I have some hundreds of images which need to be grouped together. All the images have names in it along with colors. Is there an easiest way to group them based on the names inside along with the colors? Are there any packages available in Python or any algorithms with which this could be done?
For Example the image above has "boy" in it. If I had another similar image with the same name in it.Then how can I group them together.
If the text is as clear as this you might not even need machine learning: just group all the items with the same name in a dictionary using the name as the key. If the text is still clear but you want to group conjugates of name stem or lemmatize them with NLTK. If the text is clear but you want to group semantically related words that are not mere conjugates use a topic model or word2vec, which gives you a vector space embedding of each word you can then use to perform a similarity search.
I've highlighted the key terms to help you help yourself. The technical term for your problem is called clustering.
Related
Given a query and a document, I would like to compute a similarity score using Gensim doc2vec.
Each document consists of multiple fields (e.g., main title, author, publisher, etc)
For training, is it better to concatenate the document fields and treat each row as a unique document or should I split the fields and use them as different training examples?
For inference, should I treat a query like a document? Meaning, should I call the model (trained over the documents) on the query?
The right answer will depend on your data & user behavior, so you'll want to try several variants.
Just to get some initial results, I'd suggest combining all fields into a single 'document', for each potential query-result, and using the (fast-to-train) PV-DBOW mode (dm=0). That will let you start seeing results, doing either some informal assessment or beginning to compile some automatic assessment data (like lists of probe queries & docs that they "should" rank highly).
You could then try testing the idea of making the fields separate docs – either instead-of, or in addition-to, the single-doc approach.
Another option might be to create specialized word-tokens per field. That is, when 'John' appears in the title, you'd actually preprocess it to be 'title:John', and when in author, 'author:John', etc. (This might be in lieu of, or in addition to, the naked original token.) That could enhance the model to also understand the shifting senses of each token, depending on the field.
Then, providing you have enough training data, & choose other model parameters well, your search interface might also preprocess queries similarly, when the user indicates a certain field, and get improved results. (Or maybe not: it's just an idea to be tried.)
In all cases, if you need precise results – exact matches of well-specified user queries – more traditional searches like exact DB matches/greps, or full-text reverse-indexes, will outperform Doc2Vec. But when queries are more approximate, and results need filling-out with near-in-meaning-even-if-not-in-literal-tokens results, a fuzzier vector document representation may be helpful.
This is a project in really early phase and I'm trying to find ideas on where to start.
Any help or pointers would be greatly appreciated!
My problem:
I have text on one side, and a list of named GraphDB elements on the other (usually the name is either an acronym or a multi-word expression). My texts are not annotated.
I want to detect whenever a name is explicitly used in the text. The trick is that it will not necessarily be a perfect string match (for example an acronym can be used to shorten a multi-word expression, or a small part can be left out). So a simple string search will not have a 100% recall (even though it can be used as a starter).
If I just had an input and I wanted it to match it to one of the names, I would do a simple edit distance computation and that's it. What bugs me is that I have to do this for a whole text, and I don't know how to approach/break down the problem.
I cannot break down everything in N-grams because my named entities can be a single word or up to seven words long... Or can I?
I have thousands of Graph elements so I don't think NER can be applied here... Or can it?
An example could be:
My list of names is ['Graph Database', 'Manager', 'Employee Number 1']
The text is:
Every morning, the Manager browse through the Graph Database to look for updates. Every evening, Employee 1 updates the GraphDB.
I want in this block of text to map the 4 highlighted portions to their corresponding item in the list.
I have a small background in Machine Learning but I haven't really ever done NLP. To be clear, I do not care about the meaning of these words, I just want to be able to detect them.
Thanks
I'm trying to implement a specific type of process mining, that has been presented in this thesis [link]. It is based on HMMs and generates a process model in form of a directed graph, where:
Nodes are called intentions and correspond to hidden states
Edges are called strategies and consist of different activities
These activities correspond to the HMM's observable emissions
Intentions can be fulfilled using different strategies
A user event log consisting of user IDs, timestamps and activities is used as input. The image below is an example of such a process model. The highlighted nodes and edges resemble the path that has been predicted using the Viterbi algorithm.
You can see that the graph's nodes and edges only carry numeric labels, which allow to distinguish between the different strategies and intentions. In order to make these labels more meaningful to the human reader, I'd like to infer some suitable labels.
My idea is to use an ontology to obtain those labels. After some research I figured out that I probably needed to do something that is generally referred to as "ontology learning". For this I would need to create some axioms in RDF/OWL format and then use these as input for a reasoner, that would infer an ontology.
Is this approach correct and reasonable to achieve my goal?
If this is the way to go, I will need some tool to generate axioms in an automated way. So far I couldn't find any tool that would do that completely out-of-the-box. Based on what I've seen so far I conclude that I would need to define some kind of mapping between the original data and the desired axioms. I took a closer look at protégé, which offers a plugin for spreadsheets. It seems to be based on the MappingMasterDSL project [link].
