Related
I'm trying to understand how random forest works in plain English instead of mathematics. Can anybody give me a really simple explanation of how this algorithm works?
As far as I understand, we feed the features and labels without telling the algorithm which feature should be classified as which label? As I used to do Naive Bayes which is based on probability we need to tell which feature should be which label. Am I completely far off?
If I can get any very simple explanation I'd be really appreciated.
RandomForest uses a so-called bagging approach. The idea is based on the classic bias-variance trade off. Suppose that we have a set (say N) of overfitted estimators that have low bias but high cross-sample-variance. So low bias is good and we want to keep it, high variance is bad and we want to reduce it. RandomForest tries to achieve this by doing a so-called bootstraps/sub-sampling (as #Alexander mentioned, this is a combination of bootstrap sampling on both observations and features). The prediction is the average of individual estimators so the low-bias property is successfully preserved. And further by Central Limit Theorem, the variance of this sample average has a variance equal to variance of individual estimator divided by square root of N. So now, it has both low-bias and low-variance properties, and this is why RandomForest often outperforms stand-alone estimator.
Adding on to the above two answers, Since you mentioned a simple explanation. Here is a write up that I feel is the most simple way you can explain random forests.
Credits go to Edwin Chen for the simple explanation here in layman terms for random forests. Posting the same below.
Suppose you’re very indecisive, so whenever you want to watch a movie, you ask your friend Willow if she thinks you’ll like it. In order to answer, Willow first needs to figure out what movies you like, so you give her a bunch of movies and tell her whether you liked each one or not (i.e., you give her a labeled training set). Then, when you ask her if she thinks you’ll like movie X or not, she plays a 20 questions-like game with IMDB, asking questions like “Is X a romantic movie?”, “Does Johnny Depp star in X?”, and so on. She asks more informative questions first (i.e., she maximizes the information gain of each question), and gives you a yes/no answer at the end.
Thus, Willow is a decision tree for your movie preferences.
But Willow is only human, so she doesn’t always generalize your preferences very well (i.e., she overfits). In order to get more accurate recommendations, you’d like to ask a bunch of your friends and watch movie X if most of them say they think you’ll like it. That is, instead of asking only Willow, you want to ask Woody, Apple, and Cartman as well, and they vote on whether you’ll like a movie (i.e., you build an ensemble classifier, aka a forest in this case).
Now you don’t want each of your friends to do the same thing and give you the same answer, so you first give each of them slightly different data. After all, you’re not absolutely sure of your preferences yourself – you told Willow you loved Titanic, but maybe you were just happy that day because it was your birthday, so maybe some of your friends shouldn’t use the fact that you liked Titanic in making their recommendations. Or maybe you told her you loved Cinderella, but actually you really really loved it, so some of your friends should give Cinderella more weight. So instead of giving your friends the same data you gave Willow, you give them slightly perturbed versions. You don’t change your love/hate decisions, you just say you love/hate some movies a little more or less (formally, you give each of your friends a bootstrapped version of your original training data). For example, whereas you told Willow that you liked Black Swan and Harry Potter and disliked Avatar, you tell Woody that you liked Black Swan so much you watched it twice, you disliked Avatar, and don’t mention Harry Potter at all.
By using this ensemble, you hope that while each of your friends gives somewhat idiosyncratic recommendations (Willow thinks you like vampire movies more than you do, Woody thinks you like Pixar movies, and Cartman thinks you just hate everything), the errors get canceled out in the majority. Thus, your friends now form a bagged (bootstrap aggregated) forest of your movie preferences.
There’s still one problem with your data, however. While you loved both Titanic and Inception, it wasn’t because you like movies that star Leonardo DiCaprio. Maybe you liked both movies for other reasons. Thus, you don’t want your friends to all base their recommendations on whether Leo is in a movie or not. So when each friend asks IMDB a question, only a random subset of the possible questions is allowed (i.e., when you’re building a decision tree, at each node you use some randomness in selecting the attribute to split on, say by randomly selecting an attribute or by selecting an attribute from a random subset). This means your friends aren’t allowed to ask whether Leonardo DiCaprio is in the movie whenever they want. So whereas previously you injected randomness at the data level, by perturbing your movie preferences slightly, now you’re injecting randomness at the model level, by making your friends ask different questions at different times.
And so your friends now form a random forest.
