I am using gensim LDA for topic modelling.
I need to get the topic distribution of a corpus, not the individual documents.
Let say I have 1000 documents, which belongs to 10 different categories (let say 100 docs for each category).
After training the LDA model overall 1000 documents, then I want to see what are the dominant topics of each category. The following image illustrates my dataset and aim.
So far I can think of two approaches, but I am not sure either is sane, I will be happy to know if there is a better way of doing it.
In the first approach, I can concatenate the documents of each category into one large document. So there will be only 10 large documents, hence for each document, I will be able to retrieve its topic distribution.
Another approach might be getting the topic distribution of all document, without concatenating documents. Hence for each category, we will have 100 documents topic distributions. To get the dominant topics for each category, I may sum the probability of each topic, and get only a few highest scored topics.
I am not sure any of this approaches are right, what would you suggest?
In approach 1), you are concatenating documents (of possibly different lengths), and getting topics of one big document. So importance of smaller documents is likely to get diminished.
In approach 2), documents of all lengths get almost equal importance (depending on how you combine the topic distributions)
Approach you need to go with will depend on your usecase.
Related
I am training an LDA model. While I obtain decently interpretable topics (based on the top words), particular documents tend to load heavily on very "generic" topics rather than specialized ones -- even though the most frequent words in the document are specialized.
For example, I have a real estate report as a document. Top words by frequency are "rent", "reit", "growth". Now, I have a "specialized" topic with top words being exactly those three. However, the loading of the specialized topic is 9%, and 32% goes to a topic which is very diffuse and the top words are rather common.
How can I increase the weight of "specialized" topics? Is it possible to truncate topics such that I only include the top 10 words and assign zero probability to anything else? Is it desirable to do so?
I am using the gensim package. Thank you!
It seems that you want a very precise control over the topics which looks much more like clustering with a set of centroids chosen ahead of time than LDA which is generally not very deterministic and hence controllable.
One of the ways you can strive to achieve your goal with LDA is to filter more words out of the documents (same as you do with stopwords). Then the "rather common" words that go into one of the topics stop obscuring the LDA model creation process and you get more crisply delineated topics (hopefully).
Removing the most common words is quite a common practice for preprocessing in topic modeling. Because topics are usually generated from the most frequent words, but usually these words are not very informative. You can also remove the most common words as a post-processing step (See Pulling Out the Stops: Rethinking Stopword Removal for Topic Models)
About having sparser word-topic distributions, you can use Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF) instead of LDA. If you adjust the sparsity parameters, you can get more spiked proportions of the topics. You can use scikit-learn NMF's implementation.
So I am doing a project on document similarity and right now my features are only the embeddings from Doc2Vec. Since that is not showing any good results, after hyperparameter optimization and word embedding before the doc embedding... What other features can I add, so as to get better results?
My dataset is 150 documents, 500-700 words each, with 10 topics(labels), each document having one topic. Documents are labeled on a document level, and that labeling is currently used only for evaluation purposes.
Edit: The following is answer to gojomo's questions and elaborating on my comment on his answer:
The evaluation of the model is done on the training set. I am comparing if the label is the same as the most similar document from the model. For this I am first getting the document vector using the model's method 'infer_vector' and then 'most_similar' to get the most similar document. The current results I am getting are 40-50% of accuracy. A satisfactory score would be of at least 65% and upwards.
Due to the purpose of this research and it's further use case, I am unable to get a larger dataset, that is why I was recommended by a professor, as this is a university project, to add some additional features to the document embeddings of Doc2Vec. As I had no idea what he ment, I am asking the community of stackoverflow.
The end goal of the model is to do clusterization of the documents, again the labels for now being used only for evaluation purposes.
If I don't get good results with this model, I will try out the simpler ones mentioned by #Adnan S #gojomo such as TF-IDF, Word Mover's Distance, Bag of words, just presumed I would get better results using Doc2Vec.
You should try creating TD-IDF with 2 and 3 grams to generate a vector representation for each document. You will have to train the vocabulary on all the 150 documents. Once you have the TF-IDF vector for each document, you can use cosine similarity between any two of them.
Here is a blog article with more details and doc page for sklearn.
How are you evaluating the results as not good, and how will you know when your results are adequate/good?
