What we like to do is to analyze conversation and detect when there is negative sentiment. What I mean by this is that we specifically want to detect if the user on the call is angry or frustrated or combative and needs to be transferred. We had plan to use the natural language sentiment,but the problem is that the sentiment analysis only detect if a statement is positive or negative. For example:
I am unable to login because it said my password is expired.
This would result in a negative sentiment, but the user is stating something and is not an indication that the user is combative.
I could perform some sort of entity analysis and it would return a list of predefined entity types like "Person". However, it does not appear to allow me to create new entity types nor can I adjust the criteria for entity type.
Is my best bet to look into AutoML? With this I would have more flexibility, but what would be the cost difference between using Natural Language API vs the automl api?
Thanks.
Models used in Google Natural Language API have been trained on enormously large document corpuses, their performance is usually quite good as long as they are used on datasets that do not make use of a very idiosyncratic language.
On the other hand, the AutoML model performance has a quite slow training process and has different models[1]. The AutoML sentiment analysis model might be very convenient. However, for the performance of critical tasks, it makes sense to invest the time and develop the model yourself to have better results.For pricing of AutoML, you can check the link[2] below to calculate the price you prefer.
[1]https://cloud.google.com/natural-language/automl/docs/features
[2]https://cloud.google.com/vision/automl/pricing
Related
It's common to add a custom dictionary to a machine translator to ensure that terminology from a specific domain is correctly translated. For example, the term server should be translated differently when the document is about data centers, vs when the document is about restaurants.
With a transformer model, this is not very obvious to do, since words are not aligned 1:1. I've seen a couple of papers on this topic, but I'm not sure which would be the best one to use. What are the best practices for this problem?
I am afraid you cannot easily do that. You cannot easily add new words to the vocabulary because you don't know what embedding it would get during training. You can try to remove some words, or alternatively you can manually change the bias in the final softmax layer to prevent some words from appearing in the translation. Anything else would be pretty difficult to do.
What you want to do is called domain adaptation. To get an idea of how domain adaptation is usually done, you can have a look at a survey paper.
The most commonly used approaches are probably model finetuning or ensembling with a language model. If you want to have parallel data in your domain, you can try to fine-tune your model on that parallel data (with simple SGD, small learning rate).
If you only have monolingual data in the target language, you train a language model on that data. During the decoding, you can mix the probabilities from the domain-specific language and the translation model. Unfortunately, I don't know of any tool that could do this out of the box.
I tried to went through numerous articles trying to understand what should be my first step to incorporate associative analysis (may be Market Basket analysis) into my system. They all go deep into implementation of algorithm but no one talked about how to store data in the first place.
I will really appreciate if someone can give me some start pointers or article links that I can begin with.
The first thing I want to implement is to track user clicks and provide suggestions based on tracked data.
E.g. User clicked on link A and subsequently on link B and link C. I can track this activity with some metadata associated (user, user organization, user role etc.)
I do not want it to be limited only to links. In future, I want to add number of similar usecases into the system and want to make it smart. E.g. If user set specific values for fields A and B, most likely he/she will set value <bla> for field C.
My system may generate several thousand such data points in a day (E.g. user clicks, field selection etc.).
Below are my questions:
How should I store my data? Go SQL or No SQL (I briefly looked into Mongo DB and it looked promising)
What tool should I use to perform the associative analysis? Are there any open source tools I can use?
It depend. Does your data suitable for NoSql databases? To answer this question it's better to read CAP Theorem and it's case studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem or http://robertgreiner.com/2014/06/cap-theorem-explained/
. Some time you want Consistency(depending to your data) and Availability => so that it's better to use Relational Databases like Mysql(Try to read case studies and analyse your data to pick the best tools)
There is large number of open source libraries, but in my opinion it's better to first read some concepts and algorithms. Try searching for Apriori,ECLAT, FP-GROWTH Algorithms and get concepts of them. then you can pick a tool or write the code your self. Some usefull tools(depending to your programming language):
Python: https://github.com/asaini/Apriori, https://github.com/enaeseth/python-fp-growth, https://github.com/enaeseth/python-fp-growth/blob/master/fp_growth.py
PHP: https://github.com/sigidhanafi/fp-growth-php
JAVA: https://github.com/goodinges/FP-Growth-Java, http://www.philippe-fournier-viger.com/spmf/
Also you can use Spark: https://spark.apache.org/docs/1.1.1/mllib-guide.html
I'm currently working on my final year research project, which is an application which analyzes travel reviews found online, and give out a sentiment score for particular tourist attractions as a result, by conducting aspect level sentiment analysis.
