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 looking for a setup that actually returns the top 10% of results of a certain query. After the result we also want to sort the subset.
Is there an easy way to do this?
Can anyone provide a simple example for this.
I was thinking scaling the results scores between 0 and 1.0 and basically sepcifiying min_score to 0.9.
I was trying to create function_score queries but those seem a bit complex for a simple requirement such as this one, plus I was not sure how sorting would effect the results, since I want the sort functions work always on the 10% most relevant articles of course.
Thanks,
Peter
As you want to slice response in % of overall docs count, you need to know that anyway. And using from / size params will cut off the required amount at query time.
Assuming this, seems that easiest way to achieve your goal is to make 2 queries:
Filtered query with all filters, no queries and search_type=count to get overall document count.
Perform your regular matching query, applying {"from": 0, "size": count/10} with count got from 1st response.
Talking about tweaking the scoring. For me, it seems as bad idea, as getting multiple documents with the same score is pretty generic situation. So, cutting dataset by min_score will probably result in skewed data.
I have two databases that are differently formatted. Each database contains person data such as name, date of birth and address. They are both fairly large, one is ~50,000 entries the other ~1.5 million.
My problem is to compare the entries and find possible matches. Ideally generating some sort of percentage representing how close the data matches. I have considered solutions involving generating multiple indexes or searching based on Levenshtein distance but these both seem sub-optimal. Indexes could easily miss close matches and Levenshtein distance seems too expensive for this amount of data.
Let's try to put a few ideas together. The general situation is too broad, and these will be just guidelines/tips/whatever.
Usually what you'll want is not a true/false match relationship, but a scoring for each candidate match. That is because you never can't be completely sure if candidate is really a match.
The score is a relation one to many. You should be prepared to rank each record of your small DB against several records of the master DB.
Each kind of match should have assigned a weight and a score, to be added up for the general score of that pair.
You should try to compare fragments as small as possible in order to detect partial matches. Instead of comparing [address], try to compare [city] [state] [street] [number] [apt].
Some fields require special treatment, but this issue is too broad for this answer. Just a few tips. Middle initial in names and prefixes could add some score, but should be kept at a minimum (as they are many times skipped). Phone numbers may have variable prefixes and suffixes, so sometimes a substring matching is needed. Depending on the data quality, names and surnames must be converted to soundex or similar. Streets names are usually normalized, but they may lack prefixes or suffixes.
Be prepared for long runtimes if you need a high quality output.
A porcentual threshold is usually set, so that if after processing a partially a pair, and obtaining a score of less than x out of a max of y, the pair is discarded.
If you KNOW that some field MUST match in order to consider a pair as a candidate, that usually speeds the whole thing a lot.
The data structures for comparing are critical, but I don't feel my particular experience will serve well you, as I always did this kind of thing in a mainframe: very high speed disks, a lot of memory, and massive parallelisms. I could think what is relevant for the general situation, if you feel some help about it may be useful.
HTH!
PS: Almost a joke: In a big project I managed quite a few years ago we had the mother maiden surname in both databases, and we assigned a heavy score to the fact that = both surnames matched (the individual's and his mother's). Morale: All Smith->Smith are the same person :)
You could try using Full text search feature maybe, if your DBMS supports it? Full text search builds its indices, and can find similar word.
Would that work for you?
We were set an algorithm problem in class today, as a "if you figure out a solution you don't have to do this subject". SO of course, we all thought we will give it a go.
Basically, we were provided a DB of 100 words and 10 categories. There is no match between either the words or the categories. So its basically a list of 100 words, and 10 categories.
We have to "place" the words into the correct category - that is, we have to "figure out" how to put the words into the correct category. Thus, we must "understand" the word, and then put it in the most appropriate category algorthmically.
i.e. one of the words is "fishing" the category "sport" --> so this would go into this category. There is some overlap between words and categories such that some words could go into more than one category.
If we figure it out, we have to increase the sample size and the person with the "best" matching % wins.
Does anyone have ANY idea how to start something like this? Or any resources ? Preferably in C#?
Even a keyword DB or something might be helpful ? Anyone know of any free ones?
First of all you need sample text to analyze, to get the relationship of words.
A categorization with latent semantic analysis is described in Latent Semantic Analysis approaches to categorization.
A different approach would be naive bayes text categorization. Sample text with the assigned category are needed. In a learning step the program learns the different categories and the likelihood that a word occurs in a text assigned to a category, see bayes spam filtering. I don't know how well that works with single words.
Really poor answer (demonstrates no "understanding") - but as a crazy stab you could hit google (through code) for (for example) "+Fishing +Sport", "+Fishing +Cooking" etc (i.e. cross join each word and category) - and let the google fight win! i.e. the combination with the most "hits" gets chosen...