I will try to give another complementary explanation with simple words.
A random forest is a collection of random decision trees (of number n_estimators in sklearn).
What you need to understand is how to build one random decision tree.
Roughly speaking, to build a random decision tree you start from a subset of your training samples. At each node you will draw randomly a subset of features (number determined by max_features in sklearn). For each of these features you will test different thresholds and see how they split your samples according to a given criterion (generally entropy or gini, criterion parameter in sklearn). Then you will keep the feature and its threshold that best split your data and record it in the node.
When the construction of the tree ends (it can be for different reasons: maximum depth is reached (max_depth in sklearn), minimum sample number is reached (min_samples_leaf in sklearn) etc.) you look at the samples in each leaf and keep the frequency of the labels.
As a result, it is like the tree gives you a partition of your training samples according to meaningful features.
As each node is built from features taken randomly, you understand that each tree built in this way will be different. This contributes to the good compromise between bias and variance, as explained by #Jianxun Li.
Then in testing mode, a test sample will go through each tree, giving you label frequencies for each tree. The most represented label is generally the final classification result.
I don't have much background in sentiment analysis or natural language processing at all, but I have been reading a bit about it in my spare time. I would like to conduct and experiment to analyze forum threads/comments such as reddit, digg, blogs, etc. I'm particularity interested in doing something like counting the number of for, against, and neutral comments for threads of heated religious and political debates. Here's what I am thinking.
1) Find a thread that the original poster has defined a touchy political or religious topic.
2) For each comment categorize it as supporting the original poster or otherwise taking a contradicting or neutral stance.
3) Compare various mediums with the numbers of for or against arguments to determine what platforms are good "debate platforms" (i.e. balanced argument counts).
One big problem that I'm anticipating is that heated topics will invoke strong reactions from both supporting and contradicting parties so a simple happy/sad sentiment analysis won't cut it. I'm just sort of interested in this project for my own curiosities, so if anyone knows of similar research or utilities to conduct this experiment I'd be interested to hear more.
Can someone recommend a good sentiment analysis, word dictionary, training set, etc. for this task?
IMHO this is not possible without running into semantics. Consider the sentence:
Unlike many others, I am not against the abolishment of capital punishment.
Your AI may need to recognise idiomatic subfrases like "not against", or other "not ..." snippets. This is not impossible ;-)
An additional problem is, that "not" is more or less a stopword, its rank will probably be in the top-100, causing a low entropy (though it has a high "semantic" value to every sentence where it is unsed). Also note that omitting "the abolishment of", will cause the "polarity" of the sentence to flip as well.
You can try to use the bag of words [or even better: use n-grams as tokens to the bag]
The approach is basically:
Classify a set of examples, let your algorithm extract the relevant
words from the classified examples.
When a new comment is given, extract the relevant words, and use
k-nearest neighbors to decide if the new comment is a
pro/against/neutral.
Also, you might want to have a look on Apache Mahout.
I am working a word based game. My word database contains around 10,000 english words (sorted alphabetically). I am planning to have 5 difficulty levels in the game. Level 1 shows the easiest words and Level 5 shows the most difficult words, relatively speaking.
I need to divide the 10,000 long words list into 5 levels, starting from the easiest words to difficult ones. I am looking for a program to do this for me.
Can someone tell me if there is an algorithm or a method to quantitatively measure the difficulty of an english word?
I have some thoughts revolving around using the "word length" and "word frequency" as factors, and come up with a formula or something that accomplishes this.
Get a large corpus of texts (e.g. from the Gutenberg archives), do a straight frequency analysis, and eyeball the results. If they don't look satisfying, weight each text with its Flesch-Kincaid score and run the analysis again - words that show up frequently, but in "difficult" texts will get a score boost, which is what you want.
If all you have is 10000 words, though, it will probably be quicker to just do the frequency sorting as a first pass and then tweak the results by hand.
I'm not understanding how frequency is being used... if you were to scan a newspaper, I'm sure you would see the word "thoroughly" mentioned much more frequently than the word "bop" or "moo" but that doesn't mean it's an easier word; on the contrary 'thoroughly' is one of the most disgustingly absurd spelling anomalies that gives grade school children nightmares...
Try explaining to a sane human being learning english as a second language the subtle difference between slaughter and laughter.
