I wonder why words like "therefore" or "however" or "etc" are not included for instance.
Can you suggest a strategy to make this list automatically more general?
One obvious solution is to include every word that arises in all documents. However, maybe in some documents "therefore" cannot arise.
Just to be clear I am not talking about augment the list by including words of specific data sets. For instance, in some data sets, it may be interested to filter some proper names. I am not talking about this. I am talking about the inclusion of general words that can appear in any english text.
The problem with tinkering with a stop word list is that there is no good way to gather all texts about a certain topic and then automatically discard everything that occurs too frequent. It may lead to inadvertently removing just the topic that you were looking for – because in a limited corpus it occurs relatively frequent. Also, any list of stop words may already contain just the phrase you are looking for. As an example, automatically creating a list of 1980s music groups would almost certainly discard the group The The.
The NLTK documentation refers to where their stopword list came from as:
Stopwords Corpus, Porter et al.
However, that reference is not very well written. It seems to state this was part of the 1980's Porter Stemmer (PDF: http://stp.lingfil.uu.se/~marie/undervisning/textanalys16/porter.pdf; thanks go to alexis for the link), but this actually does not mention stop words. Another source states that:
The Porter et al refers to the original Porter stemmer paper I believe - Porter, M.F. (1980): An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program 14 (3): 130—37. - although the et al is confusing to me. I remember being told the stopwords for English that the stemmer used came from a different source, likely this one - "Information retrieval" by C. J. Van Rijsbergen (Butterworths, London, 1979).
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/nltk-users/c8GHEA8mq8A
The full text of Van Rijsbergen can be found online (PDF: http://openlib.org/home/krichel/courses/lis618/readings/rijsbergen79_infor_retriev.pdf); it mentions several approaches to preprocessing text and so may well be worth a full read. From a quick glance-through it seems the preferred algorithm to generate a stop word list goes all the way back to research such as
LUHN, H.P., 'A statistical approach to mechanised encoding and searching of library information', IBM Journal of Research and Development, 1, 309-317 (1957).
dating back to the very early stages of automated text processing.
The title of your question asks about the criteria that were used to compile the stopwords list. A look at stopwords.readme() will point you to the Snowball source code, and based on what I read there I believe the list was basically hand-compiled, and its primary goal was the exclusion of irregular word forms in order to provide better input to the stemmer. So if some uninteresting words were excluded, it was not a big problem for the system.
As for how you could build a better list, that's a pretty big question. You could try computing a TF-IDF score for each word in your corpus. Words that never get a high tf-idf score (for any document) are uninteresting, and can go in the stopword list.
Related
I'm embarking on a project for a non-profit organization to help process and classify 1000's of reports annually from their field workers / contractors the world over. I'm relatively new to NLP and as such wanted to seek the group's guidance on the approach to solve our problem.
I'll highlight the current process, and our challenges and would love your help on the best way to solve our problem.
Current process: Field officers submit reports from locally run projects in the form of best practices. These reports are then processed by a full-time team of curators who (i) ensure they adhere to a best-practice template and (ii) edit the documents to improve language/style/grammar.
Challenge: As the number of field workers increased the volume of reports being generated has grown and our editors are now becoming the bottle-neck.
Solution: We would like to automate the 1st step of our process i.e., checking the document for compliance to the organizational best practice template
Basically, we need to ensure every report has 3 components namely:
1. States its purpose: What topic / problem does this best practice address?
2. Identifies Audience: Who is this for?
3. Highlights Relevance: What can the reader do after reading it?
Here's an example of a good report submission.
"This document introduces techniques for successfully applying best practices across developing countries. This study is intended to help low-income farmers identify a set of best practices for pricing agricultural products in places where there is no price transparency. By implementing these processes, farmers will be able to get better prices for their produce and raise their household incomes."
As of now, our approach has been to use RegEx and check for keywords. i.e., to check for compliance we use the following logic:
1 To check "states purpose" = we do a regex to match 'purpose', 'intent'
2 To check "identifies audience" = we do a regex to match with 'identifies', 'is for'
3 To check "highlights relevance" = we do a regex to match with 'able to', 'allows', 'enables'
The current approach of RegEx seems very primitive and limited so I wanted to ask the community if there is a better way to solving this problem using something like NLTK, CoreNLP.
Thanks in advance.
Interesting problem, i believe its a thorough research problem! In natural language processing, there are few techniques that learn and extract template from text and then can use them as gold annotation to identify whether a document follows the template structure. Researchers used this kind of system for automatic question answering (extract templates from question and then answer them). But in your case its more difficult as you need to learn the structure from a report. In the light of Natural Language Processing, this is more hard to address your problem (no simple NLP task matches with your problem definition) and you may not need any fancy model (complex) to resolve your problem.
