you need it to be, you will probably still need humans to make the final judgement. But we've had good luck using it as a pre-filter to reduce number of reviewers.
Another simple algorithm to check out is the Flesch-Kincaid readability metric. It is quite widely used and should be easy to implement. I assume one of the Ruby NLP libraries has syllable methods.
You may find interesting this Burstein, Chodorow, and Leacock on the Criterion essay evaluation system for a pretty interesting very high-level overview of how one particular system did essay evaluation as well as style correction.
I want to teach myself enough machine learning so that I can, to begin with, understand enough to put to use available open source ML frameworks that will allow me to do things like:
Go through the HTML source of pages
from a certain site and "understand"
which sections form the content,
which the advertisements and which
form the metadata ( neither the
content, nor the ads - for eg. -
TOC, author bio etc )
Go through the HTML source of pages
from disparate sites and "classify"
whether the site belongs to a
predefined category or not ( list of
categories will be supplied
beforhand )1.
... similar classification tasks on
text and pages.
As you can see, my immediate requirements are to do with classification on disparate data sources and large amounts of data.
As far as my limited understanding goes, taking the neural net approach will take a lot of training and maintainance than putting SVMs to use?
I understand that SVMs are well suited to ( binary ) classification tasks like mine, and open source framworks like libSVM are fairly mature?
In that case, what subjects and topics
does a computer science graduate need
to learn right now, so that the above
requirements can be solved, putting
these frameworks to use?
I would like to stay away from Java, is possible, and I have no language preferences otherwise. I am willing to learn and put in as much effort as I possibly can.
My intent is not to write code from scratch, but, to begin with putting the various frameworks available to use ( I do not know enough to decide which though ), and I should be able to fix things should they go wrong.
Recommendations from you on learning specific portions of statistics and probability theory is nothing unexpected from my side, so say that if required!
I will modify this question if needed, depending on all your suggestions and feedback.
"Understanding" in machine learn is the equivalent of having a model. The model can be for example a collection of support vectors, the layout and weights of a neural network, a decision tree, or more. Which of these methods work best really depends on the subject you're learning from and on the quality of your training data.
In your case, learning from a collection of HTML sites, you will like to preprocess the data first, this step is also called "feature extraction". That is, you extract information out of the page you're looking at. This is a difficult step, because it requires domain knowledge and you'll have to extract useful information, or otherwise your classifiers will not be able to make good distinctions. Feature extraction will give you a dataset (a matrix with features for each row) from which you'll be able to create your model.
Generally in machine learning it is advised to also keep a "test set" that you do not train your models with, but that you will use at the end to decide on what is the best method. It is of extreme importance that you keep the test set hidden until the very end of your modeling step! The test data basically gives you a hint on the "generalization error" that your model is making. Any model with enough complexity and learning time tends to learn exactly the information that you train it with. Machine learners say that the model "overfits" the training data. Such overfitted models seem to appear good, but this is just memorization.
While software support for preprocessing data is very sparse and highly domain dependent, as adam mentioned Weka is a good free tool for applying different methods once you have your dataset. I would recommend reading several books. Vladimir Vapnik wrote "The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory", he is the inventor of SVMs. You should get familiar with the process of modeling, so a book on machine learning is definitely very useful. I also hope that some of the terminology might be helpful to you in finding your way around.
Seems like a pretty complicated task to me; step 2, classification, is "easy" but step 1 seems like a structure learning task. You might want to simplify it to classification on parts of HTML trees, maybe preselected by some heuristic.
The most widely used general machine learning library (freely) available is probably WEKA. They have a book that introduces some ML concepts and covers how to use their software. Unfortunately for you, it is written entirely in Java.
I am not really a Python person, but it would surprise me if there aren't also a lot of tools available for it as well.
For text-based classification right now Naive Bayes, Decision Trees (J48 in particular I think), and SVM approaches are giving the best results. However they are each more suited for slightly different applications. Off the top of my head I'm not sure which would suit you the best. With a tool like WEKA you could try all three approaches with some example data without writing a line of code and see for yourself.
I tend to shy away from Neural Networks simply because they can get very very complicated quickly. Then again, I haven't tried a large project with them mostly because they have that reputation in academia.
Probability and statistics knowledge is only required if you are using probabilistic algorithms (like Naive Bayes). SVMs are generally not used in a probabilistic manner.
From the sound of it, you may want to invest in an actual pattern classification textbook or take a class on it in order to find exactly what you are looking for. For custom/non-standard data sets it can be tricky to get good results without having a survey of existing techniques.
It seems to me that you are now entering machine learning field, so I'd really like to suggest to have a look at this book: not only it provides a deep and vast overview on the most common machine learning approaches and algorithms (and their variations) but it also provides a very good set of exercises and scientific paper links. All of this is wrapped in an insightful language starred with a minimal and yet useful compendium about statistics and probability
I am trying to implement a naive bayseian approach to find the topic of a given document or stream of words. Is there are Naive Bayesian approach that i might be able to look up for this ?
Also, i am trying to improve my dictionary as i go along. Initially, i have a bunch of words that map to a topics (hard-coded). Depending on the occurrence of the words other than the ones that are already mapped. And depending on the occurrences of these words i want to add them to the mappings, hence improving and learning about new words that map to topic. And also changing the probabilities of words.
How should i go about doing this ? Is my approach the right one ?
Which programming language would be best suited for the implementation ?
Existing Implementations of Naive Bayes
You would probably be better off just using one of the existing packages that supports document classification using naive Bayes, e.g.:
Python - To do this using the Python based Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK), see the Document Classification section in the freely available NLTK book.
Ruby - If Ruby is more of your thing, you can use the Classifier gem. Here's sample code that detects whether Family Guy quotes are funny or not-funny.
Perl - Perl has the Algorithm::NaiveBayes module, complete with a sample usage snippet in the package synopsis.
C# - C# programmers can use nBayes. The project's home page has sample code for a simple spam/not-spam classifier.
Java - Java folks have Classifier4J. You can see a training and scoring code snippet here.
Bootstrapping Classification from Keywords
It sounds like you want to start with a set of keywords that are known to cue for certain topics and then use those keywords to bootstrap a classifier.
This is a reasonably clever idea. Take a look at the paper Text Classication by Bootstrapping with Keywords, EM and Shrinkage by McCallum and Nigam (1999). By following this approach, they were able to improve classification accuracy from the 45% they got by using hard-coded keywords alone to 66% using a bootstrapped Naive Bayes classifier. For their data, the latter is close to human levels of agreement, as people agreed with each other about document labels 72% of the time.