I agree that frequency of use is the most likely metric; there are studies supporting a high correlation between word frequency and difficulty (correct responses on tests, etc.). Check out the English Lexicon Project at http://elexicon.wustl.edu/ for some 70k(?) frequency-rated words.
Crowd-source the answer.
Create an online 'game' that lists 10 words at random.
Get the player to drag and drop them into easiest - hardest, and tick to indicate if the player has ever heard of the word.
Apply an ranking algorithm (e.g. ELO) on the result of each experiment.
Repeat.
It might even be fun to play, you could get a language proficiency score at the end.
Difficulty is a pretty amorphus concept. If you've no clear idea of what you want, perhaps you could take a look at the Porter Stemming Algorithm (see for example the original paper). That contains a more advanced idea of 'length' by defining words as being of the form [C](VC){m}[V]; C means a block of consonants and V a block of vowels and this definition says a word is an optional C followed by m VC blocks and finally an optional V. The m value is this advanced 'length'.
depending on the type of game the definition of "difficult" will change. If your game involves typing quickly (ztype-style...), "difficult" will have a different meaning than in a game where you need to define a word's meaning.
That said, Scrabble has a way to measure how "difficult" a word is which is also quite easy algoritmically.
Also you may look into defining "difficult" in terms of your game. You could beta test your game and classify words according to how "difficult" players find them in the context of your own game.
There are several factors that relate to word difficulty, including age at acquisition, imageability, concreteness, abstractness, syllables, frequency (spoken and written). There are also psycholinguistic databases that will search for word by at least some of these factors. (just do a search for "psycholinguistic database".
Word frequency is an obvious choice (of course not perfect). You can download Google n-grams V2 here, which is license under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Format: ngram TAB year TAB match_count TAB page_count TAB volume_count NEWLINE
Example:
Corpus used (from Lin, Yuri, et al. "Syntactic annotations for the google books ngram corpus." Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2012.):
Word length is a good indicator , for word frequency , you would need data as an algorithm can obviously not determine it by itself.
You could also use some sort of scoring like the scrabble game does : each letter has a value and the final value would be the sum of the values.
It would be imo easier to find frequency data about each letter in your language .
In his article on spell correction Peter Norvig uses a dictionary to count the number of occurrences of each word (and thus determine their frequency).
You could use this as a stepping stone :)
Also, frequency should probably influence the difficulty more than length... you would have to beta-test the game for that.
In addition to metrics such as Flesch-Kincaid, you could try an approach based on the Dale-Chall readability formula, using lists of words that are familiar to readers of a particular level of ability.
Implementations of many of the readability formulae contain code for estimating the number of syllables in a word, which may also be useful.
I would guess that the grade at wich the word is introduced into normal students vocabulary is a measure of difficulty. Next would be how many standard rule violations it has. Meaning your words that have spellings or pronunciations that seem to violate the normal set off rules. Finally.. the meaning.. can be a tough concept. .. for example ... try explaining abstract to someone who's never heard the word.
Without claiming to know anything about their algorithm, there is an API that returns a 1-10 scale word difficulty: TwinWord API
I have never used it, myself, though.
I assume a natural language processor would need to be used to parse the text itself, but what suggestions do you have for an algorithm to detect a user's mood based on text that they have written? I doubt it would be very accurate, but I'm still interested nonetheless.
EDIT: I am by no means an expert on linguistics or natural language processing, so I apologize if this question is too general or stupid.
This is the basis of an area of natural language processing called sentiment analysis. Although your question is general, it's certainly not stupid - this sort of research is done by Amazon on the text in product reviews for example.
If you are serious about this, then a simple version could be achieved by -
Acquire a corpus of positive/negative sentiment. If this was a professional project you may take some time and manually annotate a corpus yourself, but if you were in a hurry or just wanted to experiment this at first then I'd suggest looking at the sentiment polarity corpus from Bo Pang and Lillian Lee's research. The issue with using that corpus is it is not tailored to your domain (specifically, the corpus uses movie reviews), but it should still be applicable.
Split your dataset into sentences either Positive or Negative. For the sentiment polarity corpus you could split each review into it's composite sentences and then apply the overall sentiment polarity tag (positive or negative) to all of those sentences. Split this corpus into two parts - 90% should be for training, 10% should be for test. If you're using Weka then it can handle the splitting of the corpus for you.