You can start by simple document matching and computing a similarity score. If you have large collection of positive examples (well formatted and specified reports), you can construct a dictionary based on tf-idf weights. Then you can check the presence of the dictionary tokens. You can also think of this problem as a binary classification problem. There are good machine learning classifiers such as svm, logistic regression which works good for text data. You can use python and scikit-learn to build programs quickly and they are pretty easy to use. For text pre-processing, you can use NLTK.
Since the reports will be generated by field workers and there are few questions that will be answered by the reports (you mentioned about 3 specific components), i guess simple keyword matching techniques will be a good start for your research. You can gradually move to different directions based on your observations.
This seems like a perfect scenario to apply some machine learning to your process.
First of all, the data annotation problem is covered. This is usually the most annoying problem. Thankfully, you can rely on the curators. The curators can mark the specific sentences that specify: audience, relevance, purpose.
Train some models to identify these types of clauses. If all the classifiers fire for a certain document, it means that the document is properly formatted.
If errors are encountered, make sure to retrain the models with the specific examples.
If you don't provide yourself hints about the format of the document this is an open problem.
What you can do thought, is ask people writing report to conform to some format for the document like having 3 parts each of which have a pre-defined title like so
1. Purpose
Explains the purpose of the document in several paragraph.
2. Topic / Problem
This address the foobar problem also known as lorem ipsum feeling text.
3. Take away
What can the reader do after reading it?
You parse this document from .doc format for instance and extract the three parts. Then you can go through spell checking, grammar and text complexity algorithm. And finally you can extract for instance Named Entities (cf. Named Entity Recognition) and low TF-IDF words.
I've been trying to do something very similar with clinical trials, where most of the data is again written in natural language.
If you do not care about past data, and have control over what the field officers write, maybe you can have them provide these 3 extra fields in their reports, and you would be done.
Otherwise; CoreNLP and OpenNLP, the libraries that I'm most familiar with, have some tools that can help you with part of the task. For example; if your Regex pattern matches a word that starts with the prefix "inten", the actual word could be "intention", "intended", "intent", "intentionally" etc., and you wouldn't necessarily know if the word is a verb, a noun, an adjective or an adverb. POS taggers and the parsers in these libraries would be able to tell you the type (POS) of the word and maybe you only care about the verbs that start with "inten", or more strictly, the verbs spoken by the 3rd person singular.
CoreNLP has another tool called OpenIE, which attempts to extract relations in a sentence. For example, given the following sentence
Born in a small town, she took the midnight train going anywhere
CoreNLP can extract the triple
she, took, midnight train
Combined with the POS tagger for example; you would also know that "she" is a personal pronoun and "took" is a past tense verb.
These libraries can accomplish many other tasks such as tokenization, sentence splitting, and named entity recognition and it would be up to you to combine all of these tools with your domain knowledge and creativity to come up with a solution that works for your case.
I have some texts in different languages and, potentially, with some typo or other mistake, and I want to retrieve their own vocabulary. I'm not experienced with NLP in general, so maybe I use some word improperly.
With vocabulary I mean a collection of words of a single language in which every word is unique and the inflections for gender, number, or tense are not considered (e.g. think, thinks and thought are are all consider think).
This is the master problem, so let's reduce it to the vocabulary retrieving of one language, English for example, and without mistakes.
I think there are (at least) three different approaches and maybe the solution consists of a combination of them:
search in a database of words stored in relation with each others. So, I could search for thought (considering the verb) and read the associated information that thought is an inflection of think
compute the "base form" (a word without inflections) of a word by processing the inflected form. Maybe it can be done with stemming?
use a service by any API. Yes, I accept also this approach, but I'd prefer to do it locally
For a first approximation, it's not necessary that the algorithm distinguishes between nouns and verbs. For instance, if in the text there were the word thought like both noun and verb, it could be considered already present in the vocabulary at the second match.
We have reduced the problem to retrieve a vocabulary of an English text without mistakes, and without consider the tag of the words.
Any ideas about how to do that? Or just some tips?
Of course, if you have suggestions about this problem also with the others constraints (mistakes and multi-language, not only Indo-European languages), they would be much appreciated.
You need lemmatization - it's similar to your 2nd item, but not exactly (difference).
Try nltk lemmatizer for Python or Standford NLP/Clear NLP for Java. Actually nltk uses WordNet, so it is really combination of 1st and 2nd approaches.
