So I had a large plain text script in ASCII, which can have 256 entries from dictionary. Dictionary can contain any string with length 3-6 letters. Each entry takes 2 bytes in script (instead of appropriate dictionary string length).
I had a lot of thought about building optimal dictionary for such scheme. Naive solution is to build any 6-letters substrings at each position, then count each of them and find most frequent. Then exclude this substring from initial script and repeat searching for most frequent for the second most frequent entry.
All of this looks ugly, I believe, there are already serious mathematics behind this task, but I couldn't find any references on that anywhere.
Could you please direct me or describe possible algorithm for mentioned task?
What I was looking for was an MTE codes building algorithm. It was implemented in couple of tools, for instance here (C code is also available inside).
The idea behind is a brute force: just like I've described. The importand addition is that when you find best code possible, you also need to count actual MTE code length and take into account only saved length minus MTE codes length, which will be taken.
Related
I was looking around some puzzles online to improve my knowledge on algorithms...
I came upon below question:
"You have a sentence with several words with spaces remove and words having their character order shuffled. You have a dictionary. Write an algorithm to produce the sentence back with spaces and words with normal character order."
I do not know what is good way to solve this.
I am new to algorithms but just looking at problem I think I would make program do what an intellectual mind would do.
Here is something I can think of:
-First find out manually common short english words from dictionary like "is" "the" "if" etc and put in dataset-1.
-Then find out permutation of words in dataset1 (eg "si", "eht" or "eth" or "fi") and put in dataset-2
-then find out from input sentense what character sequence matches the words of dataset2 and put them in dataset-3 and insert space in input sentence instead of those found.
-for rest of the words i would perform permutations to find out word from dictionary.
I am newbie to algorithms...is it a bad solution?
this seems like a perfectly fine solution,
In general there are 2 parameters for judging an algorithm.
correctness - does the algorithm provide the correct answer.
resources - the time or storage size needed to provide an answer.
usually there is a tradeoff between these two parameters.
so for example the size of your dictionary dictates what scrambled sentences you may
reconstruct, giving you a correct answer for more inputs,
however the whole searching process would take longer and would require more storage.
The hard part of the problem you presented is the fact that you need to compute permutations, and there are a LOT of them.
so checking them all is expensive, a good approach would be to do what you suggested, create a small subset of commonly used words and check them first, that way the average case is better.
note: just saying that you check the permutation/search is ok, but in the end you would need to specify the exact way of doing that.
currently what you wrote is an idea for an algorithm but it would not allow you to take a given input and mechanically work out the output.
Actually, might be wise to start by partitioning the dictionary by word length.
Then try to find the largest words that can be made using the letters avaliable, instead of finding the smallest ones. Short words are more common and thus will be harder to narrow down. IE: is it really "If" or "fig".
Then for each word length w, you can proceed w characters at a time.
There are still a lot of possible combinations though, simply because you found a valid word, doesn't mean it's the right word. Once you've gone through all the substrings, of which there should be something like O(c^4*d) where d is the number of words in the dictionary and c is the number of characters in the sentence. Practically speaking if the dictionary is sorted by word length, it'll be a fair bit less than that. Then you have to take the valid words, and figure out an ordering that works, so that all characters are used. There might be multiple solutions.
I'm designing a cool spell checker (I know I know, modern browsers already have this), anyway, I am wondering what kind of effort would it take to develop a fairly simple but decent suggest-word algorithm.
My idea is that I would first look through the misspelled word's characters and count the amount of characters it matches in each word in the dictionary (sounds resources intensive), and then pick the top 5 matches (so if the misspelled word matches the most characters with 7 words from the dictionary, it will randomly display 5 of those words as suggested spelling).
Obviously to get more advanced, we would look at "common words" and have a dictionary file that is numbered with 'frequency of that word used in English language' ranking. I think that's taking it a bit overboard maybe.
What do you think? Anyone have ideas for this?
First of all you will have to consider the complexity in finding the "nearer" words to the misspelled word. I see that you are using a dictionary, a hash table perhaps. But this may not be enough. The best and cooler solution here is to go for a TRIE datastructure. The complexity of finding these so called nearer words will take linear order timing and it is very easy to exhaust the tree.