Apply a machine learning algorithm (such as SVM, Naive Bayes, Maximum Entropy) to the training corpus at a word level. This model is called a bag of words model, which is just representing the sentence as the words that it's composed of. This is the same model which many spam filters run on. For a nice introduction to machine learning algorithms there is an application called Weka that implements a range of these algorithms and gives you a GUI to play with them. You can then test the performance of the machine learned model from the errors made when attempting to classify your test corpus with this model.
Apply this machine learning algorithm to your user posts. For each user post, separate the post into sentences and then classify them using your machine learned model.
So yes, if you are serious about this then it is achievable - even without past experience in computational linguistics. It would be a fair amount of work, but even with word based models good results can be achieved.
If you need more help feel free to contact me - I'm always happy to help others interested in NLP =]
Small Notes -
Merely splitting a segment of text into sentences is a field of NLP - called sentence boundary detection. There are a number of tools, OSS or free, available to do this, but for your task a simple split on whitespaces and punctuation should be fine.
SVMlight is also another machine learner to consider, and in fact their inductive SVM does a similar task to what we're looking at - trying to classify which Reuter articles are about "corporate acquisitions" with 1000 positive and 1000 negative examples.
Turning the sentences into features to classify over may take some work. In this model each word is a feature - this requires tokenizing the sentence, which means separating words and punctuation from each other. Another tip is to lowercase all the separate word tokens so that "I HATE you" and "I hate YOU" both end up being considered the same. With more data you could try and also include whether capitalization helps in classifying whether someone is angry, but I believe words should be sufficient at least for an initial effort.
Edit
I just discovered LingPipe that in fact has a tutorial on sentiment analysis using the Bo Pang and Lillian Lee Sentiment Polarity corpus I was talking about. If you use Java that may be an excellent tool to use, and even if not it goes through all of the steps I discussed above.
No doubt it is possible to judge a user's mood based on the text they type but it would be no trivial thing. Things that I can think of:
Capitals tends to signify agitation, annoyance or frustration and is certainly an emotional response but then again some newbies do that because they don't realize the significance so you couldn't assume that without looking at what else they've written (to make sure its not all in caps);
Capitals are really just one form of emphasis. Others are use of certain aggressive colours (eg red) or use of bold or larger fonts;
Some people make more spelling and grammar mistakes and typos when they're highly emotional;
Scanning for emoticons could give you a very clear picture of what the user is feeling but again something like :) could be interpreted as happy, "I told you so" or even have a sarcastic meaning;
Use of expletives tends to have a clear meaning but again its not clearcut. Colloquial speech by many people will routinely contain certain four letter words. For some other people, they might not even say "hell", saying "heck" instead so any expletive (even "sucks") is significant;
Groups of punctuation marks (like ##$#$#) tend to be replaced for expletives in a context when expletives aren't necessarily appropriate, so thats less likely to be colloquial;
Exclamation marks can indicate surprise, shock or exasperation.
You might want to look at Advances in written text analysis or even Determining Mood for a Blog by Combining Multiple Sources of Evidence.
Lastly it's worth noting that written text is usually perceived to be more negative than it actually is. This is a common problem with email communication in companies, just as one example.
I can't believe I'm taking this seriously... assuming a one-dimensional mood space:
If the text contains a curse word,
-10 mood.
I think exclamations would tend to be negative, so -2 mood.
When I get frustrated, I type in
Very. Short. Sentences. -5 mood.
The more I think about this, the more it's clear that a lot of these signifiers indicate extreme mood in general, but it's not always clear what kind of mood.
If you support fonts, bold red text is probably an angry user. Green regular sized texts with butterfly clip art a happy one.
My memory isn't good on this subject, but I believe I saw some research about the grammar structure of the text and the overall tone. That could be also as simple as shorter words and emotion expression words (well, expletives are pretty obvious).
Edit: I noted that the first person to answer had substantially similar post. There could be indeed some serious idea about shorter sentences.
Analysis of mood and behavior is very serious science. Despite the other answers mocking the question law enforcement agencies have been investigating categorization of mood for years. Uses in computers I have heard of generally had more context (timing information, voice pattern, speed in changing channels). I think that you could--with some success--determine if a user is in a particular mood by training a Neural Network with samples from two known groups: angry and not angry. Good luck with your efforts.
