latent variable models for document analysis - mlsskioloa08.mlss.cc/files/buntine.pdf · latent...

Latent Variable Models for Document Analysis

Wray BuntineNational ICT Australia (NICTA)

Buntine Document Models

Formal Natural LanguageDocument Processing

Document Analysis

Part I

Motivation and Background



Document Analysis

What a good Statistical NLP Course Needs

Apart from the usual CS background (algorithms, data structures,coding, etc.):

prerequisites or coverage of information theory, andcomputational probability theory;

theory of context free grammars, normal forms, parsingtheory,etc.;

programming tools: Python!

None of this is presented here!



Document Analysis

Outline

1 Formal Natural LanguageNLP Processing and AmbiguityWordsParsing

2 Document ProcessingLanguage in the Electronic AgeInformation WarfareWhy Analyse Documents

3 Document AnalysisWhere is the Science of Document Analysis?RepresentationResourcesOther Areas



Document Analysis

NLP Processing and AmbiguityWordsParsing

Outline

We do a review of the analysis of formal natural language (not aformal analysis of natural language).


2 Document Processing

3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


What is Formal Natural Language

Formal language is taught in schools (e.g., grammar schools)with correct grammar, punctuation and spelling.

Most books, more traditional print media, formal businesscommunication, and newspapers use this.

But errors exist even in the The Times and The New YorkTimes.

In contrast, informal language is found in email, people’s webpages, chat groups, and “trendy” print media.



Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Analysing Language

Example fromMcCallum’s NLP course

Left, a traditionalparse tree showingconstitutent phrases.

Below, adependency graphshowingsemantic roles.


http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum/teaching.html

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsASemanticRole.htm


Document Analysis


Traditional NLP Processing

Full processing pipelinemight look like this forEnglish.

Typical accuraciesfor various stagesmight be 90-98%.

But it can dropdown to 60% for thelater semanticanalysis.


http://www.alvis.info/alvis_docs/bionlpdemo/


Document Analysis


Common Tasks in NLP

Tokenisation: breaking text up into basic tokens such as word,symbol or punctuation.

Chunking: detecting parts in a sentence that correspond tosome unit such as “noun phrase” or “named entity”.

Part-of-speech tagging: detecting the part-of-speech of words ortokens.

Named entity recognition: detecting proper names.

Parsing: building a tree or graph that fully assignsroles/parts-of-speech to words, and theirinter-relationships.

Semantic role labelling: assigning roles such as “actor”, “agent”,“instrument” to phrases.



Document Analysis


NLP in Chinese

Tokenisation (segmentingwords) is very difficult.

Easier in Japanese1

because their foreignwords use separatephonetic alphabets.

Little morphology used.

1Japanese writing is based on traditional Chinese.Buntine Document Models


Document Analysis


Translation Difficulties

English: I am in the cafe too.

Finnish: On kahvilassahan.

Finnish, an agglutinating language like Mongolian and Turkish, canexpress four English words in one!

The translation is: OnI am kahvicoffeelaplacessainhanemphasis .

This makes statistical machine translation very difficult. Forinstance, only the base word “kahvila” will be in any dictionary.



Document Analysis


Translation Difficulties, cont.

Some languages represent names differently,especially those originating outside of theLatin based alphabets.

Code Language TranslationEN English Saddam HusseinLV Latvian Sadams HuseinsHU Hungarian Szaddam HuszeinET Estonian Saddam Husayn



Document Analysis


Language Ambiguities

An unnamed high-performance commercial parser made thefollowing analysis of a sentence from Reuters Newswire in 1996.

Clothes made of hemp and smoking paraphernalia phrase were on sale.

The correct analysis is:

Clothes made of hemp phrase and smoking paraphernalia phrase were on sale.

This misinterpretation is a common semantic problem with currentparsing technology.



Document Analysis


Language Ambiguities, cont.

Newadjective York Tennis Club name opening today. versus

New York Tennis Club name opening today.

He worked at Yahoo! sentence Tuesday. sentence versus

He worked at Yahoo! name Tuesday. sentence

Stolen painting found by tree location. versus

Stolen painting found by tree actor.

Iraqi head body part seeks arms body part. versus

Iraqi head politician seeks arms weapons.



Document Analysis


Language Ambiguities, cont.

Ambiguities arise in all processing steps, due to thetokenisation done, the identification of proper names, the partof speech assigned, the parse, or the semantic role assigned.

All languages have particular versions of the ambiguityproblem. e.g., standard Arabic and Hebrew don’t represent vowels

in their text!

We resolve ambiguity by appeal to distributional semantics, thatthe meaning of a word is given by its distribution with the wordssurrounding it, its context.

Handling of ambiguity generally requires that intermediate pro-cessing carry uncertainty, for instance, by using latent variables instatistical methods.



Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Word Classes (dictionary version of part of speech)

Part of speech Function ExamplesVerb action or state (to) be, have, do, like,

work, sing, can, mustNoun thing or person pen, dog, work, music,

town, London, JohnAdjective describes a noun a/an, 69, some, good, big,

red, well, interestingAdverb describes a verb, ad-

jective or adverbquickly, silently, well,badly, very, really

Pronoun replaces a noun I, you, he, she, somePreposition links a noun to an-

other wordto, at, after, on, but

Conjunction joins clauses or sen-tences or words

and, but, when, because

Interjection short exclamation,can be in sentence

oh!, ouch!, hi!



Document Analysis


Word Forms

Morpheme: Is a semantically meaningful part of a word.

Inflection: A version of the word within the one word class by addinga grammatical morpheme. ”walk” to “walks”, “walking”,and “walked”.

Lemma: The base word form without inflections, but no change inword class. “walking” lemmatizers back to “walk”, but“redness” (N) does not lemmatise to “red” (A).

Derivation: Adding grammatical morphemes to change the word class.“appoint” (V) to “appointee” (N), “clue” (N) to“clueless” (A). Uses “-ation”, “-ness”, “-ly” etc.

