The goal is to assess semantic relatedness between terms in a large text corpus, e.g. 'police' and 'crime' should have a stronger semantic relatedness than 'police' and 'mountain' as they tend to co-occur in the same context.
The simplest approach I've read about consists of extracting IF-IDF information from the corpus.
A lot of people use Latent Semantic Analysis to find semantic correlations.
I've come across the Lucene search engine: http://lucene.apache.org/
Do you think it is suitable to extract IF-IDF?
What would you recommend to do what I'm trying to do, both in terms of technique and software tools (with a preference for Java)?
Thanks in advance!
Mulone
Yes, Lucene gets TF-IDF data. The Carrot^2 algorithm is an example of a semantic extraction program built on Lucene. I mention it since, as a first step, they create a correlation matrix. Of course, you probably can build this matrix yourself easily.
If you deal with a ton of data, you may want to use Mahout for the harder linear algebra parts.
It is very easy if you have lucene index. For example to get correllation you can use simple formula count(term1 and term2)/ count(term1)* count(term2). Where count is hits from you search results. Moreover you can easility calculate other semntica metrics such as chi^2, info gain. All you need is to get formula and convert it to terms of count from Query
Related
I need a tool that compute the semantic relatedness between two words.Please, Have you an idea about a tool or a code source which adopts this process. I am trying wordnet similarity (http://maraca.d.umn.edu/cgi-bin/similarity/similarity.cgi), but there is several missing words, i need one richer in term of concept.
What you described is more like a research project. :-)
If they are just words, not phrases, the most recent technology is word embedding. You can think of it as converting words to high-dimensional vectors (from 200 to 1000 dimensions) by training on millions of documents.
https://code.google.com/archive/p/word2vec
The code has been archived for proprietary issues but you can still download and run for yourself. Good luck.
I'm looking for a way to write a program that creates short german sentences with a restricted letter set. The sentences can be nonsense but should grammatically be correct. The following examples only contain the letters "aeilmnost":
"Antonia ist mit Tina im Tal."
"Tamina malt mit lila Tinte Enten."
"Tina nimmt alle Tomaten mit."
For this task I need a dictionary like this one (found in the answer to "Where can I find a parsable list of German words?"). The research area for programatically create text is NLG - Natural Language Generation. On the NLG-Wiki I found a large table of NLG systems. I picked two from the list, which could be appropriate:
SimpleNLG - a Java API, which has also an adaption for the german language
KOMET - multilingual generation, from University Bremen
Do you have worked with a NLG library and have some advice which one to use for building short sentences with a letter set restriction?
Can you recommend a paper to this topic?
Grammatically correct is a pretty fuzzy area, since grammar is not to strictly defined as one might think. What you really want here though, is a part-of-speech tagger, and a markov chain.
Specifically a markov chain says that given a certain state (the first word for instance) there's just a certain chance of moving on to another state (the next word). They are relatively easy to write from scracth, but I've got a gist here in python that shows how they work if you want an example.
Once you've got that I would suggest a part-of-speech-based markov chain, combined with just checking to see if words are constructed from your desired character set. In general the algorithm would go something like this:
Pick first word at random, checking that it is constructed solely from your desired set of characters
Use the Markov Chain to predict the next word
Check if that word is an appropriate part of speech, and that it conforms to the desired character set.
If not, predict another word until it is the case.
If so, then repeat starting at 2 to completion.
Hope that's what you're looking for. Let me know if you have any more questions.
As Slater Tyranus already said, Markov chains certainly form the basis of this task. I am going to suggest a more heavy-duty approach. It is considerably more work, but is likely to give much better results in terms of grammatical correctness.
Language Model based on PCFG parse trees: A language model works by assigning a probability to a sequence of words. It requires training data, however, in order to be built first. In your case, the training process should disregard words containing letters outside the limited set.
While theoretically a language model based on parse trees is much more likely to serve your purpose, there is one caveat: due to the kind of letter-based restriction you have, data sparsity will certainly raise its ugly head. Backoff techniques (e.g. Katz's backoff model) can help a bit, but it will essentially depend on whether or not you can train on enough enough data.
As far as readily available parsers are concerned, the Stanford NLP group provides a German parser based on the Negra corpus, as mentioned in their home page.
my cousin has created a semantic search engine and he claims that his search engine is the most accurate.
I've seen many semantic search engine and they all look the same to me, because they are not designed to give you results based on the keyword you type.
So if you are creating a semantic search engine, how to to determine the accuracy of its results?
