I am using TreeTagger to get the lemmas of words in Spanish, but I have observed there are too much words which are not transformed as should be. I would like to know how this operations works, if it is done with techniques such as decision trees or machine learning algorithms or it simply contains a list of words with its corresponding lemma. Does someone know it?
Thanks!!
On basis of personal communication via email with H. Schmid, the author of TreeTagger, the answer to your question is:
The lemmatization function is based on the XTAG Project, which includes a morphological analyzer. Within the XTAG project several corpora have been analyzed. Considerung TreeTagger, especially the analysis of the Penn Treebank Corpus seems relevant, since this corpus is the training corpus for the English parameter file of TreeTagger. Considering lemmatization, the lemmata have simply been stored in a lexicon. TreeTagger finally uses this lexicon as a lookup table.
Hence, with TreeTagger you may only retreive the lemmata that are available in the lexicon.
In case you need additional funtionality regarding lemmatization beyond the options in TreeeTagger, you will need a morphological analyzer and, depending on your approach, a suitable training corpus, although this does not seem mandatoriy, since several analyzers perform quite well even when directly applied on the corpus of interest to be analyzed.
Related
I am working on a Named Entity Recognition (NER) project in which I got a large amount of text in the sense that it is too much to read or skim read. Therefore, I want to create an overview of what is mentioned by extracting named entities (places, names, times, maybe topics) and create an index of kind (entity, list of pages/lines where it is mentioned). I have worked through Standford's NLP lecture, (parts of) Eisenstein's Introduction to NLP book found some literature and systems for English texts. As my corpus is in German, I would like to ask how I can approach this problem. Also, this is my first NLP project, so I would not know if I could solve this challenge even if texts were in English.
As a first step
are there German NER systems out there which I could use?
The further roadmap of my project is:
How can I avoid mapping misspellings or rare names to a NUL/UNK token? This is relevant because there are also some historic passages that use words no longer in use or that follow old orthography. I think the relevant terms are tokenisation or stemming.
I thought about fine-tuning or transfer learning the base NER model to a corpus of historic texts to improve NER.
A major challenge is that there is no annotated dataset for my corpus available and I could only manually annotate a tiny fraction of it. So I would be happy for hints on German annotated datasets which I could incorporate into my project.
Thank you in advance for your inputs and fruitful discussions.
Most good NLP toolkits can perform NER in German:
Stanford NLP
Spacy
probably NLTK and OpenNLP as well
What is crucial to understand is that using NER software like the above means using a pretrained model, i.e. a model which has been previously trained on some standard corpus with standard annotated entities.
Btw you can usually find the original annotated dataset by looking at the documentation. There's one NER corpus here.
This is convenient and might suit your goal, but sometimes it doesn't collect exactly every that you would like it to collect, especially if your corpus is from a very specific domain. If you need more specific NER, you must train your own model and this requires obtaining some annotated data (i.e. manually annotating or paying somebody to do it).
Even in this case, a NER model is statistical and it will unavoidably make some mistakes, don't expect perfect results.
About misspellings or rare names: a NER model doesn't care (or not too much) about the actual entity, because it's not primarily based on the words in the entity. It's based on indications in the surrounding text, for example in the sentence "It was announced by Mr XYZ that the event would take place in July", the NER model should find 'Mr XYZ' as a person due to "announced by" and 'July' as a date because of "take place in". However if the language used in the corpus is very different from the training data used for the model, the performance could be very bad.
Does anyone know how of an accurate tool or method that can be used to compute word embeddings or find similarity among domain-specific words? I'm working on an NLP project that involves computing cosine similarity between technical terms, such as "address" and "socket", but pre-trained models like word2vec aren't giving useful embeddings or accurate cosine similarities because they aren't specific to technical terms. Since the more general-nontechnical meanings of "address" and "socket" aren't similar to one another, these pretrained models aren't giving them sufficiently high similarity scores for the purposes of my project. Would appreciate any advice people would be able to offer. Thank you!
With sufficient data from your specific domain, you can train your own word2vec model - whose resulting word-vectors, being only influenced by your domain data, will be far more reflective of the in-domain meanings.
Similarly, if you have a mixture of data where you have hints that some word uses are for different senses of a polysemous word, you could try preprocessing your text, using those hints, replacing the ambiguous tokens (like say 'address') with a larger number of distinct tokens (like 'address*networking', 'address*delivery', etc). Even with a lot of error in such a process, its results might be sufficient for a specific purpose.
For example, maybe you'd assume all docs of a certain type – like articles from a particular publication – always mean 'address*networking' when they write 'address'. That crude replacement, on just some subset of docs sufficient to collect enough varied examples of 'address*networking' usage, might leave you with a good-enough word-vector for 'address*networking'.
(More generally, deciding which word sense of multiple candidates is meant by a particular word is called "word sense disambiguation", and it might be possible to use other preexisting code for performing that to help preprocess texts - replacing ambiguous tokens with more-speciific stand-ins – before performing word2vec training.)