Stemming: Primitive version of lemmatization that strips offgrammatical morphemes naively, usually in a context freemanner.

Open versus Closed: Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs are consideredopen word classes that continually admit new entries.



Document Analysis


Parts of Speech (computational version)

Example parts of speech from the Tagging Guidelines for the PennTreebank.POS Function ExamplesCC coordinating conjunction and, but, eitherCD cardinal number three, 27DT determiner a, the, thoseIN preposition or subordinat-

ing conjunctionout, of, into, by

JJ adjective good, tallJJS adjective, superlative best, tallestMD modal he can swimNN noun, singular or mass the ice is coldNNS noun plural the iceblocks are coldPDT predeterminer all the boysSYM symbol $, %VBD verb, past tense swam, walked... ... ...



Document Analysis


Parts of Speech (computational version), cont.

For computational analysis, more detail over the 8 wordclasses is needed in order to capture inflections and variationssupporting a parse.

With just candidate POS for each word, many different parsescan exist. McCallum’s initial example is shown again below.



Document Analysis


Collocations

Small, usually contiguous, sequence of word that behavessemantically like a single word: “hot dog”, “with respect to”, “home

page”, “fourth quarter”, “run down”,

Meaning of a collocation is different to the meaning of itsparts.

The collocation cannot be modified easily without changingthe meaning: “kicked the bucket” versus “kicked the tub”,“the bucket was kicked”.We identify collocations by appeal to distributional semantics.

Related: multi-word expression/unit, compound, idiom.

In some languages, collocations replaced by compounds(words are joined with no space or hyphen).

Important for parsing, dictionaries, terminology extraction, ...



Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Constituents

A word or a group of words that functions as a single unit within ahierarchical structure.e.g. noun phrase, prepositional phrase, collocation, etc.

Often can be replaced by a single pronoun and the enclosingsentence is still gramatically valid.

Serve as a valid answer to some question.e.g., How did you get to work? By train.

Admits standard syntactic manipulations.e.g., can be joined with another using “and”, can be moved

elsewhere in the sentence as a unit.

Building a parse tree involves building the complete set ofconstituents for a sentence.



Document Analysis


Parsing

Sometimes we want a dependency tree showing syntactic orsemantic relationships, as in (a).

Usually, we want the relationships labelled.e.g. arc from “fell” to “in” labelled with time, arc from ”fell”to ”payrolls” labelled with patient.

Some formal linguistic theory develops a parse tree, in thiscase a Context Free Grammar (CFG) is used in (c).

Figure shows a derivation of the parse tree from thedependency tree.



Document Analysis


Shallow Parsing

A full parse yields many subtrees or constituents, labelled verbphrase (VP), prepositional phrase (PP), etc.

We can also note the labels of a particular type (e.g., allNPs), and build a classifier that recognises just that type.

Recognising the start and end of a particular type ofconstituent is called shallow parsing or chunking.

Parsing can also be represented as a structured classificationproblem, recognising the best coherent set of constituents.



Document Analysis

Language in the Electronic AgeInformation WarfareWhy Analyse Documents

Outline

We look beyond the text content to consider applications ofdocument processing.

1 Formal Natural Language


3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Processing of Documents

Documents have a structure with text, links to otherdocuments, citations to publications, images, indexes, and soforth.

Why do we care about documents?

What applications can be made?



Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Informal Language

Text messages: My smmr hols wr CWOT. B4, we used 2go2 NY 2C mybro, his GF & thr 3 :- kids FTF. ILNY, it’s a gr8 plc.

IRC Chat: Meta-man: NLP is a little tricky to do over IRCDan 26: I see no diffgalamud: I’m not pissed! I’m flattered! I mean, er... =)Meta-man: hold that thought ...to your checkbook :]JonathanA: HAH! LOL



Document Analysis


Web Page Structure

Web pages have complicatedstructures and genre, more sothan traditional documents(letters, books, etc.).

Example genres: product page,personal home page, FAQ, newsitem, blog, corporate data sheet,...

Much of the content will betemplate content shared acrossmany similar pages.

No standard guidelines, so mustdetermine heuristically.



Document Analysis


Linguistic Resources

A large number of different resources now becoming available,due to the Internet and digitisation.

Included: gazetteers, dictionaries, tagged text (tagged withPOS, name entity types, etc.), word sense data, case frameand semantic role data (i.e., for verbs), collocations, alignedtranslations.

Tagged and marked up linguistic resources are the hardest toget, but are the ones most needed for supervised statisticalNLP.

Availability of linguistic resources is a key determining factorin the success of statistical NLP projects.

Unsupervised (or semi-supervised) approaches to statisticalNLP are most needed.



Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


The Internet Society

Primary school students have internet component incoursework are given internet search tasks as assignments.

Internet news and blogs have overtaken newspapers as primaryinformation source, but the business models are unclear.

E-government, business and consumer e-services booming.

Search and internet-based multimedia now a significant formof entertainment.

e.g. 8 year-old boy with keywords “dinosaur”, “meteor”.



Document Analysis


The Internet Society, cont.

Advertising on specialist websites, on particular keywordsearches, or on your email based on its content, is wellfocussed.

Targeted advertising through the web, for instance GoogleAdSense, is considered the best value for money foradvertising.

Major industry companies track “green” websites and blogsfor potential environmental scandals.

Document analysis has taken on a new life due to the inter-net. Business, government and consumer ramifications stillunfolding.



Document Analysis


Information Warfare

Definition: ”the use and management of information in pursuit ofa competitive advantage over an opponent.”

Email spam, link spam, etc. Whole websites are nowfabricated with fake content in the effort by spammers.“More than half of Americans say US news organizations arepolitically biased, inaccurate, and don’t care ...,”Pew Research Center on “news” (Aug. 2007)

“Poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source ofnews – roughly one quarter of all Americans – were evenharsher with their criticism.”80% of the watchers of FOX news had one or more majormisconceptions over Iraq war, compared with only 23% forPBS/NPR, WorldPublicOpinion.ORG survey (Oct. 2003)

It’s an information war out there on the internet (between consumers,companies, not-for-profits, voters, parties, news publishers, ...).


