I'm trying to devise a method that will be able to classify a given number of english words into 2 sets - "rare" and "common" - the reference being to how much they are used in the language.
The number of words I would like to classify is bounded - currently at around 10,000, and include everything from articles, to proper nouns that could be borrowed from other languages (and would thus be classified as "rare"). I've done some frequency analysis from within the corpus, and I have a distribution of these words (ranging from 1 use, to tops about 100).
My intuition for such a system was to use word lists (such as the BNC word frequency corpus, wordnet, internal corpus frequency), and assign weights to its occurrence in one of them.
For instance, a word that has a mid level frequency in the corpus, (say 50), but appears in a word list W - can be regarded as common since its one of the most frequent in the entire language. My question was - whats the best way to create a weighted score for something like this? Should I go discrete or continuous? In either case, what kind of a classification system would work best for this?
Or do you recommend an alternative method?
Thanks!
EDIT:
To answer Vinko's question on the intended use of the classification -
These words are tokenized from a phrase (eg: book title) - and the intent is to figure out a strategy to generate a search query string for the phrase, searching a text corpus. The query string can support multiple parameters such as proximity, etc - so if a word is common, these params can be tweaked.
To answer Igor's question -
(1) how big is your corpus?
Currently, the list is limited to 10k tokens, but this is just a training set. It could go up to a few 100k once I start testing it on the test set.
2) do you have some kind of expected proportion of common/rare words in the corpus?
Hmm, I do not.
Assuming you have a way to evaluate the classification, you can use the "boosting" approach to machine learning. Boosting classifiers use a set of weak classifiers combined to a strong classifier.
Say, you have your corpus and K external wordlists you can use.
Pick N frequency thresholds. For example, you may have 10 thresholds: 0.1%, 0.2%, ..., 1.0%.
For your corpus and each of the external word lists, create N "experts", one expert per threshold per wordlist/corpus, total of N*(K+1) experts. Each expert is a weak classifier, with a very simple rule: if the frequency of the word is higher than its threshold, they consider the word to be "common". Each expert has a weight.
The learning process is as follows: assign the weight 1 to each expert. For each word in your corpus, make the experts vote. Sum their votes: 1 * weight(i) for "common" votes and (-1) * weight(i) for "rare" votes. If the result is positive, mark the word as common.
Now, the overall idea is to evaluate the classification and increase the weight of experts that were right and decrease the weight of the experts that were wrong. Then repeat the process again and again, until your evaluation is good enough.
The specifics of the weight adjustment depends on the way how you evaluate the classification. For example, if you don't have per-word evaluation, you may still evaluate the classification as "too many common" or "too many rare" words. In the first case, promote all the pro-"rare" experts and demote all pro-"common" experts, or vice-versa.
Your distribution is most likely a Pareto distribution (a superset of Zipf's law as mentioned above). I am shocked that the most common word is used only 100 times - this is including "a" and "the" and words like that? You must have a small corpus if that is the same.
Anyways, you will have to choose a cutoff for "rare" and "common". One potential choice is the mean expected number of appearances (see the linked wiki article above to calculate the mean). Because of the "fat tail" of the distribution, a fairly small number of words will have appearances above the mean -- these are the "common". The rest are "rare". This will have the effect that many more words are rare than common. Not sure if that is what you are going for but you can just move the cutoff up and down to get your desired distribution (say, all words with > 50% of expected value are "common").
While this is not an answer to your question, you should know that you are inventing a wheel here.
Information Retrieval experts have devised ways to weight search words according to their frequency. A very popular weight is TF-IDF, which uses a word's frequency in a document and its frequency in a corpus. TF-IDF is also explained here.
An alternative score is the Okapi BM25, which uses similar factors.
See also the Lucene Similarity documentation for how TF-IDF is implemented in a popular search library.
Related
I have found successful weighting theme for adding word vectors which seems to work for sentence comparison in my case:
query1 = vectorize_query("human cat interaction")
query2 = vectorize_query("people and cats talk")
query3 = vectorize_query("monks predicted frost")
query4 = vectorize_query("man found his feline in the woods")
>>> print(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(query1, query2))
>>> 0.7154500319
>>> print(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(query1, query3))
>>> 0.415183904078
>>> print(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(query1, query4))
>>> 0.690741014142
When I add additional information to the sentence which acts as noise I get decrease:
>>> query4 = vectorize_query("man found his feline in the dark woods while picking white mushrooms and watching unicorns")
>>> print(1 - spatial.distance.cosine(query1, query4))
>>> 0.618269123349
Are there any ways to deal with additional information when comparing using word vectors? When I know that some subset of the text can provide better match.