For example (results first):
weather: fish
sport: ball
weather: hat
fashion: trousers
weather: snowball
weather: tornado
With code (TODO: add threading ;-p):
static void Main() {
string[] words = { "fish", "ball", "hat", "trousers", "snowball","tornado" };
string[] categories = { "sport", "fashion", "weather" };
using(WebClient client = new WebClient()){
foreach(string word in words) {
var bestCategory = categories.OrderByDescending(
cat => Rank(client, word, cat)).First();
Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", bestCategory, word);
}
}
}
static int Rank(WebClient client, string word, string category) {
string s = client.DownloadString("http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B" +
Uri.EscapeDataString(word) + "+%2B" +
Uri.EscapeDataString(category));
var match = Regex.Match(s, #"of about \<b\>([0-9,]+)\</b\>");
int rank = match.Success ? int.Parse(match.Groups[1].Value, NumberStyles.Any) : 0;
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("\t{0} / {1} : {2}", word, category, rank));
return rank;
}
Maybe you are all making this too hard.
Obviously, you need an external reference of some sort to rank the probability that X is in category Y. Is it possible that he's testing your "out of the box" thinking and that YOU could be the external reference? That is, the algorithm is a simple matter of running through each category and each word and asking YOU (or whoever sits at the terminal) whether word X is in the displayed category Y. There are a few simple variations on this theme but they all involve blowing past the Gordian knot by simply cutting it.
Or not...depends on the teacher.
So it seems you have a couple options here, but for the most part I think if you want accurate data you are going to need to use some outside help. Two options that I can think of would be to make use of a dictionary search, or crowd sourcing.
In regards to a dictionary search, you could just go through the database, query it and parse the results to see if one of the category names is displayed on the page. For example, if you search "red" you will find "color" on the page and likewise, searching for "fishing" returns "sport" on the page.
Another, slightly more outside the box option would be to make use of crowd sourcing, consider the following:
Start by more or less randomly assigning name-value pairs.
Output the results.
Load the results up on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to get feedback from humans on how well the pairs work.
Input the results of the AMT evaluation back into the system along with the random assignments.
If everything was approved, then we are done.
Otherwise, retain the correct hits and process them to see if any pattern can be established, generate a new set of name-value pairs.
Return to step 3.
Granted this would entail some financial outlay, but it might also be one of the simplest and accurate versions of the data you are going get on a fairly easy basis.
You could do a custom algorithm to work specifically on that data, for instance words ending in 'ing' are verbs (present participle) and could be sports.
Create a set of categorization rules like the one above and see how high an accuracy you get.
EDIT:
Steal the wikipedia database (it's free anyway) and get the list of articles under each of your ten categories. Count the occurrences of each of your 100 words in all the articles under each category, and the category with the highest 'keyword density' of that word (e.g. fishing) wins.
This sounds like you could use some sort of Bayesian classification as it is used in spam filtering. But this would still require "external data" in the form of some sort of text base that provides context.
Without that, the problem is impossible to solve. It's not an algorithm problem, it's an AI problem. But even AI (and natural intelligence as well, for that matter) needs some sort of input to learn from.
I suspect that the professor is giving you an impossible problem to make you understand at what different levels you can think about a problem.
The key question here is: who decides what a "correct" classification is? What is this decision based on? How could this decision be reproduced programmatically, and what input data would it need?
I am assuming that the problem allows using external data, because otherwise I cannot conceive of a way to deduce the meaning from words algorithmically.
Maybe something could be done with a thesaurus database, and looking for minimal distances between 'word' words and 'category' words?
Fire this teacher.
The only solution to this problem is to already have the solution to the problem. Ie. you need a table of keywords and categories to build your code that puts keywords into categories.
Unless, as you suggest, you add a system which "understands" english. This is the person sitting in front of the computer, or an expert system.
If you're building an expert system and doesn't even know it, the teacher is not good at giving problems.
Google is forbidden, but they have almost a perfect solution - Google Sets.
Because you need to unterstand the semantics of the words you need external datasources. You could try using WordNet. Or you could maybe try using Wikipedia - find the page for every word (or maybe only for the categories) and look for other words appearing on the page or linked pages.
Yeah I'd go for the wordnet approach.
Check this tutorial on WordNet-based semantic similarity measurement. You can query Wordnet online at princeton.edu (google it) so it should be relatively easy to code a solution for your problem.
Hope this helps,
X.