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=348

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc


Document Analysis


Outline



3 Document Analysis



Document Analysis


Bioinformatics: Medline

PubMed is the most popular database in Biology, and themain database MedLine has over 16 million entries.

entries are abstracts and metadata in (MedLine format,XML format, ...2,000-4,000 new entries/day from 5000 journals in 37languages.

The abstract databases are searchable using free text andcontolled vocabularies, such as MeSH terms.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/licensee/data_elements_doc.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=mesh


Document Analysis


Tasks in MedLine

The MeSH terms are generally entered by users and notthorough. Thus subject-specific searching patchy.

Named entities (genes, proteins) have many different versionsso it is difficult to search for them.

Same problems apply to many technical information resources,such as patent databases.



Document Analysis


European Media Monitor: NewsExplorer

Developed at the European Commission’s Joint ResearchCenter (JRC) in Italy. Online at http://press.jrc.it/.

Completely automated:

automatically generate daily news summaries, and provides adaily briefing,collect and cluster news events, and news personalities,provide geographical, theme and time summaries,cross-lingual capabilities.

Uses relatively simple NLP and SML technology cleverly.

Widely regarded within the EU Commission and by Google.


http://press.jrc.it/NewsExplorer/home/en/latest.html

http://press.jrc.it/NewsExplorer/entities/en/381.html

http://press.jrc.it/NewsExplorer/entities/en/381.html


Document Analysis


Advanced Search Engines

Clustering output to give a dynamic snapshot of the area,such as Clusty.

Providing a stronger typing of content in terms of area,keyword, genre, document type, such as Exalead

Subject specific areas such as academic search, product searchand library catalogue search.


http://clusty.com

http://www.exalead.com

http://www.scirus.com

http://www.worldcat.org/


Document Analysis


Advanced Search Engines: Visualisation



Document Analysis


World Wide Library



Document Analysis


Patent Search: PatentLens

Started out as a patent search engine for Bioinformatics tosupport patent packaging.

Software is open source, but largely developed in-house atCambia.

Many specific facilities to support patents(organisation/company matching, cross-nation support, genename search ...).

The patent landscape is changing, seeOpen Invention Network.


http://www.patentlens.net/

http://www.cambia.org

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/


Document Analysis


Social Bookmarks: Del.icio.us

Del.icio.us is one of the best known social bookmarking sites.

Uses tagging to provide higher-weighted keywords.

Uses social bookmarks to get popularity/“authority” for pages.

Purchased by Yahoo in 2005.

Opinion: their search returns best pages on fairly general topic areas,e.g. information retrieval, (i.e.., but not “home page” or “lostpage” search).


http://del.icio.us

http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=information+retrieval&type=all


Document Analysis


Business Applications

Intelligence: information from the web about consumer trends andopinions, and about competitors.

Summaries: executive reports and overviews based on a largecollection of documents input.

Intranet support: search and browse, personalisation,categorization, document management.

Administration: eGovernment and electronic document processing.

Advertising: many aspects of advertising now running online.



Document Analysis

Where is the Science of Document Analysis?RepresentationResourcesOther Areas

Outline

We sketch out the field of document analysis, with major emphasison text.






Document Analysis


Outline






Document Analysis


Web Science

From Web Science.


http://webscience.org


Document Analysis


Outline






Document Analysis


Linguistic Representation

Linguistic aspects:

basic representations presented previously: morpheme, token,word class, part-of-speech, lemma, collocation, term, namedentity, constituent, phrase, parse tree, case frame, semanticrole, dependency graph;

transformations and default processing steps between them;

differences for different languages;

sources of ambiguity.

It is important to understand the linguists viewpoints, and theirwhys and wherefores.



Document Analysis


Computational Representation

Computational aspects for the text in documents:

data formats such as XML and its support tools andrepresentations such as Schema, XQuery, ...;

data structures and manipulation such as trees, graphs,regular expressions, FSA, ...;

character processing, UTF8, simplified Chinese, Latin, ...

All of these aspects make a scripting language like Python (orPerl) the best platform for beginning statistical NLP.



Document Analysis


Meaning Representation

The layers of processing for the text in documents.

Character level: characters −→ tokens sentences −→ paragraphs−→ documents.

Syntactic level: morphemes −→ lemmas and parts of speech −→collocations, terms and named entities −→constituents, phrases −→ sentences.

Semantic level: case frames and semantic roles, dependencies,topic modelling, genre.

The three levels tend to interact, and the various stages ineach level interact as well.



Document Analysis


Outline






Document Analysis


Part of Speech Data

Human annotators have taken, say, 20Mb of Wall StreetJournal text and carefully assigned POS to tokens.

There can be some difficulty in assigning POS:“She stepped off/IN the train.” versus “She pulled off/RPthe trick.”“We need an armed/JJ guard.” versus “Armed/VBD with onlya knife, ...”“There/EX was a party in progress there/RB.”

POS data laborious to construct, but very useful for statisticalmethods.

Most parsers don’t require POS tagging beforehand. It is gen-erally done as a pre-processing step for information extraction.or shallow parsing.



Document Analysis


Computer Dictionary: CELEX

CELEX is the Dutch Centre for Lexical Information.

Provides CDROM with lexical information for English,German and Dutch, called CELEX2. Available from LDC.

Contains orthography (spelling), phonology (sound),morphology (internal structure of words), syntax, andfrequency for both lemmas and word-forms.

Provided for 50,000 lemmata.

Headword Pronunciation Morphology Cl Type Freqcelebrant ”sE-lI-br@nt ((celebrate),(ant)) N sing 6cellarages ”sE-l@-rIdZIs ((cellar),(age),(s)) N plu 0cellular ”sEl-jU-l@r* ((cell),(ular)) A pos 21


http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/CatalogEntry.jsp?catalogId=LDC96L14


Document Analysis


Computer Thesaurus: WordNet

Developed at Princeton University under the direction ofpsychology professor George A. Miller from 1985 on.