In order to cope with mistakes use spelling correction before lemmatization. Take a look at related questions or Google for appropriate libs.
About part of speech tag - unfortunately, nltk doesn't consider POS tag (and context in general), so you should provide it with the tag that can be found by nltk pos tagging. Again, it is already discussed here (and related/linked questions). I'm not sure about Stanford NLP here - I guess it should consider context, but I was sure that NLTK does so. As I can see from this code snippet, Stanford doesn't use POS tags, while Clear NLP does.
About other languages - google for lemmatization models, since algorithm for most languages (at least from the same family) is almost the same, differences are in training data. Take a look here for example of German; it is a wrapper for several lemmatizers, as I can see.
However, you always can use stemmer at cost of precision, and stemmer is more easily available for different languages.
Topic Word has become an integral part of the rising debate in the present world. Some people perceive that Topic Word (Synonyms) beneficial, while opponents reject this notion by saying that it leads to numerous problems. From my point of view, Topic Word (Synonyms) has more positive impacts than negative around the globe. This essay will further elaborate on both positive and negative effects of this trend and thus will lead to a plausible conclusion.
On the one hand, there is a myriad of arguments in favour of my belief. The topic has a plethora of merits. The most prominent one is that the Topic Word (Synonyms). According to the research conducted by Western Sydney University, more than 70 percentages of the users were in favour of the benefits provided by the Topic Word (Synonyms). Secondly, Advantage of Essay topic. Thus, it can say that Topic Word (Synonyms) plays a vital role in our lives.
On the flip side, critics may point out that one of the most significant disadvantages of the Topic Word (Synonyms) is that due to Demerits relates to the topic. For instance, a survey conducted in the United States reveals that demerit. Consequently, this example explicit shows that it has various negative impacts on our existence.
As a result, after inspection upon further paragraphs, I profoundly believe that its benefits hold more water instead of drawbacks. Topic Word (Synonyms) has become a crucial part of our life. Therefore, efficient use of Topic Word (Synonyms) method should promote; however, excessive and misuse should condemn.
I am trying named entity recognition for the first time. I'm looking for features that will pick out English names. I am using the methods outlined in the coursera nlp course (week three) and the nltk book. In other words: I am defining features, identifying features of words and then running those words/features through a classifier that I train on labeled data.
What features are used to pick out English names?
I can imagine that you'd look for two capital words in a row, or a capital word and then an initial and then a capital word. (ex. John Smith or James P. Smith).
But what other features are used for NER?
Some common features:
Word lists for common names (John, Adam, etc)
casing
contains symbol or numeric characters (names generally don't)
person prefixes (Mr., Mrs., etc...)
person postfixes (Jr., Sr., etc...)
single letter abbreviation (ie, (J.) Smith).
analysis of surrounding words (you may find some words have a high probability of appearing near names).
Named Entities previously recognized (often it is easy to identify NE in some parts of the corpus based on context, but very hard in other parts. If previously identified, this is an excellent hint towards NER)
Depending what language you are working with there may be more language specific features as well. Frankly you can turn up a wealth of information with a simple Google query, I'm really not sure why you haven't turned there. Some starting points however:
Google
A survey of named entity recognition and classification
Named entity recognition without gazetteers
I had done something similar back in school using machine learning. I suppose that you will use a supervised algorithm and you will classify every single word independently and not words in combination. In that case I would choose some features for the word itself like the ones you mentioned (if the word begins with a capital letter, if the word is an abbreviation) but I would add some more features like if the previous or the next words also start from a capital letter, or if they are abbreviations. This way you can add some context and overcome the problems related to your basic independence assumption.
If you want have a look here. In the machine learning section you can find some more information and examples (the problem is slightly different but the method should be similar).
Whatever features you choose it is important that you use some measure to evaluate their relevance and possibly reduce them to the useful ones to avoid over-fitting. One of the measures you can use to evaluate them is the gain ratio but there are many more. Here you can find some basic information about feature extraction.
Hope it helps!
What are the recommended methods for extracting locations from free text?
What I can think of is to use regex rules like "words ... in location". But are there better approaches than this?
Also I can think of having a lookup hash table table with names for countries and cities and then compare every extracted token from the text to that of the hash table.
Does anybody know of better approaches?
Edit: I'm trying to extract locations from tweets text. So the issue of high number of tweets might also affect my choice for a method.
All rule-based approaches will fail (if your text is really "free"). That includes regex, context-free grammars, any kind of lookup... Believe me, I've been there before :-)
This problem is called Named Entity Recognition. Location is one of the 3 most studied classes (with Person and Organization). Stanford NLP has an open source Java implementation that is extremely powerful: http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/CRF-NER.shtml
You can easily find implementations in other programming languages.
