My current understanding is that it's possible to extract entities from a text document using toolkits such as OpenNLP, Stanford NLP.
However, is there a way to find relationships between these entities?
For example consider the following text :
"As some of you may know, I spent last week at CERN, the European high-energy physics laboratory where the famous Higgs boson was discovered last July. Every time I go to CERN I feel a deep sense of reverence. Apart from quick visits over the years, I was there for three months in the late 1990s as a visiting scientist, doing work on early Universe physics, trying to figure out how to connect the Universe we see today with what may have happened in its infancy."
Entities: I (author), CERN, Higgs boson
Relationships :
- I "visited" CERN
- CERN "discovered" Higgs boson
Thanks.
Yes absolutely. This is called Relation Extraction. Stanford has developed several useful tools for working on this problem.
Here is there website: http://deepdive.stanford.edu/relation_extraction
Here is the github repository: https://github.com/philipperemy/Stanford-OpenIE-Python
In general here is how the process works.
results = entract_entity_relations("Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.")
print(results)
# [['Barack Obama','was born in', 'Hawaii']]
Of some importance is that only triples are extracted of the form (subject,predicate,object).
You can extract verbs with their dependants using Stanford Parser, for example. E.g., you might get "dependency chains" like
"I :: spent :: at :: CERN".
It is a much tougher task to recognise that "I spent at CERN" and "I visited CERN" and "CERN hosted my visit" (etc) denote the same kind of event. Going into how this can be done is beyond the scope of an SO question, but you can read up literature of paraphrases recognition (here is one overview paper). There is also a related question on SO.
Once you can cluster similar chains, you'd need to find a way to label them. You could simply choose the verb of the most common chain in a cluster.
If, however, you have a pre-defined set of relation types you want to extract and lots of texts manually annotated for these relations, then the approach could be very different, e.g., using machine learning to learn how to recognize a relation type based on annotated data.
Don't know if you're still interested but CoreNLP added a new annotator called OpenIE (Open Information Extraction), which should accomplish what you're looking for. Check it out: OpenIE
Similar to the Stanford parser, you can also use the Google Language API, where you send a string and get a dependency tree response.
You can test this API first to see if it works well with your corpus: https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/
The outcome here is a subject predicate object (SPO) triplet, where your predicate describes the relationship. You'll need to traverse the dependency graph and write a script to parse out the triplet.
There are many ways to do relation extraction. As colleagues mentioned that you have to know about NER and coreference resolution. Different techniques require different approaches. Nowadays, Distant Supervision is most common, and for detecting the relation between entities, they used FREEBASE.
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 a collection of "articles", each 1 to 10 sentences long, written in a noisy, informal english (i.e. social media style).
I need to extract some information from each article, where available, like date and time. I also need to understand what the article is talking about and who is the main "actor".
Example, given the sentence: "Everybody's presence is required tomorrow morning starting from 10.30 to discuss the company's financial forecast.", I need to extract:
the date/time => "10.30 tomorrow morning".
the topic => "company's financial forecast".
the actor => "Everybody".
As far as I know, the date and time could be extracted without using NLP techniques but I haven't found anything as good as Natty (http://natty.joestelmach.com/) in Python.
My understanding on how to proceed after reading some chapters of the NLTK book and watching some videos of the NLP courses on Coursera is the following:
Use part of the data to create an annotated corpus. I can't use off-the-shelf corpus because of the informal nature of the text (e.g. spelling errors, uninformative capitalization, word abbreviations, etc...).
Manually (sigh...) annotate each article with tags from the Penn TreeBank tagset. Is there any way to automate this step and just check/fix the results ?
Train a POS tagger on the annotated article. I've found the NLTK-trainer project that seems promising (http://nltk-trainer.readthedocs.org/en/latest/train_tagger.html).
Chunking/Chinking, which means I'll have to manually annotate the corpus again (...) using the IOB notation. Unfortunately according to this bug report n-gram chunkers are broken: https://github.com/nltk/nltk/issues/367. This seems like a major issue, and makes me wonder whether I should keep using NLTK given that it's more than a year old.