Note that just 150 docs of 400-700 words each is a tiny, tiny dataset: typical datasets used published Doc2Vec results include tens-of-thousands to millions of documents, of hundreds to thousands of words each.
It will be hard for any of the Word2Vec/Doc2Vec/etc-style algorithms to do much with so little data. (The gensim Doc2Vec implementation includes a similar toy dataset, of 300 docs of 200-300 words each, as part of its unit-testing framework, and to eke out even vaguely useful results, it must up the number of training epochs, and shrink the vector size, significantly.)
So if intending to use Doc2Vec-like algorithms, your top priority should be finding more training data. Even if, in the end, only ~150 docs are significant, collecting more documents that use similar domain language can help improve the model.
It's unclear what you mean when you say there are 10 topics, and 1 topic per document. Are those human-assigned categories, and are those included as part of the training texts or tags passed to the Doc2Vec algorithm? (It might be reasonable to include it, depending on what your end-goals and document-similarity evaluations consist of.)
Are these topics the same as the labelling you also mention, and are you ultimately trying to predict the topics, or just using the topics as a check of the similarity-results?
As #adnan-s suggests in the other answer, it may also be worth trying more-simple count-based 'bag of words' document representations, including potentially on word n-grams or even character n-grams, or TF-IDF weighted.
If you have adequate word-vectors, as trained from your data or from other compatible sources, the "Word Mover's Distance" measure can be another interesting way to compute pairwise similarities. (However, it may be too expensive to calculate between many-hundred-word texts - working much faster on shorter texts.)
As others have already suggested your training set of 150 documents probably isn't big enough to create good representations. You could, however, try to use a pre-trained model and infer the vectors of your documents.
Here is a link where you can download a (1.4GB) DBOW model trained on English Wikipedia pages, working with 300-dimensional document vectors. I obtained the link from jhlau/doc2vec GitHub repository. After downloading the model you can use it as follows:
from gensim.models import Doc2Vec
# load the downloaded model
model_path = "enwiki_dbow/doc2vec.bin"
model = Doc2Vec.load(model_path)
# infer vector for your document
doc_vector = model.infer_vector(doc_words)
Where doc_words is a list of words in your document.
This, however, may not work for you in case your documents are very specific. But you can still give it a try.
I am using LDA for topic modelling but unfortunately my data is heavily skewed. I have documents from 10 different categories and would like each category to equally contribute to the LDA topics.
However, each category has a varying number of documents (one category for example holds more than 50% of the entire documents, while several categories hold only 1-2% of the documents).
What would be the best approach to assign weights to these categories, so they equally contribute to my topics? If I run the LDA without doing so, my topics will be largely based on the category, which holds over 50% of the documents in the corpus. I am exploring up-sampling but would prefer a solution that directly assigns weight in LDA.
I am a freshman in LDA and I want to use it in my work. However, some problems appear.
In order to get the best performance, I want to estimate the best topic number. After reading "Finding Scientific topics", I know that I can calculate logP(w|z) firstly and then use the harmonic mean of a series of P(w|z) to estimate P(w|T).
My question is what does the "a series of" mean?
Unfortunately, there is no hard science yielding the correct answer to your question. To the best of my knowledge, hierarchical dirichlet process (HDP) is quite possibly the best way to arrive at the optimal number of topics.
If you are looking for deeper analyses, this paper on HDP reports the advantages of HDP in determining the number of groups.
A reliable way is to compute the topic coherence for different number of topics and choose the model that gives the highest topic coherence. But sometimes, the highest may not always fit the bill.
See this topic modeling example.
First some people use harmonic mean for finding optimal no.of topics and i also tried but results are unsatisfactory.So as per my suggestion ,if you are using R ,then package"ldatuning" will be useful.It has four metrics for calculating optimal no.of parameters. Again perplexity and log-likelihood based V-fold cross validation are also very good option for best topic modeling.V-Fold cross validation are bit time consuming for large dataset.You can see "A heuristic approach to determine an appropriate no.of topics in topic modeling".
Important links:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ldatuning/vignettes/topics.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597325/
Let k = number of topics
There is no single best way and I am not even sure if there is any standard practices for this.
Method 1:
Try out different values of k, select the one that has the largest likelihood.