Put all of your valid locations into a sorted list. If you are planning on comparing case-insensitive, make sure the case of your list already is normalized.
Then all you have to do is loop over individual "words" in your input text and at the start of each new word, start a new binary search in your location list. As soon as you find a no-match, you can skip the entire word and proceed with the next.
Possible problem: multi-word locations such as "New York", "3rd Street", "People's Republic of China". Perhaps all it takes, though, is to save the position of the first new word, if you find your bsearch leads you to a (possible!) multi-word result. Then, if the full comparison fails -- possibly several words later -- all you have to do is revert to this 'next' word, in relation to the previous one where you started.
As to what a "word" is: while you are preparing your location list, make a list of all characters that may appear inside locations. Only phrases that contain characters from this list can be considered a valid 'word'.
How fast are the tweets coming in? As in is it the full twitter fire hose or some filtering queries?
A bit more sophisticated approach, that is similar to what you described is using an NLP tool that is integrated to a gazetteer.
Very few NLP tools will keep up to twitter rates, and very few do very well with twitter because of all of the leet speak. The NLP can be tuned for precision or recall depending on your needs, to limit down performing lockups in the gazetteer.
I recommend looking at Rosoka(also Rosoka Cloud through Amazon AWS) and GeoGravy
I have an algorithm (that I can't change) that outputs a list of phrases. These phrases are intended to be "topics". However, some of them are meaningless on their own. Take this list:
is the fear
freesat
are more likely to
first sight
an hour of
sue apple
depression and
itunes
How can I filter out those phrases that don't make sense on their own, to leave a list like the following?
freesat
first sight
sue apple
itunes
This will be applied to sets of phrases in many languages, but English is the priority.
It's got to be grammatically acceptable in that it can't rely on other words in the original sentence that it was extracted from; e.g. it can't end in 'and'.
Although this is still an underspecified question, it sounds like you want some kind of grammar checker. I suggest you try applying a part-of-speech tagger to each phrase, compile a list of patterns of POS tags that are acceptable (e.g. anything that ends in a preposition would be unacceptable) and use that to filter your input.
At a high level, it seems that phrases which were only nouns or adjective-noun combos would give much better results.
Examples:
"Blue Shirt"
"Happy People"
"Book"
First of all, this problem can be as complex as you want it to be. For third-party reading/solutions, I came across:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_language_processing_toolkits
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/groups/nlp/
http://sharpnlp.codeplex.com/ (note the part of speech tagger)
If you need 100% accuracy, then I wouldn't write such a tool myself.
However, if the problem domain is limited...
I would start by throwing out conjunctions, prepositions, contractions, state-of-being verbs, etc. This is a fairly short list in English (and looks very similar to the stopwords which #HappyTimeGopher suggested).
After that, you could create a dictionary (as an indexed structure, of course) of all acceptable nouns and adjectives and compare each word in the raw phrases to that. Anything which didn't occur in the dictionary and occur in the correct sequence could be thrown out or ranked lower.
This could be useful if you were given 100 input values and wanted to select the best 5. Finding the values in the dictionary would mean that it's likely the word/phrase was good.
I've auto-generated such a dictionary before by building a raw index from thousands of documents pertaining to a vertical industry. I then spent a few hours with SQL and Excel stripping out problems easily spotted by a human. The resulting list wasn't perfect but it eliminated most of the blatantly dumb/pointless terminology.
As you may have guessed, none of this is foolproof, although checking adjective-to-noun sequence would help somewhat. Consider the case of "Greatest Hits" versus "Car Hits [Wall]".
Proper nouns (e.g. person names) don't work well with the dictionary approach, since it's probably not feasible to build a dictionary of all variations of given/surnames.
To summarize:
use a list of stopwords
generate a dictionary of words, classifying them with a part of speech(s)
run raw phrases through dictionary and stopwords
(optional) rank on how confident you are on a match
if needed, accept phrases which didn't violate known patterns (this would handle many proper nouns)
If you've access to the text these phrases were generated from, it may be easier to just create your own topic tags.
Failing that, I'd probably just remove anything that contained a stop word. See this list, for example:
http://www.ranks.nl/resources/stopwords.html
I wouldn't break out POS tagging or anything stronger for this.
It seems you could create a list that filters out three things:
Prepositions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_prepositions
Conjunctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_(grammar)
Verb forms of to-be: http://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000040.htm
If you filter on these things you'd get pretty far. Are you more concerned with false negatives or positives? If false negatives aren't a huge problem, this is how I would approach it.