Contains over 150,000 words or collocations, e.g. see make,red, text.Words in a network with link types corresponding to:

hypernym: generalisation,hyponym: specialisation,holonym: has as a part,

meronym: is a part of,antonym: contrasting or opposite,

derivationally related: “textual” is for “text”,word senses: different semantic use cases identified,case frames: case frames for verbs.

Available free (with an “unencumbered license”), and lots ofsupporting software.


http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=make&sub=Search+WordNet

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=red&sub=Search+WordNet

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=text&sub=Search+WordNet


Document Analysis


Gazetteers

Term originally applies to geographic name databases thatmight contain auxiliary data such as type (mountain, town,river, etc.), location, parent state, etc.

Sometimes extended in NLP to apply to other specialiseddatabases of proper names.

Proper names treated differently in NLP because:they behave as single tokens and don’t inflect,generally are marked with first letter uppercase,are the greatest source of new or unknown words in text, andare not usually in dictionaries.

Good gazetteers and dictionaries are critical for performance in anyspecialised domain.



Document Analysis


Linguistic Data Consortium

LDC is an open consortium initially funded by ARPA.

Wide variety of data including speech and transcripts, newsand transcripts, language resources, annotated and parseddata.

Includes the famous Penn Treebank which has POS taggingand parse trees.


http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/About/

http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/byType.jsp


Document Analysis


Outline






Document Analysis


Important Issues

We’ve looked at applications, representation and linguistic resources,what about:

Software: many open source tools exist of varying quality, thoughsome of the best tools are commercial and expensive.

Evaluation: a myriad of evaluation tracks exist for every aspect, andthese generate some important data sets and resources.

Algorithms: space and time complexity, etc.

Statistical prerequisites: the field has prodigious users and creators ofstatistical techniques.



Document Analysis


Recognised Problems

Information retrieval (IR): given query words, retrieve relevant parts froma document collection.

Question answering (QA): similar to IR but return an answer.

Document summarisation: taking a small set of documents on a giventheme and preparing a short summary or executive brief.

Topic detection and tracking (TDT): tracking topics, and discoveringnew ones in information streams.

Semantic web annotation: annotating documents with appropriatesemantic mark-up.

Classification: categorising documents into topic hierarchies, or creatinghierarchies suited for a collection.

Genre identification: predicting the genre type.

Sentiment analysis: predicting the sentiment (negative, satisfied, happy,...) of a blog or chat participant or commentary.



Document Analysis


Recognised Problems, cont.

Document structure analysis: identifying the parts of a web page ordocument such as title, index, advertising, body, etc.

Linguistic resource development: tagging of text with parse structures,POS, semantic roles, name entities, etc., and developmentof dictionaries, gazetteers, case frames, etc., especially inspecialised subjects.

Recommendation: from user characteristics and prior selections, makerecommendations, such as collaborative filtering.

Ranking: given candidate responses for a recommendation orretrieval task, do the fine grained ranking.

Cleaning up Wikipedia: the Wikipedia would be an amazing linguisticresource if only, ....



Document Analysis


Recognised Problems, cont.

Machine translation (MT): automatically convert text to anotherlanguage,

Cross language IR (CLIR): from queries in one language probe documentcollection in another.

Email spam detection: recognising spam email.

Trust and authority: measures of document/author quality in termsauthority and trust based on content, links, citation,history, etc.

Communities: analysis and identification of online communities.

Video and Image X: most of the above applied to video and images.



Document Analysis


Outline

And so ends Part 1. Next we look at specific problems andalgorithms.



3 Document Analysis


Latent Variable Models for Document Analysis

Wray BuntineNational ICT Australia (NICTA)


Part-of-Speech with Hidden Markov Models

Part I

Problems and Methods



Outline

We review some key problems and key algorithms using latentvariables.

1 Part-of-Speech with Hidden Markov ModelsMarkov ModelViterbi Algorithm: Fitting Tags to New TextForward-Backward Algorithm: Probabilities for TagsBaum-Welch: Fitting with Unknown TagsConditional Fitting with Known Tags



Markov ModelViterbi Algorithm: Fitting Tags to New TextForward-Backward Algorithm: Probabilities for TagsBaum-Welch: Fitting with Unknown TagsConditional Fitting with Known Tags

Outline

While not the best algorithm for part-of-speech tagging, it is usefulto illustrate the methods.Reference: Manning and Schutze, chaps 9 and 10.





Parts of Speech, Revisited

A set of candidate POS exist for each word. taken from adictionary or lexicon. Which is the right one in this sentence?

Lets take some fully tagged data, where the truth is known,and use statistical learning.

A standard notation for representing tags , in this example, is:

Fed/NNP raises/VBZ interest/NNS rates/NNS0.5/CD %/% ... (in effort to control inflation.)




Outline





Markov Model with Known Tags

There are I words. wi = i-th word. ti = tag for i-th word.Our 1st-order Markov model in the figure shows whichvariables depend on which.The (i + 1)-th tag depends on the i-th tag. The i-th worddepends on the i-th tag.Resultant formula for p(t1, t2, t3, ..., tN ,w1,w2,w3, ...,wN) is

p(t1)∏

i=2,...,I

p(ti |ti−1)∏

i=1,...,I

p(wi |ti )Buntine Document Models



Fiitting Markov Model with Known Tags

Have p(t1, t2, t3, ..., tN ,w1,w2,w3, ...,wN) is

p(t1)∏

i=2,...,I

p(ti |ti−1)∏

i=1,...,I

p(wi |ti )

Have K distinct tags and J distinct words.

Use p(ti |ti−1) = ati−1,ti , p(t1) = ct1 , p(wi |ti ) = bti ,wi .

a and b are probability matrices whose columns sum to one.