Interesting problem. What you're looking at is word classification. While you can learn and use traditional information retrieval methods like LSA and categorization based on such - I'm not sure if that is your intent (if it is, then do so by all means! :)
Since you say you can use external data, I would suggest using wordnet and its link between words. For instance, using wordnet,
# S: (n) **fishing**, sportfishing (the act of someone who fishes as a diversion)
* direct hypernym / inherited hypernym / sister term
o S: (n) **outdoor sport, field sport** (a sport that is played outdoors)
+ direct hypernym / inherited hypernym / sister term
# S: (n) **sport**, athletics
(an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition)
What we see here is a list of relationships between words. The term fishing relates to outdoor sport, which relates to sport.
Now, if you get the drift - it is possible to use this relationship to compute a probability of classifying "fishing" to "sport" - say, based on the linear distance of the word-chain, or number of occurrences, et al. (should be trivial to find resources on how to construct similarity measures using wordnet. when the prof says "not to use google", I assume he means programatically and not as a means to get information to read up on!)
As for C# with wordnet - how about http://opensource.ebswift.com/WordNet.Net/
My first thought would be to leverage external data. Write a program that google-searches each word, and takes the 'category' that appears first/highest in the search results :)
That might be considered cheating, though.
Well, you can't use Google, but you CAN use Yahoo, Ask, Bing, Ding, Dong, Kong...
I would do a few passes. First query the 100 words against 2-3 search engines, grab the first y resulting articles (y being a threshold to experiment with. 5 is a good start I think) and scan the text. In particular I"ll search for the 10 categories. If a category appears more than x time (x again being some threshold you need to experiment with) its a match.
Based on that x threshold (ie how many times a category appears in the text) and how may of the top y pages it appears in you can assign a weigh to a word-category pair.
for better accuracy you can then do another pass with those non-google search engines with the word-category pair (with a AND relationship) and apply the number of resulting pages to the weight of that pair. Them simply assume the word-category pair with highest weight is the right one (assuming you'll even have more than one option). You can also multi assign a word to a multiple category if the weights are close enough (z threshold maybe).
Based on that you can introduce any number of words and any number of categories. And You'll win your challenge.
I also think this method is good to evaluate the weight of potential adwords in advertising. but that's another topic....
Good luck
Harel
Use (either online, or download) WordNet, and find the number of relationships you have to follow between words and each category.
Use an existing categorized large data set such as RCV1 to train your system of choice. You could do worse then to start reading existing research and benchmarks.
Appart from Google there exist other 'encyclopedic" datasets you can build of, some of them hosted as public data sets on Amazon Web Services, such as a complete snapshot of the English language Wikipedia.
Be creative. There is other data out there besides Google.
My attempt would be to use the toolset of CRM114 to provide a way to analyze a big corpus of text. Then you can utilize the matchings from it to give a guess.
My naive approach:
Create a huge text file like this (read the article for inspiration)
For every word, scan the text and whenever you match that word, count the 'categories' that appear in N (maximum, aka radio) positions left and right of it.
The word is likely to belong in the category with the greatest counter.
Scrape delicious.com and search for each word, looking at collective tag counts, etc.
Not much more I can say about that, but delicious is old, huge, incredibly-heavily tagged and contains a wealth of current relevant semantic information to draw from. It would be very easy to build a semantics database this way, using your word list as a basis from scraping.
The knowledge is in the tags.
As you don't need to attend the subject when you solve this 'riddle' it's not supposed to be easy I think.
Nevertheless I would do something like this (told in a very simplistic way)
Build up a Neuronal Network which you give some input (a (e)book, some (e)books)
=> no google needed
this network classifies words (Neural networks are great for 'unsure' classification). I think you may simply know which word belongs to which category because of the occurences in the text. ('fishing' is likely to be mentioned near 'sports').
After some training of the neural network it should "link" you the words to the categories.
You might be able to put use the WordNet database, create some metric to determine how closely linked two words (the word and the category) are and then choose the best category to put the word in.
You could implement a learning algorithm to do this using a monte carlo method and human feedback. Have the system randomly categorize words, then ask you to vote them as "match" or "not match." If it matches, the word is categorized and can be eliminated. If not, the system excludes it from that category in future iterations since it knows it doesn't belong there. This will get very accurate results.
This will work for the 100 word problem fairly easily. For the larger problem, you could combine this with educated guessing to make the process work faster. Here, as many people above have mentioned, you will need external sources. The google method would probably work the best, since google's already done a ton of work on it, but barring that you could, for example, pull data from your facebook account using the facebook apis and try to figure out which words are statistically more likely to appear with previously categorized words.
Either way, though, this cannot be done without some kind of external input that at some point came from a human. Unless you want to be cheeky and, for example, define the categories by some serialized value contained in the ascii text for the name :P