Related
Here I have a word2vec model, suppose I use the google-news-300 model
import gensim.downloader as api
word2vec_model300 = api.load('word2vec-google-news-300')
I want to find the similar words for "AI" or "artifical intelligence", so I want to write
word2vec_model300.most_similar("artifical intelligence")
and I got errors
KeyError: "word 'artifical intelligence' not in vocabulary"
So what is the right way to extract similar words for bigram words?
Thanks in advance!
At one level, when a word-token isn't in a fixed set of word-vectors, the creators of that set of word-vectors chose not to train/model that word. So, anything you do will only be a crude workaround for its absence.
Note, though, that when Google prepared those vectors – based on a dataset of news articles from before 2012 – they also ran some statistical multigram-combinations on it, creating multigrams with connecting _ characters. So, first check if a vector for 'artificial_intelligence' might be present.
If it isn't, you could try other rough workarounds like averaging together the vectors for 'artificial' and 'intelligence' – though of course that won't really be what people mean by the distinct combination of those words, just meanings suggested by the independent words.
The Gensim .most_similar() method can take either a raw vectors you've created by operations such as averaging, or even a list of multiple words which it will average for you, as arguments via its explicit keyword positive parameter. For example:
word2vec_model300.most_similar(positive=[average_vector])
...or...
word2vec_model300.most_similar(positive=['artificial', 'intelligence'])
Finally, though Google's old vectors are handy, they're a bit old now, & from a particular domain (popular news articles) where senses may not match tose used in other domains (or more recently). So you may want to seek alternate vectors, or train your own if you have sufficient data from your area of interest, to have apprpriate meanings – including vectors for any particular multigrams you choose to tokenize in your data.
I have been searching and attempting to implement a word embedding model to predict similarity between words. I have a dataset made up 3,550 company names, the idea is that the user can provide a new word (which would not be in the vocabulary) and calculate the similarity between the new name and existing ones.
During preprocessing I got rid of stop words and punctuation (hyphens, dots, commas, etc). In addition, I applied stemming and separated prefixes with the hope to get more precision. Then words such as BIOCHEMICAL ended up as BIO CHEMIC which is the word divided in two (prefix and stem word)
The average company name length is made up 3 words with the following frequency:
The tokens that are the result of preprocessing are sent to word2vec:
#window: Maximum distance between the current and predicted word within a sentence
#min_count: Ignores all words with total frequency lower than this.
#workers: Use these many worker threads to train the model
#sg: The training algorithm, either CBOW(0) or skip gram(1). Default is 0s
word2vec_model = Word2Vec(prepWords,size=300, window=2, min_count=1, workers=7, sg=1)
After the model included all the words in the vocab , the average sentence vector is calculated for each company name:
df['avg_vector']=df2.apply(lambda row : avg_sentence_vector(row, model=word2vec_model, num_features=300, index2word_set=set(word2vec_model.wv.index2word)).tolist())
Then, the vector is saved for further lookups:
##Saving name and vector values in file
df.to_csv('name-submission-vectors.csv',encoding='utf-8', index=False)
If a new company name is not included in the vocab after preprocessing (removing stop words and punctuation), then I proceed to create the model again and calculate the average sentence vector and save it again.
I have found this model is not working as expected. As an example, calculating the most similar words pet is getting the following results:
ms=word2vec_model.most_similar('pet')
('fastfood', 0.20879755914211273)
('hammer', 0.20450574159622192)
('allur', 0.20118337869644165)
('wright', 0.20001833140850067)
('daili', 0.1990675926208496)
('mgt', 0.1908089816570282)
('mcintosh', 0.18571510910987854)
('autopart', 0.1729743778705597)
('metamorphosi', 0.16965581476688385)
('doak', 0.16890916228294373)
In the dataset, I have words such as paws or petcare, but other words are creating relationships with pet word.
This is the distribution of the nearer words for pet:
On the other hand, when I used the GoogleNews-vectors-negative300.bin.gz, I could not add new words to the vocab, but the similarity between pet and words around was as expected:
ms=word2vec_model.most_similar('pet')
('pets', 0.771199643611908)
('Pet', 0.723974347114563)
('dog', 0.7164785265922546)
('puppy', 0.6972636580467224)
('cat', 0.6891531348228455)
('cats', 0.6719794869422913)
('pooch', 0.6579219102859497)
('Pets', 0.636363685131073)
('animal', 0.6338439583778381)
('dogs', 0.6224827170372009)
This is the distribution of the nearest words:
I would like to get your advice about the following:
Is this dataset appropriate to proceed with this model?
Is the length of the dataset enough to allow word2vec "learn" the relationships between the words?
What can I do to improve the model to make word2vec create relationships of the same type as GoogleNews where for instance word pet is correctly set among similar words?
Is it feasible to implement another alternative such as fasttext considering the nature of the current dataset?
Do you know any public dataset that can be used along with the current dataset to create those relationships?