UPD: edited the code above to make it more clear.
vectorize_query in my case does so called smooth inverse frequency weighting, when word vectors from GloVe model (that can be word2vec as well, etc.) are added with weights a/(a+w), where w should be the word frequency. I use there word's inverse tfidf score, i.e. w = 1/tfidf(word). Coefficient a is typically taken 1e-3 in this approach. Taking just tfidf score as weight instead of that fraction gives almost similar result, I also played with normalization, etc.
But I wanted to have just "vectorize sentence" in my example to not overload the question as I think it does not depend on how I add word vectors using weighting theme - the problem is only that comparison works best when sentences have approximately the same number of meaning words.
I am aware of another approach when distance between sentence and text is being computed using the sum or mean of minimal pairwise word distances, e.g.
"Obama speaks to the media in Illinois" <-> "The President greets the press in Chicago" where we have dist = d(Obama, president) + d(speaks, greets) + d(media, press) + d(Chicago, Illinois). But this approach does not take into account that adjective can change the meaning of noun significantly, etc - which is more or less incorporated in vector models. Words like adjectives 'good', 'bad', 'nice', etc. become noise there, as they match in two texts and contribute as zero or low distances, thus decreasing the distance between sentence and text.
I played a bit with doc2vec models, it seems it was gensim doc2vec implementation and skip-thoughts embedding, but in my case (matching short query with much bigger amount of text) I had unsatisfactory results.
If you are interested in part-of-speech to trigger similarity (e.g. only interested in nouns and noun phrases and ignore adjectives), you might want to look at sense2vec, which incorporates word classes into the model. https://explosion.ai/blog/sense2vec-with-spacy ...after which you can weight the word class while performing a dot product across all terms, effectively deboosting what you consider the 'noise'.
It's not clear your original result, the similarity decreasing when a bunch of words are added, is 'bad' in general. A sentence that says a lot more is a very different sentence!
If that result is specifically bad for your purposes – you need a model that captures whether a sentence says "the same and then more", you'll need to find/invent some other tricks. In particular, you might need a non-symmetric 'contains-similar' measure – so that the longer sentence is still a good match for the shorter one, but not vice-versa.
Any shallow, non-grammar-sensitive embedding that's fed by word-vectors will likely have a hard time with single-word reversals-of-meaning, as for example the difference between:
After all considerations, including the relevant measures of economic, cultural, and foreign-policy progress, historians should conclude that Nixon was one of the very *worst* Presidents
After all considerations, including the relevant measures of economic, cultural, and foreign-policy progress, historians should conclude that Nixon was one of the very *best* Presidents
The words 'worst' and 'best' will already be quite-similar, as they serve the same functional role and appear in the same sorts of contexts, and may only contrast with each other a little in the full-dimensional space. And then their influence may be swamped in the influence of all the other words. Only more sophisticated analyses may highlight their role as reversing the overall import of the sentence.
While it's not yet an option in gensim, there are alternative ways to calculation the "Word Mover's Distance" that report the unmatched 'remainder' after all the easy pairwise-meaning-measuring is finished. While I don't know any prior analysis or code that'd flesh out this idea for your needs, or prove its value, I have a hunch such an analysis might help better discover cases of "says the same and more", or "says mostly the same but with reversal in a few words/aspects".
Note: I have completely changed the original question!
I do have several texts, which consists of several words. Words are categorized into difficulty categories from 1 to 6, 1 being the easiest one and 6 the hardest (or from common to least common). However, obviously not all words can be put into these categories, because they are countless words in the english language.
Each category has twice as many words as the category before.
Level: 100 words in total (100 new)
Level: 200 words in total (100 new)
Level: 400 words in total (200 new)
Level: 800 words in total (400 new)
Level: 1600 words in total (800 new)
Level: 3200 words in total (1600 new)
When I use the term level 6 below, I mean introduced in level 6. So it is part of the 1600 new words and can't be found in the 1600 words up to level 5.
How would I rate the difficulty of an individual text? Compare these texts:
An easy one
would only consist of very basic vocabulary:
I drive a car.
Let's say these are 4 level 1 words.
A medium one
This old man is cretinous.
This is a very basic sentence which only comes with one difficult word.
A hard one
would have some advanced vocabulary in there too:
I steer a gas guzzler.
So how much more difficult is the second or third of the first one? Let's compare text 1 and text 3. I and a are still level 1 words, gas might be lvl 2, steer is 4 and guzzler is not even in the list. cretinous would be level 6.