At this point, if I have done everything correctly, I assume I'll find actor, topic and datetime in the chunks. Correct ?
Could I (temporarily) skip 1,2 and 3 and produce a working, but possibly with a high error rate, implementation ? Which corpus should I use ?
I was also thinking of a pre-process step to correct common spelling mistakes or shortcuts like "yess", "c u" and other abominations. Anything already existing I can take advantage of ?
THE question, in a nutshell, is: is my approach at solving this problem correct ? If not, what am I doing wrong ?
Could I (temporarily) skip 1,2 and 3 and produce a working, but
possibly with a high error rate, implementation ? Which corpus should
I use ?
I was also thinking of a pre-process step to correct common spelling
mistakes or shortcuts like "yess", "c u" and other abominations.
Anything already existing I can take advantage of ?
I would suggest you first have a go at processing standard language text. The pre-processing you refer to is an NLP task in its own right, known as normalization. Here is a resource for Twitter normalization: http://www.ark.cs.cmu.edu/TweetNLP/ , additionally, you can use spell checking, sentence boundary detection, ...
THE question, in a nutshell, is: is my approach at solving this
problem correct ? If not, what am I doing wrong ?
If you make abstraction of normalization, I think your approach is valid. With regard to automating the annotation process: you can bootstrap the process by using off-the-shelf components first, after which you correct, retrain, and so on, ... during different iterations. To get acceptable results, you will need to do your steps 2, 3, and 4 a couple of times.
If you are interested in understanding the problem and being able to optimize existing solutions, I would suggest you focus on tools that allow you to develop your own models. If you prioritize getting results over being able to develop your own models, I would recommend looking into existing open source text engineering frameworks such as Gate (https://gate.ac.uk/) UIMA (http://uima.apache.org/) and DKPro (which extends UIMA) (https://code.google.com/p/dkpro-core-asl/). All three frameworks wrap existing components, so you have a wide range of possible solutions.
I'd suggesting giving a try to NER and Temporal Normalizer.
Here is what I see for your example sentence:
You can try the demo here:
http://deagol.cs.illinois.edu:8080/
I need to categorize a text or word to a particular category. For example, the text 'Pink Floyd' should be categorized as 'music' or 'Wikimedia' as 'technology' or 'Einstein' as 'science'.
How can this be done? Is there a way I can use the DBpedia for the same? If not, the database has to be trained from time to time, right?
This is a text classification problem. Manning, Raghavan and Schütze's Information Retrieval book chapter is a nice introduction. I think you do not need DBPedia nor NER for this, just a small labeled training data set with enough labeled examples for all of your classes.
Yes, DBpedia may be a good choice for this kind of problem. You'll have to
squash the DBpedia category structure so you get the right granularity (e.g., Pink Floyd is listed under Capitol Records artists and a host of other categories, but not directly under Music). Maybe pick a few large categories and try to find whether your concepts are listed indirectly in them;
normalize text; Einstein is listed as Albert Einstein, not einstein
deal with ambiguity due to terms describing multiple concepts and concepts belonging to multiple top-level categories.
These problems may be solvable using machine learning, but I only see how it can be done if you extract these terms, along with relevant features, from running text. But in that case, you might just as well classify the entire text into one of the categories you choose in step 1.
This is the well-studied named entity recognition problem. Unless you have a particular need to roll your own technology (hint: it's a hard problem in general), using Gate, or perhaps one of the online services that builds on it (e.g. TSO's Data Enrichment Service), would be a good option. An alternative online service is OpenCalais.
Mapping your categries to DBPedia.
Index with lucene selected DBPedia categories and label data with your category names.
Do search for your data - tokenization, normalization will be done by Lucene.
This approach is somehow related to KNN classification.
Yes DBpedia is a good choice for text classification, as you can use its predicates/ relations to query and to extract the meaningful information for the particular category.
You can look into the endpoint for querying Dbpedia:
http://dbpedia.org/sparql
Further, learn the basic syntax of SPARQL to query on the endpoint from the following link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
Let's say I have a bunch of essays (thousands) that I want to tag, categorize, etc. Ideally, I'd like to train something by manually categorizing/tagging a few hundred, and then let the thing loose.