A small example
Take the word "njce". This is a level 1 example where one word is clearly misspelled. The obvious suggestion expected would be nice. The first step is very obvious to see whether this word is present in the dictionary. Using the search function of a TRIE, this could be done O(1) time, similar to a dictionary. The cooler part is finding the suggestions. You would obviously have to exhaust all the words that start with 'a' to 'z' that has words like ajce bjce cjce upto zjce. Now to find the occurences of this type is again linear depending on the character count. You should not carried away by multiplying this number with 26 the length of words. Since TRIE immediately diminishes as the length grows. Coming back to the problem. Once that search is done for which no result was found, you go the next character. Now you would be searching for nace nbce ncce upto nzce. In fact you wont have explore all the combinations as the TRIE data structure by itself will not be having the intermediate characters. Perhaps it will have na ni ne no nu characters and the search space becomes insanely simple. So are the further occurrences. You could develop on this concept further based on second and third order matches. Hope this helped.
I'm not sure how much of the wheel you're trying to reinvent, so you may want to check out Lucene.
Apache Lucene Core™ (formerly named Lucene Java), our flagship sub-project, provides a Java-based indexing and search implementation, as well as spellchecking, hit highlighting and advanced analysis/tokenization capabilities.
I previously asked a similar question on this topic, I ended up deriving several solutions which worked, one based on bloom filters + ngrams, the other based on hash tables + ngrams. Both solutions perform fine with small data sets (<1000 texts, usually tweets) but the computation time grew exponentially meaning doing 10,000 could take hours.
I am currently working in Ruby and perhaps, that is the problem but are there any other solutions or approaches I could attempt to solve this problem?
If you are looking to do text searching in large sets of data, you might have to look into something like solr. There is a really easy to setup solr gem called sunspot http://outoftime.github.com/sunspot/
Your problem can be solved by following the steps below:
(Optional, for performance purpose) Run through all the documents, create a mapping between the a unique word and an integer. Also, it is better to create a special mapping for sentence termination (.!? etc.). This is to facilitate the check of phrases that do not cross sentence boundary.
Concatenate all the documents into a huge array of mapped integers (in previous step). This can be done online (to save space) as we go through the next steps.
Constructing a suffix array of the string in previous step, augmented with the longest common prefix array. The fastest implementation known is SA-IS that runs in O(n) worst-case time. See here. Some special handling is required to be sure that each common prefix does not cross the sentence boundary.
LCP array is basically the result you need. You can do whatever you want with it, such as: sort it to find the longest repeated phrases among the documents, find all 5-words, 4 words, 3-words phrases, etc. The most common phrases (I assume at least 2-word phrases here) can be found by looking at both the LCP and suffix array.
Quick Google search show that this library contains a Ruby suffix array implementation. You can generate LCP array from there in O(n) Reference.
We have a list of about 150,000 words, and when the user enters a free text, the system should present a list of words from the dictionary, that are very close to words in the free text.
For instance, the user enters: "I would like to buy legoe toys in Walmart". If the dictionary contains "Lego", "Car" and "Walmart", the system should present "Lego" and "Walmart" in the list. "Walmart" is obvious because it is identical to a word in the sentence, but "Lego" is similar enough to "Legoe" to be mentioned, too. However, nothing is similar to "Car", so that word is not shown.
Showing the list should be realtime, meaning that when the user has entered the sentence, the list of words must be present on the screen. Does anybody know a good algorithm for this?
The dictionary actually contains concepts which may include a space. For instance, "Lego spaceship". The perfect solution recognizes these multi-word concepts, too.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
Take a look at http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html for a simple algorithm. The article uses Python, but there are links to implementations in other languages at the end.
You will be doing quite a few lookups of words against a fixed dictionary. Therefore you need to prepare your dictionary. Logically, you can quickly eliminate candidates that are "just too different".
For instance, the words car and dissimilar may share a suffix, but they're obviously not misspellings of each other. Now why is that so obvious to us humans? For starters, the length is entirely different. That's an immediate disqualification (but with one exception - below). So, your dictionary should be sorted by word length. Match your input word with words of similar length. For short words that means +/- 1 character; longer words should have a higher margin (exactly how well can your demographic spell?)
