Related
I have just started a project in NLP. Suppose I have a graph for each word that shows the polarity distribution of sentiments for that word in different sentences. I want to know what I can use to recognize the feelings of new words? Any other use you have in mind I will be happy to share.
I apologize for any possible errors in my writing. Thanks a lot
Assuming you've got some words that have been hand-labeled with positive/negative sentiments, but then you encounter some new words that aren't labeled:
If you encounter the new words totally alone, outside of contexts, there's not much you can do. (Maybe, you could go out to try to find extra texts with those new words, such as vis dictionaries or the web, then use those larger texts in the next approach.)
If you encounter the new words inside texts that also include some of your hand-labeled words, you could try guessing that the new words are most like the words you already know that are closest-to, or used-in-the-same-places. This would leverage what's called "the distributional hypothesis" – words with similar distributions have similar meanings – that underlies a lot of computer natural-language analysis, including word2vec.
One simple thing to try along these lines: across all your texts, for every unknown word U, tally up the counts all neighboring words within N positions. (N could be 1, or larger.) From that, pick the top 5 words occuring most often near the unknown word, and look up your prior labels, and avergae them together (perhaps weighted by the number of occurrences.)
You'll then have a number for the new word.
Alternatively, you could train a word2vec set-of-word-vectors for all of your texts, including the unknown & know words. Then, ask that model for the N most-similar neighbors to your unknown word. (Again, N could be small or large.) Then, from among those neighbors with known labels, average them together (again perhaps weighted by similarity), to get a number for the previously unknown word.
I wouldn't particularly expect either of these techniques to work very well. The idea that individual words can have specific sentiment is somewhat weak given the way that in actual language, their meaning is heavily modified, or even reversed, by the surrounding grammar/context. But in each case these simple calculate-from-neighbors techniqyes are probably better than random guesses.
If your real aim is to calculate the overall sentiment of longer texts, like sentences, paragraphs, reviews, etc, then you should discard your labels of individual words an acquire/create labels for full texts, and apply real text-classification techniques to those larger texts. A simple word-by-word approach won't do very well compared to other techniques – as long as those techniques have plenty of labeled training data.
I am working on a sentiment analysis project where I am analyzing a corpus of documents, and I am specifically not removing the word "not" as a stopword, so that I can use it to determine if a text agrees or disagrees with something. For instance, there is a difference between "not effective" and "effective" when discussing the COVID vaccine.
However, my phraser is not identifying any bigrams with the word "not." I presume this is because that token exists in such large numbers (particularly because I expanded contractions, so "isn't" -> "is not"), that the scoring function simply scores all bigrams with "not" too low. This would be because the standard phrase scoring function is:
(where min_count is a hyper parameter)
So, since "not" exists many thousands of times in the database, worda_count will be very large, leading to a large denominator and dropping the score considerably.
Is there a way to get around this, so "not" bigrams are scored effectively?
I can think of a few options off the top of my head:
Write my own scoring function that effectively has two scoring formula: the standard scoring formula, and a different scoring formula if the first word is "not".
I could include "not" in a list of connector_words, but gensim.models.phrases.Phraser specifically indicates that these connector words cannot be at the beginning or end of a phrase.
As you've discovered, the Phrases functionality in Gensim is pretty crude: it only combines words based on a meaning-oblivious statistical analysis. It's more likely to be helpful in promoting certain noun-phrases ('new_york') or idioms than generic syntactical reversals-of-meaning (as with an added 'not'). So whether you'll want to use it at all, I'm not sure.
You could try the most simpleminded thing possible: preprocess to always attach 'not' to the following word. Maybe it'll help!
You could also try some expensive grammar-aware preprocessing - the sort that labels words with parts-of-speech, & further identifies which other words/word-ranges a particular 'not' modifies. That might allow you to condiionally connect the 'not' to later words – maybe even non-contiguous words – & perhaps that will provide a lift to downstream sentiment-analysis.
I would like to be able to curate definitional summaries for a specific term from a textbook.