Thanks
3500 texts (company names) of just ~3 words each is only around 10k total training words, with a much smaller vocabulary of unique words.
That's very, very small for word2vec & related algorithms, which rely on lots of data, and sufficiently-varied data, to train-up useful vector arrangements.
You may be able to squeeze some meaningful training from limited data by using far more training epochs than the default epochs=5, and far smaller vectors than the default size=100. With those sorts of adjustments, you may start to see more meaningful most_similar() results.
But, it's unclear that word2vec, and specifically word2vec in your averaging-of-a-name's-words comparisons, is matched to your end goals.
Word2vec needs lots of data, doesn't look at subword units, and can't say anything about word-tokens not seen during training. An average-of-many-word-vectors can often work as an easy baseline for comparing multiword texts, but might also dilute some word's influence compared to other methods.
Things to consider might include:
Word2vec-related algorithms like FastText that also learn vectors for subword units, and can thus bootstrap not-so-bad guess vectors for words not seen in training. (But, these are also data hungry, and to use on a small dataset you'd again want to reduce vector size, increase epochs, and additionally shrink the number of buckets used for subword learning.)
More sophisticated comparisons of multi-word texts, like "Word Mover's Distance". (That can be quite expensive on longer texts, but for names/titles of just a few words may be practical.)
Finding more data that's compatible with your aims for a stronger model. A larger database of company names might help. If you just want your analysis to understand English words/roots, more generic training texts might work too.
For many purposes, a mere lexicographic comparison - edit distances, count of shared character-n-grams – may be helpful too, though it won't detect all synonyms/semantically-similar words.
Word2vec does not generalize to unseen words.
It does not even work well for wards that are seen but rare. It really depends on having many many examples of word usage. Furthermore a you need enough context left and right, but you only use company names - these are too short. That is likely why your embeddings perform so poorly: too little data and too short texts.
Hence, it is the wrong approach for you. Retraining the model with the new company name is not enough - you still only have one data point. You may as well leave out unseen words, word2vec cannot work better than that even if you retrain.
If you only want to compute similarity between words, probably you don't need to insert new words in your vocabulary.
By eye, I think you can also use FastText without the need to stem the words. It also computes vectors for unknown words.
From FastText FAQ:
One of the key features of fastText word representation is its ability
to produce vectors for any words, even made-up ones. Indeed, fastText
word vectors are built from vectors of substrings of characters
contained in it. This allows to build vectors even for misspelled
words or concatenation of words.
FastText seems to be useful for your purpose.
For your task, you can follow FastText supervised tutorial.
If your corpus proves to be too small, you can build your model starting from availaible pretrained vectors (pretrainedVectors parameter).
I am trying to build my own corpus for particular categories such as Engineering, Business, Math, Science and etc... This will be for automatic web page categorization. Let's say I manually collect 100 websites that are related to Math. Can these 100 websites be considered a corpus for Math?
Another related question. How does this differentiate from a lexicon wherein instead of a list of websites it shows a list of words with weights such as 0 or 1 to particular categories? Example would be a sentiment lexicon with words that has weights for positive and negative. But instead of positive and negative, categories such as Math, Science are used.
You say you want to make some web page categorization, then the problem you're facing is a supervised learning problem. The data you get are web pages, so I guess you actually extract their content as text. You work with textual input data. Since you want to categorize them, each of your input data has one or more corresponding labels, which are the outputs you want to predict. You have multiple label so you want to do multi-label classification
To tackle this problem, since most machine learning algorithms work with numerical vector, you need to transform your corpus of texts into vectors (or into one matrix). To do so, you can use the bag of word technique which first build a dictionary or lexicon and then count the occurrences of each word of the dictionary in each text. Actually, you can transform your output label in the same way, attributing an index of you output vector for each category.
The final pipeline would be something like this:
[input_text] --bag_of_word--> [input_vector] --prediction--> [output_vector] --label_matchnig--> [labels]
Usually one wants to get a feature from a text by using the bag of words approach, counting the words and calculate different measures, for example tf-idf values, like this: How to include words as numerical feature in classification
But my problem is different, I want to extract a feature vector from a single word. I want to know for example that potatoes and french fries are close to each other in the vector space, since they are both made of potatoes. I want to know that milk and cream also are close, hot and warm, stone and hard and so on.
What is this problem called? Can I learn the similarities and features of words by just looking at a large number documents?
I will not make the implementation in English, so I can't use databases.
hmm,feature extraction (e.g. tf-idf) on text data are based on statistics. On the other hand, you are looking for sense (semantics). Therefore no such a method like tf-idef will work for you.
In NLP exists 3 basic levels:
morphological analyses
syntactic analyses
semantic analyses
(higher number represents bigger problems :)). Morphology is known for majority languages. Syntactic analyses is a bigger problem (it deals with things like what is verb, noun in some sentence,...). Semantic analyses has the most challenges, since it deals with meaning which is quite difficult to represent in machines, have many exceptions and are language-specific.