Even without such assistive pre-processing, there've been a number of research attempts to extend word2vec to better model words with multiple contrasting meanings. Googling for [word2vec polysemy] or [polysemous embeddings] should turn up a bunch of examples.
But I don't know any of those techniques that have become widely-used, or that are explicitly supported by major word2vec libraries, so I can't specifically recommend or show working code for any. I don't know a standard best-practice or off-the-shelf solution – you'd have to treat adopting those ideas from research papers as an R&D project, performing a lot of your own implementation/evaluation to see if any help with your goals.
A few papers on the topics of word and document embeddings (word2vec, doc2vec) mention that they used the Stanford CoreNLP framework to tokenize/lemmatize/POS-tag the input words/sentences:
The corpora were lemmatized and POS-tagged with the Stanford CoreNLP (Manning et al., 2014) and each token was replaced with its lemma and POS tag
(http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/131/039/ecp17131039.pdf)
For pre-processing, we tokenise and lowercase the words using Stanford CoreNLP
(https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05368.pdf)
So my questions are:
Why does the first paper apply POS-tagging? Would each token then be replaced with something like {lemma}_{POS} and the whole thing used to train the model? Or are the tags used to filter tokens?
For example, gensims WikiCorpus applies lemmatization per default and then only keeps a few types of part of speech (verbs, nouns, etc.) and gets rid of the rest. So what is the recommended way?
The quote from the second paper seems to me like they only split up words and then lowercase them. This is also what I first tried before I used WikiCorpus. In my opinion, this should give better results for document embeddings as most of POS types contribute to the meaning of a sentence. Am I right?
In the original doc2vec paper I did not find details about their pre-processing.
For your first question, the answer is "it depends on what you are trying to accomplish!"
There isn't a recommended way per say, to pre-process text. To clean a text corpus, usually the first steps are tokenization and lemmatization. Next, to remove not important terms/tokens, you can remove stop-words or even apply POS tags, to be able to remove tokens based on their grammatical category, based on the assumption that some grammatical categories (such as adjectives), do not contain valuable information for modelling a topic for example. But this purely depends on the type of analysis you are going to follow after the pre-processing step.
For you second part of the question, as explained above, tokenisation and lower case tokens, are standard parts of the pre-processing routine. So I also suspect, that regardless of the ML algorithm used later on, your results will be better if you carefully pre-process your data. I am not sure whether POS tags contribute to the meaning of a sentence though.
Hope I provided some valuable feedback to your research. If not you could provide a code sample to further discuss this issue.
I'm making a program which provides some english sentences which user has to learn more.
For example:
First, I provide a sentence "I have to go school today" to user.
Then if the user wants to learn more sentences like that, I find some sentences which have high grammar similarity with that sentence.
I think the only way for providing sentences is to calculate similarity.
Is there a way to calculate grammar similarity between two sentences?
or is there a better way to make that algorithm?
Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you.
My approach for solving this problem would be to do a Part Of Speech Tagging of using a tool like NLTK and compare the trees structure of your phrase with your database.
Other way, if you already have a training dataset, use the WEKA to use a machine learn approach to connect the phrases.
You can parse your sentence as either a constituent or dependency tree and use these representations to formulate some form of query that you can use to find candidate sentences with similar structures.
You can check this available tool from Stanford NLP:
Tregex is a utility for matching patterns in trees, based on tree relationships and regular expression matches on nodes (the name is short for "tree regular expressions"). Tregex comes with Tsurgeon, a tree transformation language. Also included from version 2.0 on is a similar package which operates on dependency graphs (class SemanticGraph, called semgrex.
In one of the example .prop files coming with the Stanford NER software there are two options I do not understand:
useDistSim = true
distSimLexicon = /u/nlp/data/pos_tags_are_useless/egw4-reut.512.clusters
Does anyone have a hint what DistSim stands for and where I can find any more documentation on how to use these options?
UPDATE: I just found out that DistSim means distributional similarity. I still wonder what that means in this context.
"DistSim" refers to using features based on word classes/clusters, built using distributional similarity clustering methods (e.g., Brown clustering, exchange clustering). Word classes group words which are similar, semantically and/or syntactically, and allow an NER system to generalize better, including handling words not in the training data of the NER system better. Many of our distributed models use a distributional similarity clustering features as well as word identity features, and gain significantly from doing so. In Stanford NER, there are a whole bunch of flags/properties that affect how distributional similarity is interpreted/used: useDistSim, distSimLexicon, distSimFileFormat, distSimMaxBits, casedDistSim, numberEquivalenceDistSim, unknownWordDistSimClass, and you need to look at the code in NERFeatureFactory.java to decode the details, but in the simple case, you just need the first two, and they need to be used while training the model, as well as at test time. The default format of the lexicon is just a text file with a series of lines with two tab separated columns of word clusterName. The cluster names are arbitrary.