I have a newly scraped dataset from a famous travel website which does not allow to use their API for research/academic purposes. (bummer)
My supervisor said that I might need to get this dataset annotated before using it for the aforementioned purpose. I am kind of confused as to what data annotation means in this context. Could someone please explain what exactly is happening when a dataset is annotated and how it helps in getting sentiment analysis done?
I was told that I might have to get two/three human annotators and get the data annotated to make it less biased. I'm on a tight schedule and I was wondering if there are any tools that can get it done for me? If so, what will be the impact of using such tools over human annotators? I would also like suggestions for such tools that you would recommend.
I would really appreciate a detailed explanation to my questions, as I am stuck with my project progressing to the next step because of this.
Thank you in advance.
To a first approximation, machine learning algorithms (e.g., a sentiment analysis algorithm) is learning to perform a task that humans currently perform by collecting many examples of the human performing the task, and then imitating them. When your supervisor talks about "annotation," they're talking about collecting these examples of a human doing the sentiment annotation task: annotating a sentence for sentiment. That is, collecting pairs of sentences and their sentiment as judged by humans. Without this, there's nothing for the program to learn from, and you're stuck hoping the program can give you something from nothing -- which it never will.
That said, there are tools for collecting this sort of data, or at least helping. Amazon Mechanical Turk and other crowdsourcing platforms are good resources for this sort of data collection. You can also take a look at something like: http://www.crowdflower.com/type-sentiment-analysis.
The problem: Given a set of hand categorized strings (or a set of ordered vectors of strings) generate a categorize function to categorize more input. In my case, that data (or most of it) is not natural language.
The question: are there any tools out there that will do that? I'm thinking of some kind of reasonably polished, download, install and go kind of things, as opposed to to some library or a brittle academic program.
(Please don't get stuck on details as the real details would restrict answers to less generally useful responses AND are under NDA.)
As an example of what I'm looking at; the input I'm wanting to filter is computer generated status strings pulled from logs. Error messages (as an example) being filtered based on who needs to be informed or what action needs to be taken.
Doing Things Manually
If the error messages are being generated automatically and the list of exceptions behind the messages is not terribly large, you might just want to have a table that directly maps each error message type to the people who need to be notified.
This should make it easy to keep track of exactly who/which-groups will be getting what types of messages and to update the routing of messages should you decide that some of the messages are being misdirected.
Typically, a small fraction of the types of errors make up a large fraction of error reports. For example, Microsoft noticed that 80% of crashes were caused by 20% of the bugs in their software. So, to get something useful, you wouldn't even need to start with a complete table covering every type of error message. Instead, you could start with just a list that maps the most common errors to the right person and routes everything else to a person for manual routing. Each time an error is routed manually, you could then add an entry to the routing table so that errors of that type are handled automatically in the future.
Document Classification
Unless the error messages are being editorialized by people who submit them and you want to use this information when routing them, I wouldn't recommend treating this as a document classification task. However, if this is what you want to do, here's a list of reasonably good packages for document document classification organized by programming language:
Python - To do this using the Python based Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK), see the Document Classification section in the freely available NLTK book.
Ruby - If Ruby is more of your thing, you can use the Classifier gem. Here's sample code that detects whether Family Guy quotes are funny or not-funny.
C# - C# programmers can use nBayes. The project's home page has sample code for a simple spam/not-spam classifier.
Java - Java folks have Classifier4J, Weka, Lucene Mahout, and as adi92 mentioned Mallet.
