I am trying to solve a problem of a dating site. Here is the problem
Each user of app will have some attributes - like the books he reads, movies he watches, music, TV show etc. These are defined top level attribute categories. Each of these categories can have any number of values. e.g. in books : Fountain Head, Love Story ...
Now, I need to match users based on profile attributes. Here is what I am planning to do :
Store the data with reverse indexing. i.f. Each of Fountain Head, Love Story etc is index key to set of users with that attribute.
When a new user joins, get the attributes of this user, find which index keys for this user, get all the users for these keys, bucket (or radix sort or similar sort) to sort on the basis of how many times a user in this merged list.
Is this good, bad, worse? Any other suggestions?
Thanks
Ajay
The algorithm you described is not bad, although it uses a very simple notion of similarity between people.
Let us make it more adjustable, without creating a complicated matching criteria. Let's say people who like the same book are more similar than people who listen to the same music. The same goes with every interest. That is, similarity in different fields has different weights.
Like you said, you can keep a list for each interest (like a book, a song etc) to the people who have that in their profile. Then, say you want to find matches of guy g:
for each interest i in g's interests:
for each person p in list of i
if p and g have mismatching sexual preferences
continue
if p is already in g's match list
g->match_list[p].score += i->match_weight
else
add p to g->match_list with score i->match_weight
sort g->match_list based on score
The choice of weights is not a simple task though. You would need a lot of psychology to get that right. Using your common sense however, you could get values that are not that far off.
In general, matching people is much more complicated than summing some scores. For example a certain set of matching interests may have more (or in some cases less) effect than the sum of them individually. Also, an interest in one may totally result in a rejection from the other no matter what other matching interest exists (Take two very similar people that one of them loves and the other hates twilight for example)
Can the values in User-Item matrix be binary values like 0 and 1 which indicate “didn’t buy”-vs-“bought”?
And if apply latent factor model on the matrix, can the predicted value (for example 0.8) stand for the probability of user's behavior(i.e. didn’t buy or bought)?
Yes, it is quite common to have implicit feedback to represent ratings. One slight pitfall with the suggestion you made would be if 0 means the user saw the item but chose not to buy it, or the user never even saw the item (i.e gave no feedback.)
Typically the value output from your recommendation algorithm isn't a probability of a purchase, but rather a numerical score used to rank that item versus all other potential items. This way you can identify the top X items to recommend to a user.
You can use standard collaborative filtering on the type of data you discussed, and also using factorisation techniques.
I'm creating a site whereby people can rate an object of their choice by allotting a star rating (say 5 star rating). Objects are arranged in a series of tags and categories eg. electronics>graphics cards>pci express>... or maintenance>contractor>plumber.
If another user searches for a specific category or tag, the hits must return the highest "rated" object in that category. However, the system would be flawed if 1 person only votes 5 stars for an object whilst 1000 users vote an average of 4.5 stars for another object. Obviously, logic dictates that credibility would be given to the 1000 user rated object as opposed to the object that is evaluated by 1 user even though it has a "lower" score.
Conversely, it's reliable to trust an object with 500 user rating with score of 4.8 than it is to trust an object with 1000 user ratings of 4.5 for example.
What algorithm can achieve this weighting?
A great answer to this question is here:
http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html
You can use the Bayesian average when sorting by recommendation.
I'd be tempted to have a cutoff (say, fifty votes though this is obviously traffic dependent) before which you consider the item as unranked. That would significantly reduce the motivation for spam/idiot rankings (especially if each vote is tied to a user account), and also gets you a simple, quick to implement, and reasonably reliable system.
simboid_function(value) = 1/(1+e^(-value));
rating = simboid_function(number_of_voters) + simboid_function(average_rating);
Lets say I have a list of 500 objects. I need to rate each one out of 10.
At random I select two and present them to a friend. I then ask the friend which they prefer. I then use this comparison (ie OBJECT1 is better than OBJECT2) to alter the two objects' rating out of ten.
I then repeat this random selection and comparison thousands of times with a group of friends until I have a list of 500 objects with a reliable rating out of ten.
I need to figure out an algorithm which takes the two objects current ratings, and alters them depending on which is thought to be better...
Each object's rating could be (number of victories)/(number of contests entered) * 10. So the rating of the winner goes up a bit and the rating of the loser goes down a bit, according to how many contests they've previously entered.
