I am writing a small proof of concept where I turn a catalog into a json that has a url, and a label that explains the web page. I read this json in python, tokenize it and create a pad_sequences.
I need to then compare some free flow texts to find which index of the pad_sequences has the most words from the free flow text.
I am generating a pad_sequences() from the text too but not sure if I can somehow compare the two sequences for closeness?
Please help.
You can use cosine similarity or euclidean distance to compare two vectors.
https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/keras/metrics/CosineSimilarity
https://www.tutorialexample.com/calculate-euclidean-distance-in-tensorflow-a-step-guide-tensorflow-tutorial/
For sequences you can make embedding to same lenght vector at first.
I have seen in many blogs , people using one_hot (from tf.keras.preprocessing.text.one_hot ) to convert the string of words into array of numbers which represent indices. This does not ensure unicity. Whereas Tokenizer class ensures unicity (tf.keras.preprocessing.text.Tokenizer ).
Then why is one_hot prefered over tokenizer?
Update: I got to know that hashing is used in One_hot to convert words into numbers but didn't get its importance as we can use the tokenizer class to do the same thing with more accuracy.
Not sure what you mean by uncity. I expect it has to do with the sequential relationship between the words. That of course is lost with ine hot encoding. However one-hot encoding is used when the number of words is limited. If say you have 10 words in the vocubulary you will create 10 new features which is fine for most neural networks to process. If you have other features in your data set beside the word sequences say numeric ordinal parameters you can still create a single input model. However if you have 10,000 words in the vocabulary you would create 10,000 new features which at best will take a lot to process. So in the case of a large vocabularly it is best to use "dense" encoding" versus the sparse encoding generated by one hot encoding. You can use the results of the tokenizer encoding to serve as input to a keras embedding layer which will encode the words into an n dimensional space where N is a value you specify. If you have additional ordinal features then to process the data your model will need multiple inputs. Perhaps that is why some people prefer to one hot encode the words.
I am trying to cluster sentences by clustering the sentence embedding of them taken from fasttext model. Each sentence embedding has 300 dimensions, and I want to reduce them to 50 (say). I tried t-SNE, PCA, UMAP. I wanted to see how Auto Encoder works for my data.
Now passing those 300 numbers for each sentence as separate features to the NN would make sense or they should be passed as a single entity? If so, is there an way to pass a list as a feature to NN?
I tried passing the 300 numbers as individual features and with the output I tried clustering. Could get very few meaningful clusters rest were either noise or clusters with no similar sentences but being grouped (But with other techniques like UMAP I could get far more meaningful clusters in more number). Any leads would be helpful. Thanks in advance :)
So I've read the paper named Self-Governing Neural Networks for On-Device Short Text Classification which presents an embedding-free approach to projecting words into a neural representation. To quote them:
The key advantage of SGNNs over existing work is that they surmount the need for pre-trained word embeddings and complex networks with huge parameters. [...] our method is a truly embedding-free approach unlike majority of the widely-used state-of-the-art deep learning techniques in NLP
Basically, from what I understand, they proceed as follow:
You'd first need to compute n-grams (side-question: is that skip-gram like old skip-gram, or new skip-gram like word2vec? I assume it's the first one for what remains) on words' characters to obtain a featurized representation of words in a text, so as an example, with 4-grams you could yield a 1M-dimensional sparse feature vector per word. Hopefully, it's sparse so memory needn't to be fully used for that because it's almost one-hot (or count-vectorized, or tf-idf vectorized ngrams with lots of zeros).
Then you'd need to hash those n-grams sparse vectors using Locality-sensitive hashing (LSH). They seem to use Random Projection from what I've understood. Also, instead of ngram-vectors, they instead use tuples of n-gram feature index and its value for non-zero n-gram feature (which is also by definition a "sparse matrix" computed on-the-fly such as from a Default Dictionary of non-zero features instead of a full vector).