For example, from a Biology textbook, I would like to be able form a concise summary for the word "mitochondria". I have tried this by first parsing through the textbook for all sentences that contain the word "mitochondria", and feeding those sentences through summarization algorithms such as TextRank and LexRank, but those algorithms were not able to determine "definitional" sentences that well.
By definitional summaries, I mean useful sentences as far as a definition goes. For example, the sentence "The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell" would be a definitional sentence while the sentence "Fungal cells also contain mitochondria and a complex system of internal membranes, including the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus" is not really pertinent to the definition of the mitochondria.
Any help or leads would be very much appreciated
There isn't really a straightforward way to do this, but you do have some options:
Just use a regex for "mitochondria is". It is the stupidest possible thing, but given a textbook it might prove satisfactory. It's simple enough testing should be easy, and at worst provides a baseline to compare alternatives to.
Run a parser (example: Stanford Parser) on each sentence with the word "mitochondria", and extract sentences where mitochondria is the subject. This would eliminate the negative example you gave. You would have to tune this, perhaps restricting main verbs, accounting for coordinators, and so on.
Use Information Extraction (example: Stanford OpenIE) to get a list of facts about mitochondria (like is-in(mitochondria, cell)) and do something with that.
This is a very open ended question. I can try to point how I would approach this...
One way would be to use some kind of vector representation for text (word2vec
or sent2vec come to mind).
Then by encoding the average of the sentences in vector format and checking the cosine similarity of this and of the term you seek, you could be getting something close to the definitional sentences you seek.
Even testing the cosine similarity of the averaged sentences you get out of the summary algorithm and the term might get you close to judge how close you are
i am new in word/paragraph embedding and trying to understand via doc2vec in GENSIM. I would like to seek advice on whether my understanding is incorrect. My understanding is that doc2vec is potentially able to return documents that may have semantically similar content. As a test, i tried the following and have the following questions.
Question 1: I noted that every run of training with the exact same parameters and examples will result in a model that produces very different results from previous trains (E.g. Different vectors and different ranking of similar documents eveytime).. Why is this so indeterministic? As such, can this be reliably used for any practical work?
Question 2: Why am i not getting the tag ids of the top similar documents instead?
Results: [('day',0.477),('2016',0.386)....
Question 2 answer: The problem was due to model.most_similar, should use model.docvecs.most_similar instead
Please advise if i misunderstood anything?
Data prep
I had created multiple documents with a sentence each. I had deliberately made it such that they are distinctly different semantically.
A: It is a fine summer weather, with the birds singing and sun shining bright.
B: It is a lovely day indeed, if only i had a degree in appreciating.
C: 2016-2017 Degree in Earth Science Earthly University
D: 2009-2010 Dip in Life and Nature Life College
Query: Degree in Philosophy from Thinking University from 2009 to 2010
Training
I trained the documents (tokens as words, running index as tag)
tdlist=[]
docstring=['It is a fine summer weather, with the birds singing and sun shining bright.',
'It is a lovely day indeed, if only i had a degree in appreciating.',
'2016-2017 Degree in Earth Science Earthly University',
'2009-2010 Dip in Life and Nature Life College']
counter=1
for para in docstring:
tokens=tokenize(para) #This will also strip punctuation
td=TaggedDocument(gensim.utils.to_unicode(str.encode(' '.join(tokens))).split(), str(counter))
tdlist.append(td)
counter=counter+1
model=gensim.models.Doc2Vec(tdlist,dm=0,alpha=0.025, size=20, min_alpha=0.025, min_count=0)
for epoch in range(200):
model.train(tdlist, total_examples=model.corpus_count, epochs=model.iter)
Inference
I then attempted to infer the query. Although they are many missing words in the vocab for the query, i would expect closest document similarity results for C and D. But the results only gave me a list of 'words' followed by a similarity score. I am unsure if my understanding is wrong. Below is my code extract.
mydocvector=model.infer_vector(['Degree' ,'in' ,'Philosophy' ,'from' ,'Thinking' ,'University', 'from', '2009', 'to', '2010'])
print(model.docvecs.most_similar(positive=[mydocvector])
Doc2Vec doesn't work well on toy-sized datasets - few documents, few total words, few words per document. You'll absolutely want more documents than vector dimensions (size), and ideally tens-of-thousands of documents or more.