Method 2:
Instead of LDA, see if you can use HDP-LDA
Method 3:
If the HDP-LDA is infeasible on your corpus (because of corpus size), then take a uniform sample of your corpus and run HDP-LDA on that, take the value of k as given by HDP-LDA. For a small interval around this k, use Method 1.
Since I am working on that same problem, I just want to add the method proposed by Wang et al. (2019) in their paper "Optimization of Topic Recognition Model for News Texts Based on LDA". Besides giving a good overview, they suggest a new method. First you train a word2vec model (e.g. using the word2vec package), then you apply a clustering algorithm capable of finding density peaks (e.g. from the densityClust package), and then use the number of found clusters as number of topics in the LDA algorithm.
If time permits, I will try this out. I also wonder if the word2vec model can make the LDA obsolete.
Okay, so usually topic models (such as LDA, pLSI, etc.) are used to infer topics that may be present in a set of documents, in an unsupervised fashion. I would like to know if anyone has any ideas as to how I can shoehorn my problem into an LDA framework, as there are very good tools available to solve LDA problems.
For the sake of being thorough, I have the following pieces of information as input:
A set of documents (segments of DNA from one organism, where each segment is a document)
A document can only have one topic in this scenario
A set of topics (segments of DNA from other organisms)
Words in this case are triplets of bases (for now)
The question I want to answer is: For the current document, what is its topic? In other words, for the given DNA segment, which other organism (same species) did it most likely come from? There could have been mutations and such since the exchange of segments occurred, so the two segments won't be identical.
The main difference between this and the classical LDA model is that I know the topics ahead of time.
My initial idea was to take a pLSA model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLSA) and just set the topic nodes explicitly, then perform standard EM learning (if only there were a decent library that could handle Bayesian parameter learning with latent variables...), followed by inference using whatever algorithm (which shouldn't matter, because the model is a polytree anyway).
Edit: I think I've solved it, for anyone who might stumble across this. I figured out that you can use labelled LDA and just assign every label to every document. Since each label has a one-to-one correspondence with a topic, you're effectively saying to the algorithm: for each document, choose the topic from this given set of topics (the label set), instead of making up your own.
I have a similar problem, and just thought I'd add the solutions I'm going with for completeness's sake.
I also have a set of documents (pdf documents anywhere from 1 to 200
pages), though mine are regular English text data.
A set of known topics (mine include subtopics, but I won't address that here). Unlike the previous example, I may desire multiple topic labels.
Words (standard English, though named entities and acronyms are included in my corpus)
LDAesk approach: Guided LDA
Guided LDA lets you seed words for your LDA categories. If you have n-topics for your final decisions you just create your guidedLDA algorithm with n-seed topics, each of which contain the keywords that makeup their topic name. Eg: I want to cluster into known topics "biochemistry" and "physics". Then I seed my guidedLDA with d = {0: ['biochemsitry'], 1: ['physics']}. You can incorporate other guiding words if you can identify them, however the guidedLDA algorithm I'm using (python version) makes it relatively easy to identify the top n-words for a given topic. You can run guidedLDA once with only basic seed words then use the top n-words output to consider for more words to add to topics. These top n-words also are potentially helpful for the other approach I'm mentioning.
Non-LDAesk approach: ~KNN
What I've ended up doing is using a word embedding model (word2vec has been superior to alternatives for my case) to create a "topic vector" for every topic based on the words that make up the topic/subtopic. Eg: I have a category Biochemistry with a subcategory Molecular Biology. The most basic topic vector is just the word2vec vectors for Biochemistry, Molecular, and Biology all averaged together.
For every document I want to determine a topic for, I turn it into a "document vector" (same dimension & embedding model as how I made my topic vectors - I've found just averaging all the word2vec vectors in the doc has been the best solution for my so far, after a bit of preprocessing like removing stopwords). Then I just find the k-closest topic vectors to the input document vector.
I should note that there's some ability to hand tune this by changing the words that makeup the topic vectors. One way to potentially identify further keywords is to use the guidedLDA model I mentioned earlier.
I would note that when I was testing these two solutions on a different corpus with labeled data (which I didn't use aside from evaluating accuracy and such) this ~KNN approach proved better than the GuidedLDA approach.
Why not simply use a supervised topic model. Jonathan Chang's lda package in R has an slda function that is quite nice. There is also a very helpful demo. Just install the package and run demo(slda).