I found an implementation of Random Projection in scikit-learn. From my tests, it doesn't seem to yield a binary output, although the whole thing is using sparse on-the-fly computations within scikit-learn's sparse matrices as expected for a memory-efficient (non-zero dictionnary-like features) implementation I guess.
What doesn't work in all of this, and where my question lies, is in how they could end up with binary features from the sparse projection (the hashing). They seem to be saying that the hashing is done at the same time of computing the features, which is confusing, I would have expected the hashing to come in the order I wrote above as in 1-2-3 steps, but their steps 1 and 2 seems to be somehow merged.
My confusion arises mostly from the paragraphs starting with the phrase "On-the-fly Computation." at page 888 (PDF's page 2) of the paper in the right column. Here is an image depicting the passage that confuses me:
I'd like to convey my school project to a success (trying to mix BERT with SGNNs instead of using word embeddings). So, how would you demystify that? More precisely, how could a similar random hashing projection be achieved with scikit-learn, or TensorFlow, or with PyTorch? Trying to connect the dots here, I've significantly researched but their paper doesn't give implementation details, which is what I'd like to reproduce. I at least know that the SGNN uses 80 fourten-dimensionnal LSHes on character-level n-grams of words (is my understanding right in the first place?).
Thanks!
EDIT: after starting to code, I realized that the output of scikit-learn's SparseRandomProjection() looks like this:
[0.7278244729081154,
-0.7278244729081154,
0.0,
0.0,
0.7278244729081154,
0.0,
...
]
For now, this looks fine, it's closer to binary but it would still be castable to an integer instead of a float by using the good ratio in the first place. I still wonder about the skip-gram thing, I assume n-gram of characters of words for now but it's probably wrong. Will post code soon to GitHub.
EDIT #2: I coded something here, but with n-grams instead of skip-grams: https://github.com/guillaume-chevalier/SGNN-Self-Governing-Neural-Networks-Projection-Layer
More discussion threads on this here: https://github.com/guillaume-chevalier/SGNN-Self-Governing-Neural-Networks-Projection-Layer/issues?q=is%3Aissue
First of all, thanks for your implementation of the projection layer, it helped me get started with my own.
I read your discussion with #thinline72, and I agree with him that the features are calculated in the whole line of text, char by char, not word by word. I am not sure this difference in features is too relevant, though.
Answering your question: I interpret that they do steps 1 and 2 separately, as you suggested and did. Right, in the article excerpt that you include, they talk about hashing both in feature construction and projection, but I think those are 2 different hashes. And I interpret that the first hashing (feature construction) is automatically done by the CountVectorizer method.
Feel free to take a look at my implementation of the paper, where I built the end-to-end network and trained on the SwDA dataset, as split in the SGNN paper. I obtain a max of 71% accuracy, which is somewhat lower than the paper claims. I also used the binary hasher that #thinline72 recommended, and nltk's implementation of skipgrams (I am quite certain the SGNN paper is talking about "old" skipgrams, not "word2vec" skipgrams).
how do you train a neural network to map from a vector representation, to one hot vectors? The example I'm interested in is where the vector representation is the output of a word2vec embedding, and I'd like to map onto the the individual words which were in the language used to train the embedding, so I guess this is vec2word?
In a bit more detail; if I understand correctly, a cluster of points in embedded space represents similar words. Thus if you sample from points in that cluster, and use it as the input to vec2word, the output should be a mapping to similar individual words?
I guess I could do something similar to an encoder-decoder, but does it have to be that complicated/use so many parameters?
There's this TensorFlow tutorial, how to train word2vec, but I can't find any help to do the reverse? I'm happy to do it using any deeplearning library, and it's OK to do it using sampling/probabilistic.
Thanks a lot for your help, Ajay.
One easiest thing that you can do is to use the nearest neighbor word. Given a query feature of an unknown word fq, and a reference feature set of known words R={fr}, then you can find out what is the nearest fr* for fq, and use the corresponding fr* word as fq's word.