The second argument to TaggedDocument should be a list of tags. By supplying a single string-of-an-int, each of its elements (characters) will be seen as tags. (With just documents 1 to 4 this won't yet hurt, but as soon as you have document 10, Doc2Vec will see it as tags 1 and 0, unless you supply it as ['10'] (a single-element list).
Yes, to find most-similar documents you use model.docvecs.most_similar() rather than model.most_similar() (which only operates on learned words, if any).
You are using dm=0 mode, which is a pretty good starting idea – it's fast and often a top-performer. But note that this mode doesn't train word-vectors too. So anything you ask for from the top model, like model['summer'] or model.most_similar('sun'), will be nonsense results based on randomly-initialized but never-trained words. (If you need words trained too, either add dbow_words=1 to the dm=0 mode, or use a dm=1 mode. But for pure doc-vectors, dm=0 is a pretty good choice.)
There's no need to call train() in a loop - or indeed at all, given the line above it. The form you've used to instantiate Doc2Vec, with an actual corpus tdlist as the first argument, already triggers model-setup and training, using the default number of iter passes (5) and the supplied alpha and min_alpha. Now, for Doc2Vec training you often want more passes (10 to 20 are common, though smaller datasets might benefit from even more). And for any training, for properly gradient-descent, you want the effective learning-rate alpha to gradually decline to a negligible value, such as the default 0.0001 (rather than a forced same-as-starting value).
The only situation where you'd usually call train() explicitly is if you instantiate the model without a corpus. In that case, you'd need to both call model.build_vocab(tdlist) (to let the model initialize with a discovered vocabulary), and then some form of train() - but you'd still need only one call to train, supplying the desired number of passes. (Allowing the default model.iter 5 passes, inside an outer loop of 200 iterations, means a total of 1000 passes over the data... and all at the same fixed alpha, which is not proper gradient-descent.)
When you have a beefier dataset, you may find results improve with a higher min_count. Usually words that appear only a few times can't contribute much meaning, and thus only serve as noise slowing training and interfering with other vectors becoming more expressive. (Don't assume "more words must equal better results".) Throwing out the singletons, or more, usually helps.
Regarding inference, almost none of the words in your inference text are in the training set. (I only see 'Degree', 'in', and 'University' repeated.) So in addition to all the issues above, inferring a good vector for the example text would be hard. With a richer training set, you'd likely get better results. It also often helps to increase the steps optional parameter to infer_vector() far above its default of 5.
I want to use machine learning to identify the signature of a user who converts to a subscriber of a website given their behavior over time.
Let's say my website has 6 different features which can be used before subscribing and users can convert to a subscriber at any time.
For a given user I have stats which represent the intensity on a continuous range of that user's interaction with features 1-6 on a daily basis so:
D1: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D2: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D3: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
D4: f1,f2,f3,f4,f5,f6
Let's say on day 5, the user converts.
What machine using algorithms would help me identify which are the most common patterns in feature usage which lead to a conversion?
(I know this is a super basic classification question, but I couldn't find a good example using longitudinal data, where input vectors are ordered by time like I have)
To develop the problem further, let's assume that each feature has 3 intensities at which the user can interact (H, M, L).
We can then represent each user as a string of states of interaction intensity. So, for a user:
LLLLMM LLMMHH LLHHHH
Would mean on day one they only interacted significantly with features 5 and 6, but by the third day they were interacting highly with features 3 through 6.