Collecting like terms ∏k

cSk

k

∏k1,k2

aTk1,k2

k1,k2

∏k,j

bWk,j

k,j

where Tk1,k2 is count of times tag k2 follows tag k1, andWk,j is count of times tag k assigned to word j , andSk is count of times sentence starts with tag k.




Fiitting Markov Model with Known Tags, cont.

Standard maximum likelihood methods apply, so theseparameters a and b become their observed proportions:

ak1,k2 is proportion of tags of type k2 when previous was k1,bk,j is proportion of words of type j when tag was k,

Thus ak1,k2 =Tk1,k2Pk2

Tk1,k2, bk,j =

Wk,jPj Wk,j

, ck = SkPk Sk

.

Note we have many sentences in the training data, and eachone has a fresh start, so ck is estimating from all those initialtags in sentences.

As is standard when dealing with frequencies, we can smooththese out by adding small amounts to the numerator anddenominator to make all quantities non-zero.




Comments

In practice, the naive estimation of a and b works poorlybecause we never have enough data. Most words occurinfrequently, so we cannot get good tag statistics for them.

Kupiec (1992) suggested grouping infrequent words togetherbased on their pattern of candidate POS. This overcomespaucity of data with a reasonable compromise.

So “red” and “black” can both be NN or JJ, so they belong tothe same ambiguity class.Ambiguity classes not used for frequent words.

Unknown words are also a problem. A first approximation isto assign unknown words with first capitals to NP.




Outline





Estimating Tags for New Text

We now fix the Markov model parameters a, b and ~c .

We have a new sentence with I words w1,w2, ...,wI . How dowe estimate its tag set?

We ignore the lexical contraints for now (e.g., “interest” isVB, VBZ or NNS), and fold them in later.

Task so described is:

~t = argmax~t p(~t, ~w | a, b,~c

)where the probability is as before.




Estimating Tags for New Text, cont.

Wish to solve

argmax~t p(t1)∏

i=2,...,I

p(ti |ti−1)∏

i=1,...,I

p(wi |ti )

The task is simplified by the fact that knowing the value for tag tN splitsthe problem neatly into parts, so define

m(tN) = maxt1,...,tN−1|tN p(t1)∏

i=2,...,N

p(ti |ti−1)∏

i=1,...,N−1

p(wi |ti )

and we get the recursion:

m(t1) = p(t1)

m(tN+1) = maxtN p(tN+1|tN)p(wN |tN)m(tN)

While computing this, we also record, for each tN+1 the value of

(t1, ..., tN) that yields a maxima, called the backtrace.




Estimating Tags for New Text, cont.

We apply this incrementally, building up a contingent solution fromleft to right. This is called the Viterbi algorithm, first developedin 1967.

1 Initialise m(t1).

2 For i = 2, ..., I , compute m(ti ), then store the backtrace foreach ti .

3 At the end, I , find argmaxtI m(tI ), and get its backtrace.

This technique is an example of dynamic programming.




Comments

What about lexical contraints, e.g., “interest” is either VB,VBZ or NNS?

With the ambiguity classes above, and with the individualwords, we just assign zero’s to bk,j for j the index of the word.




Outline





Estimating Tag Probabilities

We again fix the Markov model parameters a, b and ~c .

We have a new sentence with I words w1,w2, ...,wI . We’vegot the most likely tag set using the Viterbi algorithm.What’s the uncertainty here?

Task can be described as: find the tag probabilities for tN .

p(tN |~w) ∝∑~t/tN

p(~t, ~w | a, b,~c

)where the probability is as before.




Estimating Tag Probabilities, cont.

The quantities p(tN |w1, ...,wN−1) and p(wN+1, ...,wI |tN) are traditionallycalled α(tN) and β(tN) respectively.

As with the Viterbi, a recursion exists:

p(tN |w1, ...,wN−1) =∑tN−1

p(tN |tN−1)p(wN−1|tN−1)p(tN−1|w1, ...,wN−2)

p(wN+1, ...,wI |tN) =∑tN+1

p(tN+1|tN)p(wN+1|tN+1)p(wN+2, ...,wI |tN+1)

Compute the first with a forward pass in N, compute the second with a

backward pass in N. Hence computing these probabilities is called the

Forward-Backward algorithm. Complexity is O(I K 2).




Outline





Fitting with Unknown Tags

We don’t always have a large quantity of text tagged withPOS. So we would like to try and improve the estimates ofthe model using untagged or partially tagged data.

So the problem becomes, estimate a, b and ~c given thesequence w1,w2, ...,wI but no tags.

The case with partial tags can be folded in later.

This problem, where the tags are unknown initially is called ahidden Markov model (HMM).




A Little Bit of Magic

We will use some probability function q(~t) in our solution as adevice. This represents some valid probability over the tags.NB. it can be represented by a large parameter vector.

For brevity, denote a, b and ~c by a single parameter vector ~θ.

Consider the function Q(~θ, q()) given by

= log p(~w |~θ)− KL(q(~t) || p(~t|~w , ~θ)

)= Eq(~t)

(log p(~t, ~w |~θ)

)+ I (q(~t))

A simple expansion of KL() and I () shows the two forms areequal.




A Little Bit of Magic, cont.

Consider the function Q(~θ, q()) given by

= log p(~w |~θ)− KL(q(~t) || p(~t|~w , ~θ)

)= Eq(~t)

(log p(~t, ~w |~θ)

)+ I (q(~t))

Maximise this w.r.t. ~θ and q() jointly.

By the first equation, this holds when q(~t) = p(~t|~w , ~θ), andthen Q(~θ, q()) = log p(~w |~θ).By the second equation, this holds if we solve:

argmax~θEq(~t)

(log p(~t, ~w |~θ)

).

Thus, iterating these two steps will achieve the maximumlikelihood solution argmax~θ

log p(~w |~θ).Buntine Document Models



Fitting with Unknown Tags, cont.

We wish to evaluate

argmax~θ Eq(~t)

(log p(~t, ~w |~θ)

).

