I trained two versions of doc2vec models with two datasets.
The first dataset was made with 2400 documents and the second one was made with 3000 documents including the documents which were used in the first dataset.
For an example,
dataset 1 = doc1, doc2, ... doc2400
dataset 2 = doc1, doc2, ... doc2400, doc2401, ... doc3000
I thought that both doc2vec models should return the same similarity score between doc1 and doc2, however, they returned different scores.
Does doc2vec model's result change upon the datasets even they include the same documents?
Yes, any addition to the training set will change the relative results.
Further, as explained in the Gensim FAQ, even re-training with the exact same data will typically result in different end coordinates for each training doc, though each run should be about equivalently useful:
https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/gensim/wiki/Recipes-&-FAQ#q11-ive-trained-my-word2vec--doc2vec--etc-model-repeatedly-using-the-exact-same-text-corpus-but-the-vectors-are-different-each-time-is-there-a-bug-or-have-i-made-a-mistake-2vec-training-non-determinism
What should remain roughly the same between runs is the neighborhoods around each document. That is, adding some extra training docs shouldn't change the general result that some candidate doc is "very close" or "closer than other docs" to some target doc - except to the extent that (1) the new docs might include some even-closer docs; and (2) a small amount of 'jitter' between runs, per the FAQ answer above.
If in fact you see lots of change in the relative neighborhoods and top-N neighbors of a document, either in repeated runs or runs with small increments of extra data, there's possibly something else wrong in the training.
In particular, 2400 docs is a pretty small dataset for Doc2Vec - smaller datasets might need smaller vector_size and/or more epochs and/or other tweaks to get more reliable results, and even then, might not show off the strengths of this algorithm on larger (tens-of-thousands to millions of docs) datasets.
Related
I have been using Seurat v4 Reference Mapping align some query scRNAseq datasets that come from IPSC-derived cells that were subject to several directed cortical differentiation protocols at multiple timepoints. The reference dataset I made by merging several individual fetal cortical sample datasets that I had annotated based on their unsupervised cluster DEGs (following this vignette using the default parameters).
I am interested in seeing which protocol produces cells most similar to the cells found in the fetal datasets as well as which fetal timepoints the query datasets tend to map to. I understand that the MappingScore() function can show me query cells that aren't well represented in the reference dataset, so I figured that these scores could tell me which datasets are most similar to the reference dataset. However, in comparing the violin plots of the mapping scores for a query dataset from one of the differentiation protocols to a query dataset that contains just pluripotent cells it looks like there are cells with high mapping scores found in both cases (see attached images) even though really only the differentiated cells should have cells closely resembling the fetal cortical tissue cells. I attached the code as a .txt file.
My question is whether or not the mapping score can be used as an absolute measurement of query to reference dataset similarity or if it is always just a relative measure where the high and low thresholds are set by the query dataset. If the latter, what alternative functions might I use here to get information about absolute similarity?
Thanks.
Attachments:
Pluripotent Cell Mapping Score
Differentiated Cell Mapping Score
Code Used For Mapping
I am trying to assess a doc2vec model based on the code from here. Basically, I want to know the percentual of inferred documents are found to be most similar to itself. This is my current code an:
for doc_id, doc in enumerate(cur.execute('SELECT Text FROM Patents')):
docs += 1
doc = clean_text(doc)
inferred_vector = model.infer_vector(doc)
sims = model.docvecs.most_similar([inferred_vector], topn=len(model.docvecs))
rank = [docid for docid, sim in sims].index(doc_id)
ranks.append(rank)
counter = collections.Counter(ranks)
accuracy = counter[0] / docs
This code works perfectly with smaller datasets. However, since I have a huge file with millions of documents, this code becomes too slow, it would take months to compute. I profiled my code and most of the time is consumed by the following line: sims = model.docvecs.most_similar([inferred_vector], topn=len(model.docvecs)).
If I am not mistaken, this is having to measure each document to every other document. I think computation time might be massively reduced if I change this to topn=1 instead since the only thing I want to know is if the most similar document is itself or not. Doing this will basically take each doc (i.e., inferred_vector), measure its most similar document (i.e., topn=1), and then I just see if it is itself or not. How could I implement this? Any help or idea is welcome.