For something more complicated and less sensitive to the luck of the draw with smaller numbers of trials, I'd suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system, but it's not out of 10. You could rescale everyone's scores so that the top score becomes 10, but then a match could affect everyone's rating, not just the rating of the two involved.
It all sort of depends what "reliable" means. Different friends' judgements will not be consistent with respect to each other, and possibly not even consistent over time for the same person, so there's no "real" sorted order for you to sanity-check the rankings against.
On a more abstruse point, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states some nice properties that you'd like to have in a system that takes individual preferences and combines them to form an aggregated group preference. It then proceeds to prove that they're mutually inconsistent - you can't have them all. Any intuitive idea of a "good" overall rating runs a real risk of being unachievable.
I have a list of requirements for a software project, assembled from the remains of its predecessor. Each requirement should map to one or more categories. Each of the categories consists of a group of keywords. What I'm trying to do is find an algorithm that would give me a score ranking which of the categories each requirement is likely to fall into. The results would be use as a starting point to further categorize the requirements.
As an example, suppose I have the requirement:
The system shall apply deposits to a customer's specified account.
And categories/keywords:
Customer Transactions: deposits, deposit, customer, account, accounts
Balance Accounts: account, accounts, debits, credits
Other Category: foo, bar
I would want the algorithm to score the requirement highest in category 1, lower in category 2, and not at all in category 3. The scoring mechanism is mostly irrelevant to me, but needs to convey how much more likely category 1 applies than category 2.
I'm new to NLP, so I'm kind of at a loss. I've been reading Natural Language Processing in Python and was hoping to apply some of the concepts, but haven't seen anything that quite fits. I don't think a simple frequency distribution would work, since the text I'm processing is so small (a single sentence.)
You might want to look the category of "similarity measures" or "distance measures" (which is different, in data mining lingo, than "classification".)
Basically, a similarity measure is a way in math you can:
Take two sets of data (in your case, words)
Do some computation/equation/algorithm
The result being that you have some number which tells you how "similar" that data is.
With similarity measures, this number is a number between 0 and 1, where "0" means "nothing matches at all" and "1" means "identical"
So you can actually think of your sentence as a vector - and each word in your sentence represents an element of that vector. Likewise for each category's list of keywords.
And then you can do something very simple: take the "cosine similarity" or "Jaccard index" (depending on how you structure your data.)
What both of these metrics do is they take both vectors (your input sentence, and your "keyword" list) and give you a number. If you do this across all of your categories, you can rank those numbers in order to see which match has the greatest similarity coefficient.
As an example:
From your question:
Customer Transactions: deposits,
deposit, customer, account, accounts
So you could construct a vector with 5 elements: (1, 1, 1, 1, 1). This means that, for the "customer transactions" keyword, you have 5 words, and (this will sound obvious but) each of those words is present in your search string. keep with me.
So now you take your sentence:
The system shall apply deposits to a
customer's specified account.
This has 2 words from the "Customer Transactions" set: {deposits, account, customer}
(actually, this illustrates another nuance: you actually have "customer's". Is this equivalent to "customer"?)
The vector for your sentence might be (1, 0, 1, 1, 0)
The 1's in this vector are in the same position as the 1's in the first vector - because those words are the same.
So we could say: how many times do these vectors differ? Lets compare:
(1,1,1,1,1)
(1,0,1,1,0)
Hm. They have the same "bit" 3 times - in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th position. They only differ by 2 bits. So lets say that when we compare these two vectors, we have a "distance" of 2. Congrats, we just computed the Hamming distance! The lower your Hamming distance, the more "similar" the data.
(The difference between a "similarity" measure and a "distance" measure is that the former is normalized - it gives you a value between 0 and 1. A distance is just any number, so it only gives you a relative value.)
Anyway, this might not be the best way to do natural language processing, but for your purposes it is the simplest and might actually work pretty well for your application, or at least as a starting point.
(PS: "classification" - as you have in your title - would be answering the question "If you take my sentence, which category is it most likely to fall into?" Which is a bit different than saying "how much more similar is my sentence to category 1 than category 2?" which seems to be what you're after.)
good luck!
The main characteristics of the problem are:
Externally defined categorization criteria (keyword list)
Items to be classified (lines from the requirement document) are made of a relatively small number of attributes values, for effectively a single dimension: "keyword".