What resources (books, blogs, languages) would you recommend for undertaking such a task? Part of me thinks this would be a good fit for a Bayesian Classifier or even Latent Semantic Analysis, but I'm not really familiar with either other than what I've found from a few ruby gems.
Can something like this be solved by a bayesian classifier? Should I be looking more at semantic analysis/natural language processing? Or, should I just be looking for keyword density and mapping from there?
Any suggestions are appreciated (I don't mind picking up a few books, if that's what's needed)!
Wow, that's a pretty huge topic you are venturing into :)
There is definitely a lot of books and articles you can read about it but I will try to provide a short introduction. I am not a big expert but I worked on some of this stuff.
First you need to decide whether you are want to classify essays into predefined topics/categories (classification problem) or you want the algorithm to decide on different groups on its own (clustering problem). From your description it appears you are interested in classification.
Now, when doing classification, you first need to create enough training data. You need to have a number of essays that are separated into different groups. For example 5 physics essays, 5 chemistry essays, 5 programming essays and so on. Generally you want as much training data as possible but how much is enough depends on specific algorithms. You also need verification data, which is basically similar to training data but completely separate. This data will be used to judge quality (or performance in math-speak) of your algorithm.
Finally, the algorithms themselves. The two I am familiar with are Bayes-based and TF-IDF based. For Bayes, I am currently developing something similar for myself in ruby, and I've documented my experiences in my blog. If you are interested, just read this - http://arubyguy.com/2011/03/03/bayes-classification-update/ and if you have any follow up questions I will try to answer.
The TF-IDF is a short for TermFrequence - InverseDocumentFrequency. Basically the idea is for any given document to find a number of documents in training set that are most similar to it, and then figure out it's category based on that. For example if document D is similar to T1 which is physics and T2 which is physics and T3 which is chemistry, you guess that D is most likely about physics and a little chemistry.
The way it's done is you apply the most importance to rare words and no importance to common words. For instance 'nuclei' is rare physics word, but 'work' is very common non-interesting word. (That's why it's called inverse term frequency). If you can work with Java, there is a very very good Lucene library which provides most of this stuff out of the box. Look for API for 'similar documents' and look into how it is implemented. Or just google for 'TF-IDF' if you want to implement your own
I've done something similar in the past (though it was for short news articles) using some vector-cluster algorithm. I don't remember it right now, it was what Google used in its infancy.
Using their paper I was able to have a prototype running in PHP in one or two days, then I ported it to Java for speed purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space_model
http://www.la2600.org/talks/files/20040102/Vector_Space_Search_Engine_Theory.pdf
Is there a way to classify a particular sentence/paragraph as funny. There are very few pointers as to where one should go further on this.
There is research on this, it's called Computational Humor. It's an interdisciplinary area that takes elements from computational linguistics, psycholinguistics, artificial intelligence, machine learning etc. They are trying to find out what it is that makes stories or jokes funny (e.g. the unexpected connection, or using a taboo topic in a surprising way etc) and apply it to text (either to generate a funny story or to measure the 'funniness' of text).
There are books and articles about it (e.g. by Graeme Ritchie).
Yes, you should use a Training Corpora to build a predictive model able to detect funny sentences. Sometimes this is known as "Sentiment Analysis" in the literature. Take a look at this article about Sentiment Analysis with LingPipe.
If you can use Java, you can use their library (see license matrix). I found it very useful, not exactly in the same context than you.
The only way to pull this off is to get a couple of thousand people (monkeys won't do, sorry) to look through thousands of funny sentences/stories, rate them, and then build some sort of expert system/neural network out of it. Given the problem scope and the subjectivity of it (a thing funny to one person might not be funny - even offensive - to another), I'd say it's an impossible task.
You can use the same technique as spam filters. Instead of spam/non-spam you classify on funny/not-funny. Look into naive bayesian classifiers for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Bayesian_classification
Also, try Computational Humor # Google Scholar if you're serious about getting into the field. Sentiment Analysis has been mentioned too, see wikipedia on that.
Of course, this all depends on what your scope and aims are...