To have most_similar() return only the single most-similar document, that is as simple as specifying topn=1.
However, to know which one document of the millions is the most-similar to a single target vector, the similarities to all the candidates must be calculated & sorted. (If even one document was left out, it might have been the top-ranked one!)
Making sure absolutely no virtual-memory swapping is happening will help ensure that brute-force comparison happens as fast as possible, all in RAM – but with millions of docs, it will still be time-consuming.
What you're attempting is a fairly simple "self-check" as to whether training led to self-consistent model: whether the re-inference of a document creates a vector "very close to" the same doc-vector left over from bulk training. Failing that will indicate some big problems in doc-prep or training, but it's not a true measure of the model's "accuracy" for any real task, and the model's value is best evaluated against your intended use.
Also, because this "re-inference self-check" is just a crude sanity check, there's no real need to do it for every document. Picking a thousand (or ten thousand, or whatever) random documents will give you a representative idea of whether most of the re-inferred vectors have this quality, or not.
Similarly, you could simply check the similarity of the re-inferred vector against the single in-model vector for that same document-ID, and check whether they are "similar enough". (This will be much faster, but could also be done on just a random sample of docs.) There's no magic proper threshold for "similar enough"; you'd have to pick one that seems to match your other goals. For example, using scikit-learn's cosine_similarity() to compare the two vectors:
from sklearn.metrics.pairwise import cosine_similarity
# ...
inferred_vector = model.infer_vector(doc_words)
looked_up_vector = model.dv[doc_id]
self_similarity = cosine_similarity([inferred_vector], [looked_up_vector])[0]
# then check that value against some threshold
(You have to wrap the single vectors in lists as arguments to cosine_similarity(), then access the 0th element of the return value, because it is designed to usually work on larger lists of vectors.)
With this calculation, you wouldn't know if, for example, some of the other stored-doc-vectors are a little closer to your inferred target - but that may not be that important, anyway. The docs might be really similar! And while the original "closest to itself" self-check will fail miserably if there were major defects in training, even a well-trained model will likely have some cases where natural model jitter prevents a "closest to itself" for every document. (With more documents inside the same number of dimensions, or certain corpuses with lots of very-similar documents, this would become more common... but not be a concerning indicator of any model problems.)
I'm trying to build a Word2vec (or FastText) model using Gensim on a massive dataset which is composed of 1000 files, each contains ~210,000 sentences, and each sentence contains ~1000 words. The training was made on a 185gb RAM, 36-core machine.
I validated that
gensim.models.word2vec.FAST_VERSION == 1
First, I've tried the following:
files = gensim.models.word2vec.PathLineSentences('path/to/files')
model = gensim.models.word2vec.Word2Vec(files, workers=-1)
But after 13 hours I decided it is running for too long and stopped it.
Then I tried building the vocabulary based on a single file, and train based on all 1000 files as follows:
files = os.listdir['path/to/files']
model = gensim.models.word2vec.Word2Vec(min_count=1, workers=-1)
model.build_vocab(corpus_file=files[0])
for file in files:
model.train(corpus_file=file, total_words=model.corpus_total_words, epochs=1)
But I checked a sample of word vectors before and after the training, and there was no change, which means no actual training was done.
I can use some advise on how to run it quickly and successfully. Thanks!
Update #1:
Here is the code to check vector updates:
file = 'path/to/single/gziped/file'
total_words = 197264406 # number of words in 'file'
total_examples = 209718 # number of records in 'file'
model = gensim.models.word2vec.Word2Vec(iter=5, workers=12)
model.build_vocab(corpus_file=file)
wv_before = model.wv['9995']
model.train(corpus_file=file, total_words=total_words, total_examples=total_examples, epochs=5)
wv_after = model.wv['9995']
so the vectors: wv_before and wv_after are exactly the same
There's no facility in gensim's Word2Vec to accept a negative value for workers. (Where'd you get the idea that would be meaningful?)