As defined, no feedback/calibrarion (although it may be appropriate to suggest some of that)
These characteristics bring both good and bad news: the implementation should be relatively straight forward, but a consistent level of accuracy of the categorization process may be hard to achieve. Also the small amounts of various quantities (number of possible categories, max/average number of words in a item etc.) should give us room to select solutions that may be CPU and/or Space intentsive, if need be.
Yet, even with this license got "go fancy", I suggest to start with (and stay close to) to a simple algorithm and to expend on this basis with a few additions and considerations, while remaining vigilant of the ever present danger called overfitting.
Basic algorithm (Conceptual, i.e. no focus on performance trick at this time)
Parameters =
CatKWs = an array/hash of lists of strings. The list contains the possible
keywords, for a given category.
usage: CatKWs[CustTx] = ('deposits', 'deposit', 'customer' ...)
NbCats = integer number of pre-defined categories
Variables:
CatAccu = an array/hash of numeric values with one entry per each of the
possible categories. usage: CatAccu[3] = 4 (if array) or
CatAccu['CustTx'] += 1 (hash)
TotalKwOccurences = counts the total number of keywords matches (counts
multiple when a word is found in several pre-defined categories)
Pseudo code: (for categorizing one input item)
1. for x in 1 to NbCats
CatAccu[x] = 0 // reset the accumulators
2. for each word W in Item
for each x in 1 to NbCats
if W found in CatKWs[x]
TotalKwOccurences++
CatAccu[x]++
3. for each x in 1 to NbCats
CatAccu[x] = CatAccu[x] / TotalKwOccurences // calculate rating
4. Sort CatAccu by value
5. Return the ordered list of (CategoryID, rating)
for all corresponding CatAccu[x] values about a given threshold.
Simple but plausible: we favor the categories that have the most matches, but we divide by the overall number of matches, as a way of lessening the confidence rating when many words were found. note that this division does not affect the relative ranking of a category selection for a given item, but it may be significant when comparing rating of different items.
Now, several simple improvements come to mind: (I'd seriously consider the first two, and give thoughts to the other ones; deciding on each of these is very much tied to the scope of the project, the statistical profile of the data to be categorized and other factors...)
We should normalize the keywords read from the input items and/or match them in a fashion that is tolerant of misspellings. Since we have so few words to work with, we need to ensure we do not loose a significant one because of a silly typo.
We should give more importance to words found less frequently in CatKWs. For example the word 'Account' should could less than the word 'foo' or 'credit'
We could (but maybe that won't be useful or even helpful) give more weight to the ratings of items that have fewer [non-noise] words.
We could also include consideration based on digrams (two consecutive words), for with natural languages (and requirements documents are not quite natural :-) ) word proximity is often a stronger indicator that the words themselves.
we could add a tiny bit of importance to the category assigned to the preceding (or even following, in a look-ahead logic) item. Item will likely come in related series and we can benefit from this regularity.
Also, aside from the calculation of the rating per-se, we should also consider:
some metrics that would be used to rate the algorithm outcome itself (tbd)
some logic to collect the list of words associated with an assigned category and to eventually run statistic on these. This may allow the identification of words representative of a category and not initially listed in CatKWs.
The question of metrics, should be considered early, but this would also require a reference set of input item: a "training set" of sort, even though we are working off a pre-defined dictionary category-keywords (typically training sets are used to determine this very list of category-keywords, along with a weight factor). Of course such reference/training set should be both statistically significant and statistically representative [of the whole set].
To summarize: stick to simple approaches, anyway the context doesn't leave room to be very fancy. Consider introducing a way of measuring the efficiency of particular algorithms (or of particular parameters within a given algorithm), but beware that such metrics may be flawed and prompt you to specialize the solution for a given set at the detriment of the other items (overfitting).
I was also facing the same issue of creating a classifier based only on keywords. I was having a class keywords mapper file and which contained class variable and list of keywords occurring in a particular class. I came with the following algorithm to do and it is working really fine.
# predictor algorithm
for docs in readContent:
for x in range(len(docKywrdmppr)):
catAccum[x]=0
for i in range(len(docKywrdmppr)):
for word in removeStopWords(docs):
if word.casefold() in removeStopWords(docKywrdmppr['Keywords'][i].casefold()):
print(word)
catAccum[i]=catAccum[i]+counter
print(catAccum)
ind=catAccum.index(max(catAccum))
print(ind)
predictedDoc.append(docKywrdmppr['Document Type'][ind])