N-gram Style
I could make these states words and the lifetime of a user a sentence. (Would probably need to add a "conversion" word to the vocabulary as well)
If I ran these "sentences" through an n-gram model, I could get the likely future state of a user given his/her past few state which is somewhat interesting. But, what I really want to know the most common sets of n-grams that lead to the conversion word. Rather than feeding in an n-gram and getting the next predicted word, I want to give the predicted word and get back the 10 most common n-grams (from my data) which would be likely to lead to the word.
Amaç Herdağdelen suggests identifying n-grams to practical n and then counting how many n-gram states each user has. Then correlating with conversion data (I guess no conversion word in this example). My concern is that there would be too many n-grams to make this method practical. (if each state has 729 possibilities, and we're using trigrams, thats a lot of possible trigrams!)
Alternatively, could I just go thru the data logging the n-grams which led to the conversion word and then run some type of clustering on them to see what the common paths are to a conversion?
Survival Style
Suggested by Iterator, I understand the analogy to a survival problem, but the literature here seems to focus on predicting time to death as opposed to the common sequence of events which leads to death. Further, when looking up the Cox Proportional Hazard model, I found that it does not event accommodate variables which change over time (its good for differentiating between static attributes like gender and ethnicity)- so it seems very much geared toward a different question than mine.
Decision Tree Style
This seems promising though I can't completely wrap my mind around how to structure the data. Since the data is not flat, is the tree modeling the chance of moving from one state to another down the line and when it leads to conversion or not? This is very different than the decision tree data literature I've been able to find.
Also, need clarity on how to identify patterns which lead to conversion instead a models predicts likely hood of conversion after a given sequence.
Theoretically, hidden markov models may be a suitable solution to your problem. The features on your site would constitute the alphabet, and you can use the sequence of interactions as positive or negative instances depending on whether a user finally subscribed or not. I don't have a guess about what the number of hidden states should be, but finding a suitable value for that parameter is part of the problem, after all.
As a side note, positive instances are trivial to identify, but the fact that a user has not subscribed so far doesn't necessarily mean s/he won't. You might consider to limit your data to sufficiently old users.
I would also consider converting the data to fixed-length vectors and apply conceptually simpler models that could give you some intuition about what's going on. You could use n-grams (consecutive interaction sequences of length n).
As an example, assuming that the interaction sequence of a given user ise "f1,f3,f5", "f1,f3,f5" would constitute a 3-gram (trigram). Similarly, for the same user and the same interaction sequence you would have "f1,f3" and "f3,f5" as the 2-grams (bigrams). In order to represent each user as a vector, you would identify all n-grams up to a practical n, and count how many times the user employed a given n-gram. Each column in the vector would represent the number of times a given n-gram is observed for a given user.
Then -- probably with the help of some suitable normalization techniques such as pointwise mutual information or tf-idf -- you could look at the correlation between the n-grams and the final outcome to get a sense of what's going on, carry out feature selection to find the most prominent sequences that users are involved in, or apply classification methods such as nearest neighbor, support machine or naive Bayes to build a predictive model.
This is rather like a survival analysis problem: over time the user will convert or will may drop out of the population, or will continue to appear in the data and not (yet) fall into neither camp. For that, you may find the Cox proportional hazards model useful.
If you wish to pursue things from a different angle, namely one more from the graphical models perspective, then a Kalman Filter may be more appealing. It is a generalization of HMMs, suggested by #AmaçHerdağdelen, which work for continuous spaces.
For ease of implementation, I'd recommend the survival approach. It is the easiest to analyze, describe, and improve. After you have a firm handle on the data, feel free to drop in other methods.
Other than Markov chains, I would suggest decision trees or Bayesian networks. Both of these would give you a likely hood of a user converting after a sequence.
I forgot to mention this earlier. You may also want to take a look at the Google PageRank algorithm. It would help you account for the user completely disappearing [not subscribing]. The results of that would help you to encourage certain features to be used. [Because they're more likely to give you a sale]
I think Ngramm is most promising approach, because all sequnce in data mining are treated as elements depndent on few basic steps(HMM, CRF, ACRF, Markov Fields) So I will try to use classifier based on 1-grams and 2 -grams.