I think, my algorythm is rather straightforward, yet, why not calculating smilics through the text :) vs :(
Obviously, the text ":) :) :) :)" resolves to a happy user, while ":( :( :(" will surely resolve to a sad one. Enjoy!
I agree with ojblass that this is a serious question.
Mood categorization is currently a hot topic in the speech recognition area. If you think about it, an interactive voice response (IVR) application needs to handle angry customers far differently than calm ones: angry people should be routed quickly to human operators with the right experience and training. Vocal tone is a pretty reliable indicator of emotion, practical enough so that companies are eager to get this to work. Google "speech emotion recognition", or read this article to find out more.
The situation should be no different in web-based GUIs. Referring back to cletus's comments, the analogies between text and speech emotion detection are interesting. If a person types CAPITALS they are said to be 'shouting', just as if his voice rose in volume and pitch using a voice interface. Detecting typed profanities is analogous to "keyword spotting" of profanity in speech systems. If a person is upset, they'll make more errors using either a GUI or a voice user interface (VUI) and can be routed to a human.
There's a "multimodal" emotion detection research area here. Imagine a web interface that you can also speak to (along the lines of the IBM/Motorola/Opera XHTML + Voice Profile prototype implementation). Emotion detection could be based on a combination of cues from the speech and visual input modality.
Yes.
Whether or not you can do it is another story. The problem seems at first to be AI complete.
Now then, if you had keystroke timings you should be able to figure it out.
Fuzzy logic will do I guess.
Any way it will be quite easy to start with several rules of determining the user's mood and then extend and combine the "engine" with more accurate and sophisticated ones.
I need an algorithm to determine if a sentence, paragraph or article is negative or positive in tone... or better yet, how negative or positive.
For instance:
Jason is the worst SO user I have ever witnessed (-10)
Jason is an SO user (0)
Jason is the best SO user I have ever seen (+10)
Jason is the best at sucking with SO (-10)
While, okay at SO, Jason is the worst at doing bad (+10)
Not easy, huh? :)
I don't expect somebody to explain this algorithm to me, but I assume there is already much work on something like this in academia somewhere. If you can point me to some articles or research, I would love it.
Thanks.
There is a sub-field of natural language processing called sentiment analysis that deals specifically with this problem domain. There is a fair amount of commercial work done in the area because consumer products are so heavily reviewed in online user forums (ugc or user-generated-content). There is also a prototype platform for text analytics called GATE from the university of sheffield, and a python project called nltk. Both are considered flexible, but not very high performance. One or the other might be good for working out your own ideas.
In my company we have a product which does this and also performs well. I did most of the work on it. I can give a brief idea:
You need to split the paragraph into sentences and then split each sentence into smaller sub sentences - splitting based on commas, hyphen, semi colon, colon, 'and', 'or', etc.
Each sub sentence will be exhibiting a totally seperate sentiment in some cases.
Some sentences even if it is split, will have to be joined together.
Eg: The product is amazing, excellent and fantastic.
We have developed a comprehensive set of rules on the type of sentences which need to be split and which shouldn't be (based on the POS tags of the words)
On the first level, you can use a bag of words approach, meaning - have a list of positive and negative words/phrases and check in every sub sentence. While doing this, also look at the negation words like 'not', 'no', etc which will change the polarity of the sentence.
Even then if you can't find the sentiment, you can go for a naive bayes approach. This approach is not very accurate (about 60%). But if you apply this to only sentence which fail to pass through the first set of rules - you can easily get to 80-85% accuracy.
The important part is the positive/negative word list and the way you split things up. If you want, you can go even a level higher by implementing HMM (Hidden Markov Model) or CRF (Conditional Random Fields). But I am not a pro in NLP and someone else may fill you in that part.
For the curious people, we implemented all of this is python with NLTK and the Reverend Bayes module.
Pretty simple and handles most of the sentences. You may however face problems when trying to tag content from the web. Most people don't write proper sentences on the web. Also handling sarcasm is very hard.
This falls under the umbrella of Natural Language Processing, and so reading about that is probably a good place to start.
If you don't want to get in to a very complicated problem, you can just create lists of "positive" and "negative" words (and weight them if you want) and do word counts on sections of text. Obviously this isn't a "smart" solution, but it gets you some information with very little work, where doing serious NLP would be very time consuming.