As far as I understand you want to know some relationships between words, this can be done via so-called dependency tree banks, (or just treebank): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treebank . It is a database/graph of sentences where a word can be considered as a node and relationship as arc. There is good treebank for czech language and for english there will be also some, but for many 'less-covered' languages it can be a problem to find one ...
user1506145,
Here is a simple idea that I have used in the past. Collect a large number of short documents like Wikipedia articles. Do a word count on each document. For the ith document and the jth word let
I = the number of documents,
J = the number of words,
x_ij = the number of times the jth word appears in the ith document, and
y_ij = ln( 1+ x_ij).
Let [U, D, V] = svd(Y) be the singular value decomposition of Y. So Y = U*D*transpose(V)), U is IxI, D is diagonal IxJ, and V is JxJ.
You can use (V_1j, V_2j, V_3j, V_4j) as a feature vector in R^4 for the jth word.
I am surprised the previous answers haven't mentioned word embedding. Word embedding algorithm can produce word vectors for each word a given dataset. These algorithms can nfer word vectors from the context. For instance, by looking at the context of the following sentences we can say that "clever" and "smart" is somehow related. Because the context is almost the same.
He is a clever guy
He is a smart guy
A co-occurrence matrix can be constructed to do this. However, it is too inefficient. A famous technique designed for this purpose is called Word2Vec. It can be studied from the following papers.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.2738.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.3722.pdf
I have been using it for Swedish. It is quite effective in detecting similar words and completely unsupervised.
A package could be find in gensim and tensorflow.
Binarization is the act of transforming colorful features of of an entity into vectors of numbers, most often binary vectors, to make good examples for classifier algorithms.
If we where to binarize the sentence "The cat ate the dog", we could start by assigning every word an ID (for example cat-1, ate-2, the-3, dog-4) and then simply replace the word by it's ID giving the vector <3,1,2,3,4>.
Given these IDs we could also create a binary vector by giving each word four possible slots, and setting the slot corresponding to a specific word with to one, giving the vector <0,0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,1>. The latter method is, as far as I know, is commonly referred to as the bag-of-words-method.
Now for my question, what is the best binarization method when it comes to describe features for natural language processing in general, and transition-based dependency parsing (with Nivres algorithm) in particular?
In this context, we do not want to encode the whole sentence, but rather the current state of the parse, for example the top word on the stack en the first word in the input queue. Since order is highly relevant, this rules out the bag-of-words-method.
With best, I am referring to the method that makes the data the most intelligible for the classifier, without using up unnecessary memory. For example I don't want a word bigram to use 400 million features for 20000 unique words, if only 2% the bigrams actually exist.
Since the answer is also depending on the particular classifier, I am mostly interested in maximum entropy models (liblinear), support vector machines (libsvm) and perceptrons, but answers that apply to other models are also welcome.
This is actually a really complex question. The first decision you have to make is whether to lemmatize your input tokens (your words). If you do this, you dramatically decrease your type count, and your syntax parsing gets a lot less complicated. However, it takes a lot of work to lemmatize a token. Now, in a computer language, this task gets greatly reduced, as most languages separate keywords or variable names with a well defined set of symbols, like whitespace or a period or whatnot.
The second crucial decision is what you're going to do with the data post-facto. The "bag-of-words" method, in the binary form you've presented, ignores word order, which is completely fine if you're doing summarization of a text or maybe a Google-style search where you don't care where the words appear, as long as they appear. If, on the other hand, you're building something like a compiler or parser, order is very much important. You can use the token-vector approach (as in your second paragraph), or you can extend the bag-of-words approach such that each non-zero entry in the bag-of-words vector contains the linear index position of the token in the phrase.
Finally, if you're going to be building parse trees, there are obvious reasons why you'd want to go with the token-vector approach, as it's a big hassle to maintain sub-phrase ids for every word in the bag-of-words vector, but very easy to make "sub-vectors" in a token-vector. In fact, Eric Brill used a token-id sequence for his part-of-speech tagger, which is really neat.
Do you mind if I ask what specific task you're working on?
Binarization is the act of
transforming colorful features of
an entity into vectors of numbers,
most often binary vectors, to make
good examples for classifier
algorithms.
I have mostly come across numeric features that take values between 0 and 1 (not binary as you describe), representing the relevance of the particular feature in the vector (between 0% and 100%, where 1 represents 100%). A common example for this are tf-idf vectors: in the vector representing a document (or sentence), you have a value for each term in the entire vocabulary that indicates the relevance of that term for the represented document.
As Mike already said in his reply, this is a complex problem in a wide field. In addition to his pointers, you might find it useful to look into some information retrieval techniques like the vector space model, vector space classification and latent semantic indexing as starting points. Also, the field of word sense disambiguation deals a lot with feature representation issues in NLP.
[Not a direct answer] It all depends on what you are try to parse and then process, but for general short human phrase processing (e.g. IVT) another method is to use neural networks to learn the patterns. This can be very acurate for smallish vocubularies