I want to generate plausible (or less than plausible is okay too) nonsense text similar to the way that a markov chain approach would do, but I want the nouns and verbs of the generated text to come from a different source than the analyzed text.
So, for example, let's say that text 1 is from Little Red Riding Hood, and my list of nouns/verbs is something like the ones listed here: nouns, verbs. I'm looking for a way to swap out some/all of the nouns/verbs in text 1 with the new nouns/verbs. Then I would generate a new text from the mashup (perhaps using the markov chain approach).
I'm guessing that I need some sort of initial grammar analysis for text 1, and then perhaps do a swap with appropriately coded words of the insertion noun/verb lists?
I'm not familiar with text generation but I'd suggest a language modelling approach. You should check out the first 1-2 lectures for inspiration :)
You can try creating a language model, independent on the nouns and verbs (i.e. replacing them with _noun and _verb). Then you can try generating text from it, based on a factor of randomness since the suggested model just counts words and phrases.
I haven't tried it and I hope it works for you.
Related
I am a graduate student focusing on ML and NLP. I have a lot of data (8 million lines) and the text is usually badly written and contains so many spelling mistakes.
So i must go through some text cleaning and vectorizing. To do so, i considered two approaches:
First one:
cleaning text by replacing bad words using hunspell package which is a spell checker and morphological analyzer
+
tokenization
+
convert sentences to vectors using tf-idf
The problem here is that sometimes, Hunspell fails to provide the correct word and changes the misspelled word with another word that don't have the same meaning. Furthermore, hunspell does not reconize acronyms or abbreviation (which are very important in my case) and tends to replace them.
Second approache:
tokenization
+
using some embeddings methode (like word2vec) to convert words into vectors without cleaning text
I need to know if there is some (theoretical or empirical) way to compare this two approaches :)
Please do not hesitate to respond If you have any ideas to share, I'd love to discuss them with you.
Thank you in advance
I post this here just to summarise the comments in a longer form and give you a bit more commentary. No sure it will answer your question. If anything, it should show you why you should reconsider it.
Points about your question
Before I talk about your question, let me point a few things about your approaches. Word embeddings are essentially mathematical representations of meaning based on word distribution. They are the epitome of the phrase "You shall know a word by the company it keeps". In this sense, you will need very regular misspellings in order to get something useful out of a vector space approach. Something that could work out, for example, is US vs. UK spelling or shorthands like w8 vs. full forms like wait.
Another point I want to make clear (or perhaps you should do that) is that you are not looking to build a machine learning model here. You could consider the word embeddings that you could generate, a sort of a machine learning model but it's not. It's just a way of representing words with numbers.
You already have the answer to your question
You yourself have pointed out that using hunspell introduces new mistakes. It will be no doubt also the case with your other approach. If this is just a preprocessing step, I suggest you leave it at that. It is not something you need to prove. If for some reason you do want to dig into the problem, you could evaluate the effects of your methods through an external task as #lenz suggested.
How does external evaluation work?
When a task is too difficult to evaluate directly we use another task which is dependent on its output to draw conclusions about its success. In your case, it seems that you should pick a task that depends on individual words like document classification. Let's say that you have some sort of labels associated with your documents, say topics or types of news. Predicting these labels could be a legitimate way of evaluating the efficiency of your approaches. It is also a chance for you to see if they do more harm than good by comparing to the baseline of "dirty" data. Remember that it's about relative differences and the actual performance of the task is of no importance.
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
Let’s say I have a list of 250 words, which may consist of unique entries throughout, or a bunch of words in all their grammatical forms, or all sorts of words in a particular grammatical form (e.g. all in the past tense). I also have a corpus of text that has conveniently been split up into a database of sections, perhaps 150 words each (maybe I would like to determine these sections dynamically in the future, but I shall leave it for now).
My question is this: What is a useful way to get those sections out of the corpus that contain most of my 250 words?
I have looked at a few full text search engines like Lucene, but am not sure they are built to handle long query lists. Bloom filters seem interesting as well. I feel most comfortable in Perl, but if there is something fancy in Ruby or Python, I am happy to learn. Performance is not an issue at this point.
The use case of such a program is in language teaching, where it would be nice to have a variety of word lists that mirror the different extents of learner knowledge, and to quickly find fitting bits of text or examples from original sources. Also, I am just curious to know how to do this.
Effectively what I am looking for is document comparison. I have found a way to rank texts by similarity to a given document, in PostgreSQL.
I'm looking for a solution to following task. I take few random pages from random book in English and remove all non letter characters and convert all chars to lower case. As a result I have something like:
wheniwasakidiwantedtobeapilot...
Now what I'm looking for is something that could reverse that process with quite a good accuracy. I need to find words and sentence separators. Any ideas how to approach this problem? Are there existing solutions I can base on without reinventing the wheel?
This is harder than normal tokenization since the basic tokenization task assumes spaces. Basically all that normal tokenization has to figure out is, for example, whether punctuation should be part of a word (like in "Mr.") or separate (like at the end of a sentence). If this is what you want, you can just download the Stanford CoreNLP package which performs this task very well with a rule-based system.
For your task, you need to figure out where to put in the spaces. This tutorial on Bayesian inference has a chapter on word segmentation in Chinese (Chinese writing doesn't use spaces). The same techniques could be applied to space-free English.
The basic idea is that you have a language model (an N-Gram would be fine) and you want to choose a splitting that maximizes the probability the data according to the language model. So, for example, placing a space between "when" and "iwasakidiwantedtobeapilot" would give you a higher probability according to the language model than placing a split between "whe" and "niwasakidiwantedtobeapilot" because "when" is a better word than "whe". You could do this many times, adding and removing spaces, until you figured out what gave you the most English-looking sentence.
Doing this will give you a long list of tokens. Then when you want to split those tokens into sentences you can actually use the same technique except instead of using a word-based language model to help you add spaces between words, you'll use a sentence-based language model to split that list of tokens into separate sentences. Same idea, just on a different level.
The tasks you describe are called "words tokenization" and "sentence segmentation". There are a lot of literature about them in NLP. They have very simple straightforward solutions, as well as advanced probabilistic approaches based on language model. Choosing one depends on your exact goal.
How would you go about parsing a string of free form text to detect things like locations and names based on a dictionary of location and names? In my particular application there will be tens of thousands if not more entries in my dictionaries so I'm pretty sure just running through them all is out of the question. Also, is there any way to add "fuzzy" matching so that you can also detect substrings that are within x edits of a dictionary word? If I'm not mistaken this falls within the field of natural language processing and more specifically named entity recognition (NER); however, my attempt to find information about the algorithms and processes behind NER have come up empty. I'd prefer to use Python for this as I'm most familiar with that although I'm open to looking at other solutions.
You might try downloading the Stanford Named Entity Recognizer:
http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/CRF-NER.shtml
If you don't want to use someone else's code and you want to do it yourself, I'd suggest taking a look at the algorithm in their associated paper, because the Conditional Random Field model that they use for this has become a fairly common approach to NER.
I'm not sure exactly how to answer the second part of your question on looking for substrings without more details. You could modify the Stanford program, or you could use a part-of-speech tagger to mark proper nouns in the text. That wouldn't distinguish locations from names, but it would make it very simple to find words that are x words away from each proper noun.