Once you've restricted yourself to candidate words of similar length, you'd want to strip out words that are entirely dissimilar. With this I mean that they use entirely different letters. This is easiest to compare if you sort the letters in a word alphabetically. E.g. car becomes "acr"; rack becomes "ackr". You'll do this in preprocessing for your dictionary, and for each input word. The reason is that it's cheap to determine the (size of an) difference of two sorted sets. (Add a comment if you need explanation). car and rack have an difference of size 1, car and hat have a difference of size 2. This narrows down your set of candidates even further. Note that for longer words, you can bail out early when you've found too many differences. E.g. dissimilar and biography have a total difference of 13, but considering the length (8/9) you can probably bail out once you've found 5 differences.
This leaves you with a set of candidate words that use almost the same letters, and also are almost the same length. At this point you can start using more refined algorithms; you don't need to run 150.000 comparisons per input word anymore.
Now, for the length exception mentioned before: The problem is in "words" like greencar. It doesn't really match a word of length 8, and yet for humans it's quite obvious what was meant. In this case, you can't really break the input word at any random boundary and run an additional N-1 inexact matches against both halves. However, it is feasible to check for just a missing space. Just do a lookup for all possible prefixes. This is efficient because you'll be using the same part of the dictionary over and over, e.g. g gr, gre, gree, etc. For every prefix that you've found, check if the remaining suffixis also in the dictionery, e.g. reencar, eencar. If both halves of the input word are in the dictionary, but the word itself isn't, you can assume a missing space.
You would likely want to use an algorithm which calculates the Levenshtein distance.
However, since your data set is quite large, and you'll be comparing lots of words against it, a direct implementation of typical algorithms that do this won't be practical.
In order to find words in a reasonable amount of time, you will have to index your set of words in some way that facilitates fuzzy string matching.
One of these indexing methods would be to use a suffix tree. Another approach would be to use n-grams.
I would lean towards using a suffix tree since I find it easier to wrap my head around it and I find it more suited to the problem.
It might be of interest to look at a some algorithms such as the Levenshtein distance, which can calculate the amount of difference between 2 strings.
I'm not sure what language you are thinking of using but PHP has a function called levenshtein that performs this calculation and returns the distance. There's also a function called similar_text that does a similar thing. There's a code example here for the levenshtein function that checks a word against a dictionary of possible words and returns the closest words.
I hope this gives you a bit of insight into how a solution could work!
Here at work, we often need to find a string from the list of strings that is the closest match to some other input string. Currently, we are using Needleman-Wunsch algorithm. The algorithm often returns a lot of false-positives (if we set the minimum-score too low), sometimes it doesn't find a match when it should (when the minimum-score is too high) and, most of the times, we need to check the results by hand. We thought we should try other alternatives.
Do you have any experiences with the algorithms?
Do you know how the algorithms compare to one another?
I'd really appreciate some advice.
PS: We're coding in C#, but you shouldn't care about it - I'm asking about the algorithms in general.
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot to mention that.
No, we're not using it to match duplicate data. We have a list of strings that we are looking for - we call it search-list. And then we need to process texts from various sources (like RSS feeds, web-sites, forums, etc.) - we extract parts of those texts (there are entire sets of rules for that, but that's irrelevant) and we need to match those against the search-list. If the string matches one of the strings in search-list - we need to do some further processing of the thing (which is also irrelevant).
We can not perform the normal comparison, because the strings extracted from the outside sources, most of the times, include some extra words etc.
Anyway, it's not for duplicate detection.
OK, Needleman-Wunsch(NW) is a classic end-to-end ("global") aligner from the bioinformatics literature. It was long ago available as "align" and "align0" in the FASTA package. The difference was that the "0" version wasn't as biased about avoiding end-gapping, which often allowed favoring high-quality internal matches easier. Smith-Waterman, I suspect you're aware, is a local aligner and is the original basis of BLAST. FASTA had it's own local aligner as well that was slightly different. All of these are essentially heuristic methods for estimating Levenshtein distance relevant to a scoring metric for individual character pairs (in bioinformatics, often given by Dayhoff/"PAM", Henikoff&Henikoff, or other matrices and usually replaced with something simpler and more reasonably reflective of replacements in linguistic word morphology when applied to natural language).