So, it's quite possible that's breaking something, perhaps preventing any training from even being attempted.
Was there sensible logging output (at level INFO) suggesting that training was progressing in your trial runs, either against the PathLineSentences or your second attempt? Did utilities like top show busy threads? Did the output suggest a particular rate of progress & let you project-out a likely finishing time?
I'd suggest using a positive workers value and watching INFO-level logging to get a better idea what's happening.
Unfortunately, even with 36 cores, using a corpus iterable sequence (like PathLineSentences) puts gensim Word2Vec in a model were you'll likely get maximum throughput with a workers value in the 8-16 range, using far less than all your threads. But it will do the right thing, on a corpus of any size, even if it's being assembled by the iterable sequence on-the-fly.
Using the corpus_file mode can saturate far more cores, but you should still specify the actual number of worker threads to use – in your case, workers=36 – and it is designed to work on from a single file with all data.
Your code which attempts to train() many times with corpus_file has lots of problems, and I can't think of a way to adapt corpus_file mode to work on your many files. Some of the problems include:
you're only building the vocabulary from the 1st file, which means any words only appearing in other files will be unknown and ignored, and any of the word-frequency-driven parts of the Word2Vec algorithm may be working on unrepresentative
the model builds its estimate of the expected corpus size (eg: model.corpus_total_words) from the build_vocab() step, so every train() will behave as if that size is the total corpus size, in its progress-reporting & management of the internal alpha learning-rate decay. So those logs will be wrong, the alpha will be mismanaged in a fresh decay each train(), resulting in a nonsensical jigsaw up-and-down alpha over all files.
you're only iterating over each file's contents once, which isn't typical. (It might be reasonable in a giant 210-billion word corpus, though, if every file's text is equally and randomly representative of the domain. In that case, the full corpus once might be as good as iterating over a corpus that's 1/5th the size 5 times. But it'd be a problem if some words/patterns-of-usage are all clumped in certain files - the best training interleaves contrasting examples throughout each epoch and all epochs.)
min_count=1 is almost always unwise with this algorithm, and especially so in large corpora of typical natural-language word frequencies. Rare words, and especially those appearing only once or a few times, make the model gigantic but those words won't get good word-vectors, and keeping them in acts like noise interfering with the improvement of other more-common words.
I recommend:
Try the corpus iterable sequence mode, with logging and a sensible workers value, to at least get an accurate read of how long it might take. (The longest step will be the initial vocabulary scan, which is essentially single-threaded and must visit all data. But you can .save() the model after that step, to then later re-.load() it, tinker with settings, and try different train() approaches without repeating the slow vocabulary survey.)
Try aggressively-higher values of min_count (discarding more rare words for a smaller model & faster training). Perhaps also try aggressively-smaller values of sample (like 1e-05, 1e-06, etc) to discard a larger fraction of the most-frequent words, for faster training that also often improves overall word-vector quality (by spending relatively more effort on less-frequent words).
If it's still too slow, consider if you could using a smaller subsample of your corpus might be enough.
Consider the corpus_file method if you can roll much or all of your data into the single file it requires.
I'm a very new student of doc2vec and have some questions about document vector.
What I'm trying to get is a vector of phrase like 'cat-like mammal'.
So, what I've tried so far is by using doc2vec pre-trained model, I tried the code below
import gensim.models as g
model = "path/pre-trained doc2vec model.bin"
m = g. Doc2vec.load(model)
oneword = 'cat'
phrase = 'cat like mammal'
oneword_vec = m[oneword]
phrase_vec = m[phrase_vec]
When I tried this code, I could get a vector for one word 'cat', but not 'cat-like mammal'.
Because word2vec only provide the vector for one word like 'cat' right? (If I'm wrong, plz correct me)
So I've searched and found infer_vector() and tried the code below
phrase = phrase.lower().split(' ')
phrase_vec = m.infer_vector(phrase)
When I tried this code, I could get a vector, but every time I get different value when I tried
phrase_vec = m.infer_vector(phrase)
Because infer_vector has 'steps'.
