I have a Naive Bayes classifier (implemented with WEKA) that looks for uppercase letters.
contains_A
contains_B
...
contains_Z
For a certain class the word LCD appears in almost every instance of the training data. When I get the probability for "LCD" to belong to that class it is something like 0.988. win.
When I get the probability for "L" I get a plain 0 and for "LC" I get 0.002. Since features are naive, shouldn't the L, C and D contribute to overall probability independently, and as a result "L" have some probability, "LC" some more and "LCD" even more?
At the same time, the same experiment with an MLP, instead of having the above behavior it gives percentages of 0.006, 0.5 and 0.8
So the MLP does what I would expect a Naive Bayes to do, and vise versa. Am I missing something, can anyone explain these results?
I am not familiar with the internals of WEKA - so please correct me if you think that I am not righth.
When using a text as a "feature" than this text is transformed to a vector of binary values. Each value correponds to one concrete word. The length of the vector is equal to the size of the dictionary.
if your dictionary contains 4 worlds: LCD, VHS, HELLO, WORLD
then for example a text HELLO LCD will be transformed to [1,0,1,0].
I do not know how WEKA builds it's dictionary, but I think it might go over all the words present in the examples. Unless the "L" is present in the dictionary (and therefor is present in the examples) than it's probability is logicaly 0. Actually it should not even be considered as a feature.
Actually you can not reason over the probabilities of the features - and you cannot add them together, I think there is no such a relationship between the features.
Beware that in text mining, words (letters in your case) may be given weights different than their actual counts if you are using any sort of term weighting and normalization, e.g. tf.idf. In the case of tf.idf for example, characters counts are converted into a logarithmic scale, also characters that appear in every single instance may be penalized using idf normalization.
I am not sure what options you are using to convert your data into Weka features, but you can see here that Weka has parameters to be set for such weighting and normalization options
http://weka.sourceforge.net/doc.dev/weka/filters/unsupervised/attribute/StringToWordVector.html
-T
Transform the word frequencies into log(1+fij)
where fij is the frequency of word i in jth document(instance).
-I
Transform each word frequency into:
fij*log(num of Documents/num of documents containing word i)
where fij if frequency of word i in jth document(instance)
I checked the weka documentation and I didn't see support for extracting letters as features. This implies the weka function may need a space or punctuation to delimit each feature from those adjacent. If so, then the search for "L", "C" and "D" would be interpreted as three separate one-letter-words and would explain why they were not found.
If you think this is it, you could try splitting the text into single characters delimited by \n or space, prior to ingestion.
Related
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 would like to use word2vec to transform 'words' into numerical vectors and possibly make predictions for new words. I've tried extracting features from words manually and training a linear regression model (using Stocahstic Gradient Descent), but this only works to an extent.
The input data I have is:
Each word is associated with a numerical value. You can think of this value as being the word's coordinate in 1D space.
For each word I can provide a distance to any other word (because I have the words' coordinates).
because of this I can provide the context for each word. If given a distance, I can provide all the other words within this distance from the target one.
Words are composed from latin letters only (e.g. AABCCCDE, BKEDRRS).
Words almost never repeat, but their structural elements repeat a lot within different words.
Words can be of different length (say 5-50 letters max).
Words have common features, some subsequences in them will occur multiple times in different words (e.g. some dublets or triplets of letters, their position within a word, etc).
The question:
Is there an implementation of word2vec which allows provision of your own distances and context for each word?
A big bonus would be if the trained model could spit out the predicted coordinate for any word you feed in after training.
Preferrably in Java, Python is also fine, but in general anything will do.
I am also not restricting myself to word2vec, it just seems as a good fit, but my knowledge of machine-learning and data mining are very limited, so I might be missing a better way to tackle the problem.
PS: I know about deeplearning4j, but I haven't looked around the code enough to figure out if what I want to do is easy to implement in it.
Example of data: (typical input contains thousands to tens of thousands of words)
ABCD 0.50
ABCDD 0.51
ABAB 0.30
BCDAB 0.60
DABBC 0.59
SPQTYRQ 0.80
Core question : Right way(s) of using word-embeddings to represent text ?
I am building sentiment classification application for tweets. Classify tweets as - negative, neutral and positive.
I am doing this using Keras on top of theano and using word-embeddings (google's word2vec or Stanfords GloVe).
To represent tweet text I have done as follows:
used a pre-trained model (such as word2vec-twitter model) [M] to map words to their embeddings.
Use the words in the text to query M to get corresponding vectors. So if the tweet (T) is "Hello world" and M gives vectors V1 and V2 for the words 'Hello' and 'World'.
The tweet T can then be represented (V) as either V1+V2 (add vectors) or V1V2 (concatinate vectors)[These are 2 different strategies] [Concatenation means juxtaposition, so if V1, V2 are d-dimension vectors, in my example T is 2d dimension vector]
Then, the tweet T is represented by vector V.
If I follow the above, then My Dataset is nothing but vectors (which are sum or concatenation of word vectors depending on which strategy I use).
I am training a deepnet such as FFN, LSTM on this dataset. But my results arent coming out to be great.
Is this the right way to use word-embeddings to represent text ? What are the other better ways ?
Your feedback/critique will be of immense help.