From before, substituting in for a, b and ~c , wish to maximise w.r.t. ~θ

Eq(~t)

∑k

log cSk

k +∑k1,k2

log aTk1,k2

k1,k2+∑k,j

log bWk,j

k,j

,

=∑

k

Eq(~t)(Sk) log ck +∑k1,k2

Eq(~t)(Tk1,k2) log ak1,k2

+∑k,j

Eq(~t)(Wk,j) log bk,j .

Thus we don’t actually need to evaluate the full distributionq(~t) = p(~t|~w , ~θ), we just need p(tN |~w , ~θ) and p(tN−1, tN)|~w , ~θ).




Baum-Welch Algorithm

Putting it all together.

1 From the current solution for a, b and ~c , perform theForward-Backward algorithm to compute p(tN |w1, ...,wN−1)and p(wN+1, ...,wI |tN).

2 From these, compute p(tN |w1, ...,wI ) andp(tN−1, tN |w1, ...,wI ) .

3 Hence compute Eq(~t)(Sk), Eq(~t)(Tk1,k2) and Eq(~t)(Wk,j).

4 Now maximise for a, b and ~c to get the next iteration.∑k

Eq(~t)(Sk) log ck +∑k1,k2

Eq(~t)(Tk1,k2) log ak1,k2

+∑k,j

Eq(~t)(Wk,j) log bk,j .




Comments

Unfortunately HMM training doesn’t work too well for thePOS problem.

Perhaps this is because we are fitting a joint model p(~t,~x |~θ)rather than a conditional model p(~t|~x , ~θ).

So lets investigate conditional models.




Outline





Conditional Fitting with Unknown Tags

So the problem is to estimate a model for ~t given thesequence w1,w2, ...,wI but no tags.

We no longer have p(wi |ti ), rather we want a discriminativemodel, something like p(ti |wi ), but also p(ti |ti−1),

One approach, called the conditional random field (CRF) is tofold them in together to get:

p(~t | ~w , a, b,~c) ∝ exp

(∑i

ati−1,ti +∑

i

bti ,wi +∑

i

cti

)Compare this with our HMM model:

p(~t, ~w |a, b,~c) = ct1

∏i

ati−1,ti

∏i

bti ,wi




Conditional Fitting with Known Tags, cont.

The conditional random field has:

p(~t | ~w , a, b,~c) ∝ exp

(∑i

ati−1,ti +∑

i

bti ,wi +∑

i

cti

)We need a normalising constant, Z , a function of a, b and ~c .

Compute this incrementally, rather like a forward pass of theForward-Backward algorithm.

Z1(t1) = 1

ZN(tN) =∑tN−1

ZN−1(tN−1) exp(atN−1,tN + btN−1,wN−1

+ ctN−1

)Z =

∑tN

ZN(tN) exp (btN ,wN+ ctN )




Conditional Fitting with Known Tags, cont.

We have to use gradient based algorithms to fit this as there are noclosed forms.

Lets look at the likelihood to maximise log p(~t|~w , ~θ).∑k

Skck +∑k1,k2

Tk1,k2ak1,k2 +∑k,j

Wk,jbk,j − log Z

Note a, b and ~c are no longer probability matrices and vectors.

Now it happens that

∂ log Z

∂ ak1,k2

= Ep(~t|~w ,a,b,~c)(Tk1,k2)

∂ log Z

∂ bk,j= Ep(~t|~wa,b,~c)(Wk,j)

These expected values can be computed by a variant of theforward-backward algorithm, as before.

Thus we have all the derivatives of the likelihood.Buntine Document Models



Comments

Conditional training with some unknown tags also works, butis more complicated again.

In principle. you can now use any features, not just the words~w . People use:

capitalisation, all-caps, use of non-alphabetic letters,presence of prefixes and suffixes,properties of surrounding words,match of words to different gazetteers.

In this case, the performance is very dependent on the choiceof features!


Discrete Components Analysis – DCA

Wray Buntine(Work with help from Kimmo Valtonen, Aleks Jakulin, Sami Perttu, CoSCo, ...)

Complex Systems Computation Group (CoSCo)

University of Helsinki & HIIT

NICTA

March 6, 2008

1

Overview

• Background.

• Quick in Depth Look.

• History, Religion, Interpretations.

• Models and Correspondences.

• Theory of Algorithms.

• Comparative Experiments†.

• Use in Search‡.

† See http://www.componentanalysis.org.

‡ See http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205

2

Bag of words as a Sparse Discrete representation for text

A page out of Dr. Zeuss’s The Cat in The Hat:

So, as fast as I could, I went after my net. And I said, “With mynet I can bet them I bet, I bet, with my net, I can get those Thingsyet!”

In the bag of words representation as word (count):

after(1) and(1) as(2) bet(3) can(2) could(1) fast(1) get(1) I(7)my(3) net(3) said(1) so(1) them(1) things(1) those(1) went(1)with(2) yet(1) .

Notes:

• For the Reuters RCV1 collection from 2000: I ≈ 800k documents, J ≈400k different words (excluding those occurring few times), S ≈ 300Mbwords total.

• Represent as sparse matrix/vector form with integer entries.

• Deleting words occurring less than < 50 times can shrink word dimensionJ by order of magnitude.

3

Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

• Invented by Karl Pearson, in 1901.

• Also known as Karhunen-Loeve transform or Hotelling transform in imageanalysis, and latent semantic analysis (LSA) for text.

• Primarily used for dimensionality reduction prior to some other statisticalprocessing.

• Has guarantees in terms of minimising least squares error in approxima-tion.

• Also has a Gaussian interpretation using latent variables (Tipping andBishop, 1999).

• Standard algorithm is to run an SVD and to throw away all but the top Keigenvectors and values, or to use sparse LAPACK style tools to extractjust the top K without a full SVD.

4

Approximating Discrete Data

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 5 10 15 20

Pro

babi

lity

n = +ve samples out of N=20

binomial(20,0.02)binomial(20,0.3)binomial(20,0.5)

The plot shows different bi-nomials in both its Gaussianregime and its Poisson regime.

