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.
Related
I'm working on a project where I am trying to build a named entity recognizer from texts. So basically I want to build and experiment the NER in 3 different ways.
First, I want to build it using only segmented sentences-> tokenized words. To clarify, I want to input only split/tokenized words into the system. Once again, the NER system is rule-based. Hence, it can only use rules to conclude which is a named entity. In the first NER, it will not have any chunk information or part of speech label. Just the tokenized words. Here, the efficiency is not the concern. Rather the concern lies in comparing the 3 different NERs, how they perform. (The one I am asking about is the 1st one).
I thought of it for a while and could not figure out any rules or any idea of coming up with a solution to this problem. One naive approach would be to conclude all words beginning with an uppercase and that does not follow a period to be a named entity.
Am I missing anything? Any heads up or guidelines would help.
Typically NER relies on preprocessing such as part-of-speech tagging (named entities are typically nouns), so not having this basic information makes the task more difficult and therefore more prone to error. There will be certain patterns that you could look for, such as the one you suggest (although what do you do with sentence-initial named entities?). You could add certain regular expression patterns with prepositions, e.g. (Title_case_token)+ of (the)? (Title_case_token)+ would match "Leader of the Free World", "Prime Minister of the United Kindom", and "Alexander the Great". You might also want to consider patterns to match acronyms such as "S.N.C.F.", "IBM", "UN", etc. A first step is probably to look for some lexical resources (i.e. word lists) like country names, first names, etc., and build from there.
You could use spaCy (Python) or TokensRegex (Java) to do token-based matching (and not use the linguistic features they add to the tokens).
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.
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.
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
As part of teaching myself python I've written a script which allows a user to play hangman. At the moment, the hangman word to be guessed is simply entered manually at the start of the script's code.
I want instead for the script to choose randomly from a large list of english words. This I know how to do - my problem is finding that list of words to work from in the first place.
Does anyone know of a source on the net for, say, 1000 common english words where they can be downloaded as a block of text or something similar that I can work with?
(My initial thought was grabbing a chunk of a novel from project gutenburg [this project is only for my own amusement and won't be available anywhere else so copyright etc doesn't matter hugely to me btw], but anything like that is likely to contain too many names or non-standard words that wouldn't be suitable for hangman. I need text that only has words legal for use in scrabble, basically).
It's a slightly odd question for here I suppose, but actually I thought the answer might be of use not just to me but anyone else working on a project for a wordgame or similar that needs a large seed list of words to work from.
Many thanks for any links or suggestions :)
Would this be useful?
Have you tried /usr/share/dict/words?
Create text list manually
Grab text from Project Gutenberg, Wikipedia or some other source. Go through the text and count how many times each word is found. The words that are found most frequently will be pronouns, conjunctions, etc... Just throw them out.
Proper Nouns will likely be the least frequently found words unless of course your text is a story, then the character names will likely be found quite often. Probably the best way to handle proper nouns is to use many sources and count how many sources the word is found in. Essentially, words that are common among a lot of different sources will likely not be proper nouns. Words that are specific to one text source, you can throw out. This idea is related to tfidf.
Once you have calculated these word frequencies, it's also easy to just look over the words, and tweak your list as necessary.
Use Wordnet
Another idea is to download words from Wordnet. Wordnet tells the parts of speech for a lot of words. You could just stick to nouns and verbs for your purpose.