Let's not be precious about labels: Levenshtein distance, as referenced in practice at least, is basically edit distance and you have to estimate it because it's not feasible to compute it generally, and it's expensive to compute exactly even in interesting special cases: the water gets deep quick there, and thus we have heuristic methods of long and good repute.
Now as to your own problem: several years ago, I had to check the accuracy of short DNA reads against reference sequence known to be correct and I came up with something I called "anchored alignments".
The idea is to take your reference string set and "digest" it by finding all locations where a given N-character substring occurs. Choose N so that the table you build is not too big but also so that substrings of length N are not too common. For small alphabets like DNA bases, it's possible to come up with a perfect hash on strings of N characters and make a table and chain the matches in a linked list from each bin. The list entries must identify the sequence and start position of the substring that maps to the bin in whose list they occur. These are "anchors" in the list of strings to be searched at which an NW alignment is likely to be useful.
When processing a query string, you take the N characters starting at some offset K in the query string, hash them, look up their bin, and if the list for that bin is nonempty then you go through all the list records and perform alignments between the query string and the search string referenced in the record. When doing these alignments, you line up the query string and the search string at the anchor and extract a substring of the search string that is the same length as the query string and which contains that anchor at the same offset, K.
If you choose a long enough anchor length N, and a reasonable set of values of offset K (they can be spread across the query string or be restricted to low offsets) you should get a subset of possible alignments and often will get clearer winners. Typically you will want to use the less end-biased align0-like NW aligner.
This method tries to boost NW a bit by restricting it's input and this has a performance gain because you do less alignments and they are more often between similar sequences. Another good thing to do with your NW aligner is to allow it to give up after some amount or length of gapping occurs to cut costs, especially if you know you're not going to see or be interested in middling-quality matches.
Finally, this method was used on a system with small alphabets, with K restricted to the first 100 or so positions in the query string and with search strings much larger than the queries (the DNA reads were around 1000 bases and the search strings were on the order of 10000, so I was looking for approximate substring matches justified by an estimate of edit distance specifically). Adapting this methodology to natural language will require some careful thought: you lose on alphabet size but you gain if your query strings and search strings are of similar length.
Either way, allowing more than one anchor from different ends of the query string to be used simultaneously might be helpful in further filtering data fed to NW. If you do this, be prepared to possibly send overlapping strings each containing one of the two anchors to the aligner and then reconcile the alignments... or possibly further modify NW to emphasize keeping your anchors mostly intact during an alignment using penalty modification during the algorithm's execution.
Hope this is helpful or at least interesting.
Related to the Levenstein distance: you might wish to normalize it by dividing the result with the length of the longer string, so that you always get a number between 0 and 1 and so that you can compare the distance of pair of strings in a meaningful way (the expression L(A, B) > L(A, C) - for example - is meaningless unless you normalize the distance).
We are using the Levenshtein distance method to check for duplicate customers in our database. It works quite well.
Alternative algorithms to look at are agrep (Wikipedia entry on agrep),
FASTA and BLAST biological sequence matching algorithms. These are special cases of approximate string matching, also in the Stony Brook algorithm repositry. If you can specify the ways the strings differ from each other, you could probably focus on a tailored algorithm. For example, aspell uses some variant of "soundslike" (soundex-metaphone) distance in combination with a "keyboard" distance to accomodate bad spellers and bad typers alike.
Use FM Index with Backtracking, similar to the one in Bowtie fuzzy aligner
In order to minimize mismatches due to slight variations or errors in spelling, I've used the Metaphone algorithm, then Levenshtein distance (scaled to 0-100 as a percentage match) on the Metaphone encodings for a measure of closeness. That seems to have worked fairly well.
To expand on Cd-MaN's answer, it sounds like you're facing a normalization problem. It isn't obvious how to handle scores between alignments with varying lengths.
Given what you are interested in, you may want to obtain p-values for your alignment. If you are using Needleman-Wunsch, you can obtain these p-values using Karlin-Altschul statistics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/tutorial/Altschul-1.html
BLAST will can local alignment and evaluate them using these statistics. If you are concerned about speed, this would be a good tool to use.
Another option is to use HMMER. HMMER uses Profile Hidden Markov Models to align sequences. Personally, I think this is a more powerful approach since it also provides positional information. http://hmmer.janelia.org/