Lesson: discrete data is onlyGaussian-like in some con-texts. When there are a lot ofzeros, it is not Gaussian-like.

5

PCA: Issues

• PCA (with least squares or alternatively the Gaussian) is known to causetrouble in some contexts:

– when values occur on a boundary (i.e., Gaussians don’t admit bound-aries).

– with discrete and sparse values (i.e., outside the Gaussian regime).

• PCA has no realistic probabilistic interpretation in the discrete case.

– Can be OK as a dimensionality reduction tool.

– But no easy way to do probabilistic inference with the model.

NB. The ICA community can supply other issues!

6

Discretizing PCA

Consider the Gaussian interpretation. For data of dimension J being mappeddown to K components:

~m ∼ Gaussian(0, IK) ,

~x ∼ Gaussian(Ω~m + ~µ, IJσ) .

where Ω maps from the K dimensional space to the J dimensional space.

Let us contruct a discrete version by mapping the distributions. We couldmodify this, for instance, to:

~m ∼ Dirichlet(~α)

~x ∼ Multinomial(Ω~m, L) ,

where L is the total count. Alternatively, a Gamma-Poisson combination is

possible.

7

Independent Components Analysis (ICA)

• Invented by Herault and Jutten in 1986.

• Intended for blind source separation, separation of independent signals insome data.

• Used for dimensionality reduction as well, based on the observation thatPCA can perform poorly.

• Standard algorithm is the FastICA algorithm, developed by Hyvarinenand Oja.

• One interpretation is, using an unknown distribution U():

mk ∼ U() for k = 1, . . . K

~x = Ω~m + ǫ,

where ǫ is considered insignificant noise, and ignored.

8

ICA: Issues

• The key equation with ǫ insignificant

~x = Ω~m + ǫ,

can behave poorly in the sparse discrete case since ~x is mostly zeroesand ones, so the equation is now discrete.

• In effect, when the dynamic range is effectively 2-valued, we want to becarefully measuring the error (~x−Ω~m), thus the noise is significant.

• When the dynamic range of the data is significantly greater 2-valued,this effect becomes less significant.

• Data usually pre-processed beforehand with PCA to remove “noise”.Furthermore, discrete data often turned into real values before hand, forinstance using tf*idf scores.

9

Discretizing ICA

Consider the interpretation, with an unknown distribution U():

mk ∼ U() for k = 1, . . . K

~x = Ω~m + ǫ,

where ǫ is considered some insignificant noise.

Lets make this more robust by allowing significant noise. Replace the secondequation with:

E~x∼p(~x|~m,U) [~x] = Θ~m .

Requires defining the probability distribution for ~x. We can use Poissons or

multinomials in the discrete case.

10

Overview

• Background.





• Comparative Experiments.

• Use in Search.

11

Example application: Wikipedia, July 2004

• We built a K = 100 component model of I = 290k web pages from theEnglish-language Wikipedia∗ dated July 2004.

• DCA is run on bags of lemmatised words.

• Word lemmas grouped into noun, verb, adjective, adverb and other wordclasses discarded.

• Thus data vector ~w is a sparse vector of dimension about J = 300k,partitioned into four groups, with about 240k nouns. But with onlyabout 20-1000 non-zero entries.

• Table on the next page gives one row from Θ for a component. Just thehigh frequency terms are listed.

∗http://en.wikipedia.org

12

NOUNSmythology 0.03337 God 0.02048 name 0.014747goddess 0.012911 spirit 0.012639 legend 0.0087992myth 0.0070882 demons 0.006807 Sun 0.0060099

Temple 0.0054717 deity 0.0054247 Bull 0.0051629Dragon 0.0051379 Maya 0.0051243 King 0.00512

Sea 0.0049453 Norse 0.0044707 horse 0.0044592symbol 0.0042196 animals 0.0040112 fire 0.0039879hero 0.0038755 Romans 0.0038696 Apollo 0.0037588Lion 0.0036306 Earth 0.0035993 giant 0.0035076

VERBScalled 0.034078 said 0.031081 See 0.029521given 0.0269 associated 0.024591 According 0.021724

represented 0.020964 known 0.018896 could 0.017499made 0.016952 depicted 0.01524 appeared 0.014662

ADJECTIVESGreek 0.091163 ancient 0.055393 great 0.02853

Egyptian 0.028071 Roman 0.025783 sacred 0.020446ADVERBS

sometimes 0.058205 often 0.048815 so 0.046594

13

This component: “Mythology”

Use different methods to gain understanding of the components.

Distinctive phrases: noun phrases that have a high Bayes factor with thecomponent (used part-of-speech system plus noun phrase “patterns” like NN,AN, etc.).

God; name; spirit; goddess; Greek mythology; Holy Spirit; Greekword; Polynesian mythology; Golden Age; evil spirits;

High ranked document titles: use the component as the topic in topic-specific page rank (Richardson and Domingos, 2001), to get page rankingsbased on topical content and links.

Greek mythology; Roman mythology; Celtic mythology; Norse mythol-ogy; Underworld; Aztec mythology;

14

Wikipedia, December 2005

• We built a K = 400 component model of I = 980k web pages from theEnglish-language Wikipedia dated December 2005.

• DCA is run on bags of lemmatised words organised by part of speech,and the external URLs at the page.

• Words or URLs occurring less than 10 times in corpus ignored, leavingfeature dimension about J = 1000k.

• Used Gamma-Poisson model with sparse Gamma component priors (i.e.,about 90% of component values are zero). Hyper-parameters for thecomponent priors fitted (gradient ascent with trust regions).

• Thus each document is a sparse vector (perhaps 300 entries).

• Fitting used Gibbs with Rao-Blackwellisation, 1000 major cycles, on adual CPU Opteron (64-bit) with 4Gb memory. About 6 days.NB. thus we use Gibbs for approximation, not for estimation!