Learning Rules with Weka - If rules are what you want, Weka might be of particular interest, since it includes a rule set based learner. You'll find a tutorial on using Weka for text categorization here.
Mallet has a bunch of classifiers which you can train and deploy entirely from the commandline
Weka is nice too because it has a huge number of classifiers and preprocessors for you to play with
Have you tried spam or email filters? By using text files that have been marked with appropriate categories, you should be able to categorize further text input. That's what those programs do, anyway, but instead of labeling your outputs a 'spam' and 'not spam', you could do other categories.
You could also try something involving AdaBoost for a more hands-on approach to rolling your own. This library from Google looks promising, but probably doesn't meet your ready-to-deploy requirements.
I am curious what are the methods / approaches to overcome the "cold start" problem where when a new user or an item enters the system, due to lack of info about this new entity, making recommendation is a problem.
I can think of doing some prediction based recommendation (like gender, nationality and so on).
You can cold start a recommendation system.
There are two type of recommendation systems; collaborative filtering and content-based. Content based systems use meta data about the things you are recommending. The question is then what meta data is important? The second approach is collaborative filtering which doesn't care about the meta data, it just uses what people did or said about an item to make a recommendation. With collaborative filtering you don't have to worry about what terms in the meta data are important. In fact you don't need any meta data to make the recommendation. The problem with collaborative filtering is that you need data. Before you have enough data you can use content-based recommendations. You can provide recommendations that are based on both methods, and at the beginning have 100% content-based, then as you get more data start to mix in collaborative filtering based.
That is the method I have used in the past.
Another common technique is to treat the content-based portion as a simple search problem. You just put in meta data as the text or body of your document then index your documents. You can do this with Lucene & Solr without writing any code.
If you want to know how basic collaborative filtering works, check out Chapter 2 of "Programming Collective Intelligence" by Toby Segaran
Maybe there are times you just shouldn't make a recommendation? "Insufficient data" should qualify as one of those times.
I just don't see how prediction recommendations based on "gender, nationality and so on" will amount to more than stereotyping.
IIRC, places such as Amazon built up their databases for a while before rolling out recommendations. It's not the kind of thing you want to get wrong; there are lots of stories out there about inappropriate recommendations based on insufficient data.
Working on this problem myself, but this paper from microsoft on Boltzmann machines looks worthwhile: http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/81783/gunawardana09__unified_approac_build_hybrid_recom_system.pdf
This has been asked several times before (naturally, I cannot find those questions now :/, but the general conclusion was it's better to avoid such recommendations. In various parts of the worls same names belong to different sexes, and so on ...
Recommendations based on "similar users liked..." clearly must wait. You can give out coupons or other incentives to survey respondents if you are absolutely committed to doing predictions based on user similarity.
There are two other ways to cold-start a recommendation engine.
Build a model yourself.
Get your suppliers to fill in key information to a skeleton model. (Also may require $ incentives.)
Lots of potential pitfalls in all of these, which are too common sense to mention.
As you might expect, there is no free lunch here. But think about it this way: recommendation engines are not a business plan. They merely enhance the business plan.
There are three things needed to address the Cold-Start Problem:
The data must have been profiled such that you have many different features (with product data the term used for 'feature' is often 'classification facets'). If you don't properly profile data as it comes in the door, your recommendation engine will stay 'cold' as it has nothing with which to classify recommendations.
MOST IMPORTANT: You need a user-feedback loop with which users can review the recommendations the personalization engine's suggestions. For example, Yes/No button for 'Was This Suggestion Helpful?' should queue a review of participants in one training dataset (i.e. the 'Recommend' training dataset) to another training dataset (i.e. DO NOT Recommend training dataset).
The model used for (Recommend/DO NOT Recommend) suggestions should never be considered to be a one-size-fits-all recommendation. In addition to classifying the product or service to suggest to a customer, how the firm classifies each specific customer matters too. If functioning properly, one should expect that customers with different features will get different suggestions for (Recommend/DO NOT Recommend) in a given situation. That would the 'personalization' part of personalization engines.