I've also found an interesting paper [link] on ontology learning where an RNN-based model is trained in a end-to-end fashion to translate definitory sentences into OWL formulae. BUT: My user event log data does not contain any natural sentences. Its activities are defined by tokens derived from HTML elements of the user interface. Therefore the RNN-based approach does not seem to be applicable here. (For the interested reader, the related project can be found here [link])
Isn't there really any easier way than hand-crafting the axioms' schema(ta)?
Assuming that I have created my axioms and inferred an ontology, I would like to use the strategies' (edges') observable activities (emissions) to infer a suitable label. I guess I would need to query my ontology somehow. I could use the activity names as parameters for my query and look for some related entities that reveal the desired label. I'm expecting something like:
"I have a strategy with ID=3, that strategy can be executed with
actions a, b and c, give me all entities of the ontology, that
have these actions as property value and show and give me all related
labels for those entities"
But where would the data for the labels actually come from?
I think I'm missing some important step during the process of ontology learning. Where do I find an additional data source for the labels and how do I relate this data to my ontology's entities?
Also I'm wondering if there is a way to incorporate the inherent knowledge of the process model's topology into my ontology.
I'm struggling to find a real world example on how to use google cloud dataflow combiners to run a common ETL tasl which aggregates records on multiple keys (e.g. Date, Location) and sums values over different measures (e.g. GrossValue, NetValue, Quantity). I can only find examples with a typical Key/Value (e.g. Day/Value) aggregation. Any hints on how this is done with the Python SDK would be appreciated.
I'm not 100% sure I understand your question. Do you have separate elements you are trying to join the data together for, in which case you may wish to use CoGroupByKey? Or does a single element have multiple fields?
Hope some of this info helps,
I would suggest looking at windowing, which will allow you to subdivide a PCollection according to the timestamps of its individual elements. If you want to see all the events for particular day this may be useful. Python examples of windowing. You may want to window across a days worth of data. This link is useful as well to understand how you can use GroupByKey in different ways,
Another option is to determine what date your elements belongs to, and use a group by key to key it with "[location][date][other]". You may need to do something like this if you want to join the data based on multiple fields.
See this GroupByKey example, but change the key to use your multiple fields concatenated.
Here is an example for reducing with a custom combiner. You can add logic here to do a custom aggregation for multiple different measurements.
I'm implementing abstractive summarization based on this paper, and I'm having trouble deciding the most optimal way to implement the graph such that it can be used for multi-domain analysis. Let's start with Twitter as an example domain.
For every tweet, each sentence would be graphed like this (ex: "#stackoverflow is a great place for getting help #graphsftw"):
(#stackoverflow)-[next]->(is)
-[next]->(a)
-[next]->(great)
-[next]->(place)
-[next]->(for)
-[next]->(getting)
-[next]->(help)
-[next]->(#graphsftw)
This would yield a graph similar to the one outlined in the paper:
To have a kind of domain layer for each word, I'm adding them to the graph like this (with properties including things like part of speech):
MERGE (w:Word:TwitterWord {orth: "word" }) ON CREATE SET ... ON MATCH SET ...
In the paper, they set a property on each word {SID:PID}, which describes the sentence id of the word (SID) and also the position of each word in the sentence (PID); so in the example sentence "#stackoverflow" would have a property of {1:1}, "is" would be {1:2}, "#graphsftw" {1:9}, etc. Each subsequent reference to the word in another sentence would add an element to the {SID:PID} property array: [{1:x}, {n:n}].
It doesn't seem like having sentence and positional information as an array of elements contained within a property of each node is efficient, especially when dealing with multiple word-domains and sub-domains within each word layer.
For each word layer or domain like Twitter, what I want to do is get an idea of what's happening around specific domain/layer entities like mentions and hashtags; in this example, #stackoverflow and #graphsftw.
What is the most optimal way to add subdomain layers on top of, for example, a 'Twitter' layer, such that different words are directed towards specific domain-entities like #hashtags and #mentions? I could use a separate label for each subdomain, like :Word:TwitterWord:Stackoverflow, but that would give my graph a ton of separate labels.
If I include the subdomain entities in a node property array, then it seems like traversal would become an issue.
Since all tweets and extracted entities like #mentions and #hashtags are being graphed as nodes/vertices prior to the word-graph step, I could have edges going from #hashtags and #mentions to words. Or, I could have edges going from tweets to words with the entities as an edge property. Basically, I'm looking for a structure that is the "cheapest" in terms of both storage and traversal.
Any input on how generally to structure this graph would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
You could also put the domains / positions on the relationships (and perhaps also add a source-id).
OTOH you can also infer that information as long as your relationships represent the original sentence.
You could then either aggregate the relationships dynamically to compute the strengths or have a separate "composite" relationship that aggregates all the others into a counter or sum.