One of your examples would potentially be marked positive when it was in fact negative using this approach ("Jason is the best at sucking with SO") unless you happen to weight "sucking" more than "best".... But also this is a small text sample, if you're looking at paragraphs or more of text, then weighting becomes more reliable unless you have someone purposefully trying to fool your algorithm.
As pointed out, this comes under sentiment analysis under natural language processing. Afaik GATE doesn't have any component that does sentiment analysis.
In my experience, I have implemented an algorithm which is an adaptation of the one in the paper 'Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis' by Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, Paul Hoffmann (this) as a GATE plugin, which gives reasonable good results. It could help you if you want to bootstrap the implementation.
Depending on your application you could do it via a Bayesian Filtering algorithm (which is often used in spam filters).
One way to do it would be to have two filters. One for positive documents and another for negative documents. You would seed the positive filter with positive documents (whatever criteria you use) and the negative filter with negative documents. The trick would be to find these documents. Maybe your could set it up so your users effectively rate documents.
The positive filter (once seeded) would look for positive words. Maybe it would end up with words like love, peace, etc. The negative filter would be seeded appropriately as well.
Once your filters are setup, then you run the test text through them to come up with positive and negative scores. Based on these scores and some weighting, you could come up with your numeric score.
Bayesian Filters, though simple, are surprisingly effective.
You can do like this:
Jason is the worst SO user I have ever witnessed (-10)
worst (-), the rest is (+). so, that would be (-) + (+) = (-)
Jason is an SO user (0)
( ) + ( ) = ( )
Jason is the best SO user I have ever seen (+10)
best (+) , the rest is ( ). so, that would be (+) + ( ) = (+)
Jason is the best at sucking with SO (-10)
best (+), sucking (-). so, (+) + (-) = (-)
While, okay at SO, Jason is the worst at doing bad (+10)
worst (-), doing bad (-). so, (-) + (-) = (+)
There are many machine learning approaches for this kind of Sentiment Analysis. I used most of the machine learning algorithms, which are already implemented. my case I have used
weka classification algorithms
SVM
naive basian
J48
Only you have to do this train the model to your context , add featured vector and rule based tune up. In my case I got some (61% accuracy). So We move into stanford core nlp ( they trained their model for movie reviews) and we used their training set and add our training set. we could achieved 80-90% accuracy.
This is an old question, but I happened upon it looking for a tool that could analyze article tone and found Watson Tone Analyzer by IBM. It allows 1000 api calls monthly for free.
It's all about context, I think. If you're looking for the people who are best at sucking with SO. Sucking the best can be a positive thing. For determination what is bad or good and how much I could recommend looking into Fuzzy Logic.
It's a bit like being tall. Someone who's 1.95m can considered to be tall. If you place that person in a group with people all over 2.10m, he looks short.
Maybe essay grading software could be used to estimate tone? WIRED article.
Possible reference. (I couldn't read it.)
This report compares writing skill to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level needed to read it!
Page 4 of e-rator says that they look at mispelling and such. (Maybe bad post are misspelled too!)
Slashdot article.
You could also use an email filter of some sort for negativity instead of spam-ness.
How about sarcasm:
Jason is the best SO user I have ever seen, NOT
Jason is the best SO user I have ever seen, right
Ah, I remember one java library for this called LingPipe (commercial license) that we evaluated. It would work fine for the example corpus that is available at the site, but for real data it sucks pretty bad.
Most of the sentiment analysis tools are lexicon based and none of them is perfect. Also, sentiment analysis can be described as a trinary sentiment classification or binary sentiment classification. Moreover, it is a domain specific task. Meaning that tools which work well on news dataset may not do a good job on informal and unstructured tweets.
I would suggest using several tools and have an aggregation or vote based mechanism to decide the intensity of the sentiment. The best survey study on sentiment analysis tools that I have come across is SentiBench. You will find it helpful.
use Algorithm::NaiveBayes;
my $nb = Algorithm::NaiveBayes->new;
$nb->add_instance
(attributes => {foo => 1, bar => 1, baz => 3},
label => 'sports');
$nb->add_instance
(attributes => {foo => 2, blurp => 1},
label => ['sports', 'finance']);
... repeat for several more instances, then:
$nb->train;
# Find results for unseen instances
my $result = $nb->predict
(attributes => {bar => 3, blurp => 2});