Actually sarnold's suggestion is not far off the mark.
What you would typically do is to take a whole bunch of people and have them try out a bunch of standard queries. Or if you wanted to make the experiment fairer you might let each user pick their own queries to avoid any accusation of bias (because you could pick standard queries you knew your engine was good at answering).
For each query the user would look through the first 10 or so results and say whether they thought each result was relevant or not (you may want to have users score on a scale rather than just yes/no).
Then for each of the queries you can calculate accuracy scores, depending on exactly how you set up the experiment Precision and Recall may be the most appropriate measures though these rely on having a known expected answer which you may not necessarily have. It may be simpler and more appropriate to calculate a simple percentage accuracy.
To determine whether your search engine was better than your competitors you'd have the same people perform the same queries on those search engines scoring in the same way. Having done this you can then calculate and compare the scores for the search engines against your own.
I'm currently working on a project that requires a database categorising websites (e.g. cnn.com = news). We only require broad classifications - we don't need every single URL classified individually. We're talking to the usual vendors of such databases, but most quotes we've had back are quite expensive and often they impose annoying requirements - like having to use their SDKs to query the database.
In the meantime, I've also been exploring the possibility of building such a database myself. I realise that this is not a 5 minute job, so I'm doing plenty of research.
From reading various papers on the subject, it seems a Naive Bayes classifier is generally the standard approach for doing this. However, many of the papers suggest enhancements to improve its accuracy in web classification - typically by making use of other contextual information, such as hyperlinks, header tags, multi-word phrases, the URL, word frequency and so on.
I've been experimenting with Mahout's Naive Bayes classifier against the 20 Newsgroup test dataset, and I can see its applicability to website classification, but I'm concerned about its accuracy for my use case.
Is anyone aware of the feasibility of extending the Bayes classifier in Mahout to take into account additional attributes? Any pointers as to where to start would be much appreciated.
Alternatively, if I'm barking up entirely the wrong tree please let me know!
You can control the input about as much as you'd like. In the end the input is just a feature vector. The feature vector's features can be words, or bigrams -- but they can also be whatever you want. So, yes, you can inject new features by modifying the input as you like.
How best to weave in those features is another topic entirely -- there's not one best way to convert them to numbers. Mahout in Action covers this reasonably well FWIW.
We have an extremely large database of 30+ Million products, and need to query them to create search results and ad displays thousands of times a second. We have been looking into Sphinx, Solr, Lucene, and Elastic as options to perform these constant massive searches.
Here's what we need to do. Take keywords and run them through the database to find products that match the closest. We're going to be using our OWN algorithm to decide which products are most related to target our advertisements, but we know that these engines already have their own relevancy algorithms.
So, our question is how can we use our own algorithms on top of the engine's, efficiently. Is it possible to add them to the engines themselves as a module of some sort? Or would we have to rewrite the engine's relevancy code? I suppose we could implement the algorithm from the application by executing multiple queries, but this would really kill efficiency.
Also, we'd like to know which search solution would work best for us. Right now we're leaning towards Sphinx, but we're really not sure.
Also, would you recommend running these engines over MySQL, or would it be better to run them over some type of key-value store like Cassandra? Keep in mind there are 30 Million records, and likely to double as we move along.
Thanks for your responses!
I can't give you an entire answer, as I haven't used all the products, but I can say some things which might help.
Lucene/Solr uses a vector space model. I'm not certain what you mean by you're using your "own" algorithm, but if it gets too far away from the notion of tf/idf (say, by using a neural net) you're going to have difficulties fitting it into lucene. If by your own algorithm you just mean you want to weight certain terms more heavily than others, that will fit in fine. Basically, lucene stores information about how important a term is to a document. If you want to redefine the calculation of how important a term is, that's easy to do. If you want to get away from the whole notion of a term's importance to a document, that's going to be a pain.
Lucene (and as a result Solr) stores things in its custom format. You don't need to use a database. 30 million records is not an remarkably large lucene index (depending, of course, on how big each record is). If you do want to use a db, use hadoop.
In general, you will want to use Solr instead of Lucene.
I have found it very easy to modify Lucene. But as my first bullet point said, if you want to use an algorithm that's not based on some notion of a term's importance to a document, I don't think Lucene will be the way to go.
I actually did something similar with Solr. I can't comment on the details, but basically the proprietary analysis/relevance step generated a series of search terms with associated boosts and fed them to Solr. I think this can be done with any search engine (they all support some sort of boosting).
Ultimately it comes down to what your particular analysis requires.