When I set steps=0, I get always the same vector.
phrase_vec = m.infer_vector(phrase, steps=0)
However, I also found that document vector is obtained from averaging words in document.
like if the document is composed of three words, 'cat-like mammal', add three vectors of 'cat', 'like', 'mammal', and then average it, that would be the document vector. (If I'm wrong, plz correct me)
So here are some questions.
Is it the right way to use infer_vector() with 0 steps to getting a vector of phrase?
If it is the right averaging vector of words to get document vector, is there no need to use infer_vector()?
What is a model.docvecs for?
Using 0 steps means no inference at all happens: the vector stays at its randomly-initialized position. So you definitely don't want that. That the vectors for the same text vary a little each time you run infer_vector() is normal: the algorithm is using randomness. The important thing is that they're similar-to-each-other, within a small tolerance. You are more likely to make them more similar (but still not identical) with a larger steps value.
You can see also an entry about this non-determinism in Doc2Vec training or inference in the gensim FAQ.
Averaging word-vectors together to get a doc-vector is one useful technique, that might be good as a simple baseline for many purposes. But it's not the same as what Doc2Vec.infer_vector() does - which involves iteratively adjusting a candidate vector to be better and better at predicting the text's words, just like Doc2Vec training. For your doc-vector to be comparable to other doc-vectors created during model training, you should use infer_vector().
The model.docvecs object holds all the doc-vectors that were learned during model training, for lookup (by the tags given as their names during training) or other operations, like finding the most_similar() N doc-vectors to a target tag/vector amongst those learned during training.
I'm training a corpus consisting of 200000 reviews into positive and negative reviews using a Naive Bayes model, and I noticed that performing TF-IDF actually reduced the accuracy (while testing on test set of 50000 reviews) by about 2%. So I was wondering if TF-IDF has any underlying assumptions on the data or model that it works with, i.e. any cases where accuracy is reduced by the use of it?
The IDF component of TF*IDF can harm your classification accuracy in some cases.
Let suppose the following artificial, easy classification task, made for the sake of illustration:
Class A: texts containing the word 'corn'
Class B: texts not containing the word 'corn'
Suppose now that in Class A, you have 100 000 examples and in class B, 1000 examples.
What will happen to TFIDF? The inverse document frequency of corn will be very low (because it is found in almost all documents), and the feature 'corn' will get a very small TFIDF, which is the weight of the feature used by the classifier. Obviously, 'corn' was THE best feature for this classification task. This is an example where TFIDF may reduce your classification accuracy. In more general terms:
when there is class imbalance. If you have more instances in one class, the good word features of the frequent class risk having lower IDF, thus their best features will have a lower weight
when you have words with high frequency that are very predictive of one of the classes (words found in most documents of that class)
You can heuristically determine whether the usage of IDF on your training data decreases your predictive accuracy by performing grid search as appropriate.
For example, if you are working in sklearn, and you want to determine whether IDF decreases the predictive accuracy of your model, you can perform a grid search on the use_idf parameter of the TfidfVectorizer.
As an example, this code would implement the gridsearch algorithm on the selection of IDF for classification with SGDClassifier (you must import all the objects being instantiated first):
# import all objects first
X = # your training data
y = # your labels
pipeline = Pipeline([('tfidf',TfidfVectorizer()),
('sgd',SGDClassifier())])
params = {'tfidf__use_idf':(False,True)}
gridsearch = GridSearch(pipeline,params)
gridsearch.fit(X,y)
print(gridsearch.best_params_)
The output would be either:
Parameters selected as the best fit:
{'tfidf__use_idf': False}
or
{'tfidf__use_idf': True}
TF-IDF as far as I understand is a feature. TF is term frequency i.e. frequency of occurence in a document. IDF is inverse document frequncy i.e frequency of documents in which the term occurs.
Here, the model is using the TF-IDF info in the training corpus to estimate the new documents. For a very simple example, Say a document with word bad has pretty high term frequency of word bad in training set will sentiment label as negative. So, any new document containing bad will be more likely to be negative.
For the accuracy you can manaually select training corpus which contains mostly used negative or positive words. This will boost the accuracy.