How to calculate a difficulty of these texts, now that I've classified the vocabulary?
I hope it is more clear what I want to do now.
The problem you are trying to solve is how to quantify your qualitative data.
The search term "quantifying qualitative data" may help you.
There is no general all-purpose algorithm for this. The best way to do it will depend upon what you want to use the metric for, and what your ratings of each individual task mean for the project as a whole in terms of practical impact on the factors you are interested in.
For example if the hardest tasks are typically unsolvable, then as soon as a project involves a single type 6 task, then the project may become unsolvable, and your metric would need to reflect this.
You also need to find some way to address the missing data (unrated tasks). It's likely that a single numeric metric is not going to capture all the information you want about these projects.
Once you have understood what the metric will be used for, and how the task ratings relate to each other (linear increasing difficulty vs. categorical distinctions) then there are plenty of simple metrics that may codify this analysis.
For example, you may rate projects for risk based on a combination of the number of unknown tasks and the number of tasks with difficulty above a certain threshold. Alternatively you may rate projects for duration based on a weighted sum of task difficulty, using a default or estimated difficulty for unknown tasks.
Suppose we have buyers and sellers that are trying to find each other in a market. Buyers can tag their needs with keywords; sellers can do the same for what they are selling. I'm interested in finding algorithm(s) that rank-order sellers in terms of their relevance for a particular buyer on the basis of their two keyword sets.
Here is an example:
buyer_keywords = {"furry", "four legs", "likes catnip", "has claws"}
and then we have two potential sellers that we need to rank order in terms of their relevance:
seller_keywords[1] = {"furry", "four legs", "arctic circle", "white"}
seller_keywords[2] = {"likes catnip", "furry",
"hates mice", "yarn-lover", "whiskers"}
If we just use the intersection of keywords, we do not get much discrimination: both intersect on 2 keywords. If we divide the intersection count by the size of the set union, seller 2 actually does worse because of the greater number of keywords. This would seem to introduce an automatic penalty for any method not correcting keyword set size (and we definitely don't want to penalize adding keywords).
To put a bit more structure on the problem, suppose we have some truthful measure of intensity of keyword attributes (which have to sum to 1 for each seller), e.g.,:
seller_keywords[1] = {"furry":.05,
"four legs":.05,
"arctic circle":.8,
"white":.1}
seller_keywords[2] = {"likes catnip":.5,
"furry":.4,
"hates mice":.02,
"yarn-lover":.02,
"whiskers":.06}
Now we could sum up the value of hits: so now Seller 1 only gets a score of .1, while Seller 2 gets a score of .9. So far, so good, but now we might get a third seller with a very limited, non-descriptive keyword set:
seller_keywords[3] = {"furry":1}
This catapults them to the top for any hit on their sole keyword, which isn't good.
Anyway, my guess (and hope) is that this is a fairly general problem and that there exist different algorithmic solutions with known strengths and limitations. This is probably something covered in CS101, so I think a good answer to this question might just be a link to the relevant references.
I think you're looking to use cosine similarity; it's a basic technique that gets you pretty far as a first hack. Intuitively, you create a vector where every tag you know about has a particular index:
terms[0] --> aardvark
terms[1] --> anteater
...
terms[N] --> zuckerberg
Then you create vectors in this space for each person:
person1[0] = 0 # this person doesn't care about aardvarks
person1[1] = 0.05 # this person cares a bit about anteaters
...
person1[N] = 0
Each person is now a vector in this N-dimensional space. You can then use cosine similarity to calculate similarity between pairs of them. Calculationally, this is basically the same of asking for the angle between the two vectors. You want a cosine close to 1, which means that the vectors are roughly collinear -- that they have similar values for most of the dimensions.
To improve this metric, you may want to use tf-idf weighting on the elements in your vector. Tf-idf will downplay the importance of popular terms (e.g, 'iPhone') and promote the importance of unpopular terms that this person seems particularly associated with.
Combining tf-idf weighting and cosine similarity does well for most applications like this.
what you are looking for is called taxonomy. Tagging contents and ordering them by order of relevance.
You may not find some-ready-to-go-algorithm but you can start with a practical case : Drupal documentation for taxonomy provides some guidelines, and check sources of the search module.
Basically, the ranks is based on the term's frequency. If a product is defined with a small number of tags, they will have more weight. A tag which only appear on few products' page means that it is very specific. You shouldn't have your words' intensity defined on a static way ; but examines them in their context.
Regards
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])
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/