I think that, for your purpose, it is better to think about another way of composing those vectors. The literature on word embeddings contains examples of criticisms to these kinds of composition (I will edit the answer with the correct references as soon as I find them).
I would suggest you to consider also other possible approaches, for instance:
Using the single word vectors as input to your net (I do not know your architecture, but the LSTM is recurrent so it can deal with sequences of words).
Using a full paragraph embedding (i.e. https://cs.stanford.edu/~quocle/paragraph_vector.pdf)
Summing them doesn't make any sense to be honest, because on summing them you get another vector which i don't think represents the semantics of "Hello World" or may be it does but it won't surely hold true for longer sentences in general
Instead it would be better to feed them as sequence as in that way it at least preserves sequence in meaningful way which seems to fit more to your problem.
e.g A hates apple Vs Apple hates A this difference would be captured when you feed them as sequence into RNN but their summation will be same.
I hope you get my point!
In the Word2Vec Skip-gram setup that follows, what is the data setup for the output layer? Is it a matrix that is zero everywhere but with a single "1" in each of the C rows - that represents the words in the C context?
Add to describe Data Setup Question:
Meaning what the dataset would look like that was presented to the NN? Lets consider this to be "what does a single training example look like"?. I assume the total input is a matrix, where each row is a word in the vocabulary (and there is a column for each word as well and each cell is zero except where for the specific word - one hot encoded)? Thus, a single training example is 1xV as shown below (all zeros except for the specific word, whose value is a 1). This aligns with the picture above in that the input is V-dim. I expected that the total input matrix would have duplicated rows however - where the same one-hot encoded vector would be repeated for each time the word was found in the corpus (as the output or target variable would be different).
The Output (target) is more confusing to me. I expected it would exactly mirror the input -- a single training example has a "multi"-hot encoded vector that is zero except is a "1" in C of the cells, denoting that a particular word was in the context of the input word (C = 5 if we are looking, for example, 2 words behind and 3 words ahead of the given input word instance). The picture doesn't seem to agree with this though. I dont understand what appears like C different output layers that share the same W' weight matrix?
The skip-gram architecture has word embeddings as its output (and its input). Depending on its precise implementation, the network may therefore produce two embeddings per word (one embedding for the word as an input word, and one embedding for the word as an output word; this is the case in the basic skip-gram architecture with the traditional softmax function), or one embedding per word (this is the case in a setup with the hierarchical softmax as an approximation to the full softmax, for example).
You can find more information about these architectures in the original word2vec papers, such as Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases
and their Compositionality by Mikolov et al.
So I read a paper that said that processing your dataset correctly can increase LibSVM classification accuracy dramatically...I'm using the Weka implementation and would like some help making sure my dataset is optimal.
Here are my (example) attributes:
Power Numeric (real numbers, range is from 0 to 1.5132, 9000+ unique values)
Voltage Numeric (similar to Power)
Light Numeric (0 and 1 are the only 2 possible values)
Day Numeric (1 through 20 are the possible values, equal number of each value)
Range Nominal {1,2,3,4,5} <----these are the classes
My question is: which Weka pre-processing filters should I apply to make this dataset more effective for LibSVM?
Should I normalize and/or standardize the Power and Voltage data values?
Should I use a Discretization filter on anything?
Should I be binning the Power/Voltage values into a lot smaller number of bins?
Should I make the Light value Binary instead of numeric?
Should I normalize the Day values? Does it even make sense to do that?
Should I be using the Nominal to Binary or Nominal to some thing else filter for the classes "Range"?
Please advice on these questions and anything else you think I might have missed...
Thanks in advance!!
Normalization is very important, as it influences the concept of distance which is used by SVM. The two main approaches to normalization are:
Scale each input dimension to the same interval, for example [0, 1]. This is the most common approach by far. It is necessary to prevent some input dimensions to completely dominate others. Recommended by the LIBSVM authors in their beginner's guide (Appendix B for examples).
Scale each instance to a given length. This is common in text mining / computer vision.
As to handling types of inputs:
Continuous: no work needed, SVM works on these implicitly.
Ordinal: treat as continuous variables. For example cold, lukewarm, hot could be modeled as 1, 2, 3 without implicitly defining an unnatural structure.
Nominal: perform one-hot encoding, e.g. for an input with N levels, generate N new binary input dimensions. This is necessary because you must avoid implicitly defining a varying distance between nominal levels. For example, modelling cat, dog, bird as 1, 2 and 3 implies that a dog and bird are more similar than a cat and bird which is nonsense.
Normalization must be done after substituting inputs where necessary.
To answer your questions:
Should I normalize and/or standardize the Power and Voltage data
values?
Yes, standardize all (final) input dimensions to the same interval (including dummies!).
Should I use a Discretization filter on anything?
No.
Should I be binning the Power/Voltage values into a lot smaller number of
bins?
No. Treat them as continuous variables (e.g. one input each).
Should I make the Light value Binary instead of numeric?
No, SVM has no concept of binary variables and treats everything as numeric. So converting it will just lead to an extra type-cast internally.
Should I normalize the Day values? Does it even make sense to do
that?
If you want to use 1 input dimension, you must normalize it just like all others.
Should I be using the Nominal to Binary or Nominal to some thing else filter for the classes "Range"?
Nominal to binary, using one-hot encoding.