Results: http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205

15

DCA Text Applications

Usage:

• Feature discovery for text classification;

• unsupervised synonym and/or ontology discovery;

• language models for text (unsupervised models on relations such as verb-subject) for use in a semantic parser;

• language models for information retrieval (unsupervised models on bag-of-words); and

Major problems in development (e.g., McCallum et al.):

Compounds: low order correlations not modelled, e.g., “New York”.

Hierarchies: organisation required for use.

16

Overview

• Background.






• Use in Search.

17

History

• Soft clustering, “grade of membership” (GOM), Woodbury and Manton,1982.

• Admixture modelling in statistics, (198?).

• Hidden facets in image interpretation, Non-negative Matrix Factorization(NMF), Seung and Lee, 1999.

• Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis (PLSI), topics in text, Hofmann,1999.

• Admixture modelling, fully Bayesian, population structure from genotypedata, Pritchard, Stephens and Donnelly, 2000.

• Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Blei, Ng and Jordan, 2001. Variant ofPritchard et al. Introduced mean-field algorithm.

• Multi-aspect modelling: various 2001-2003.

• Gamma-Poisson model (GaP), Canny 2004 (extension of NMF).

• ...

18

Religious convictions

All manor of statistical beliefs and practices are permitted:

• Maximum likelihood or Kullback-Leibler divergence.

• Exponential family likelihoods or Bregman divergence.

• Regularised maximum likelihood.

• Bayesian and empirical Bayesian.

• ... did I miss any?

19

Catalogue of interpretations

• Approximating a discrete matrix as a product of lower dimension matrices.

• Multinomial version of the Gaussian interpretation of PCA (i.e., Roweisor Bishop style PCA).

• Multi-aspect modelling or soft clustering (documents have proportion/gradeof membership).

• Admixture modelling (forming a mixture by mixing means, not distribu-tions).

• Variation of ICA (independent component analysis) suitable for discretedata.

• Hidden topics for the individual words in a document, itself in a collection.

20

Viewing Components at the Word Level

Figure 8 from Blei, Ng, and Jordan, 2003.

21

\Arts" \Budgets" \Children" \Edu ation"

NEW MILLION CHILDREN SCHOOL

FILM TAX WOMEN STUDENTS

SHOW PROGRAM PEOPLE SCHOOLS

MUSIC BUDGET CHILD EDUCATION

MOVIE BILLION YEARS TEACHERS

PLAY FEDERAL FAMILIES HIGH

MUSICAL YEAR WORK PUBLIC

BEST SPENDING PARENTS TEACHER

ACTOR NEW SAYS BENNETT

FIRST STATE FAMILY MANIGAT

YORK PLAN WELFARE NAMPHY

OPERA MONEY MEN STATE

THEATER PROGRAMS PERCENT PRESIDENT

ACTRESS GOVERNMENT CARE ELEMENTARY

LOVE CONGRESS LIFE HAITI

TheWilliam Randolph HearstFoundationwill give $1.25 million to Lincoln Center,Metropoli-tan Opera Co.,New York PhilharmonicandJuilliard School. “Our board felt that we had areal opportunity to make a mark on thefuture of theperforming arts with thesegrants anacteverybit asimportant as ourtraditional areasof support in health, medicalresearch,educationand thesocial services,” Hearst Foundation PresidentRandolph A. Hearst saidMonday in

announcingthegrants. Lincoln Center’s share will be $200,000 for its new building, whichwill house young artists andprovide new public facilities. TheMetropolitan Opera Co. andNew York Philharmonicwill receive $400,000each. TheJuilliard School, wheremusic andtheperforming arts aretaught, will get $250,000. TheHearst Foundation,a leading supporterof the Lincoln Center Consolidated CorporateFund, will make its usualannual $100,000

donation, too.

Figure 8: An example article from the AP corpus. Each color codes a different factor from whichthe word is putatively generated.

22

Matrix factorisation

• Standard SVD, decomposes matrix D = UTΛV .

• U and V have rows mutually orthogonal and normalised using L2 norm.

• Λ is diagonal, and is scaling.

• Principal components analysis (PCA) zeros the smaller values in Λ (as“noise”), making U and V lose rows.

• Want (b) to approximate (a) in a pairwise least squares sense, for fixedK number of components.

(a)

docu

men

ts

words

(b)

docu

men

tscomponents wordscomponents

0

0 0

000

23

Matrix factorisation: statistical view

• Zero smaller eigenvalues in Λ as noise. U and V lose corresponding rows.

• Let UT ← UTΛ. It is documents × components, projects document wordsinto lower (?) dimensional space.

• Leave V alone, still normalised by row. It is components × words of “char-acteristic documents”.

• Thus (a) becomes (c) approximately: distance is L2, get PCA; divergenceis K-L, get DCA.

(a)

docu

men

ts

words

(c)

words

docu

men

tscomponents

24

Independent components + single document model

doc−words≈

doc−components words

line of (a) line of (c)

• doc-words is the data vector ~w. Given.

• doc-components is the hidden variable (a vector) ~l. lk is interpreted asnumber of words in component k.

• The components × words matrix is the model matrix, Θ. We normalise italong rows. Each row is the word rates/probabilities for one component.

• The relationship between LHS (data) and RHS (estimate from hiddendata) can be approximated in expectation, i.e., using a general admix-ture.

Expp(~w |Θ,K,...) (~w) = ~lΘ

• Compare with ICA, which uses ~w = ~l ·Θ, impossible with discrete data.

25

Overview

• Background.






• Use in Search.

26

Gamma-Poisson model

• I is documents, J is words/features, K is components.

• For each document, a hidden variable (a vector) ~l. For each componentk = 0, ..., K − 1

lk ∼ Gamma(αk, βk) .

• The K × J model matrix is Θ. Entries θk,j. We normalise it along rows.

• For each feature/word j

wj ∼ Poisson

(

∑

k

lkθk,j

)

27

Gamma components

• components


• For αk > 4approachesGaussian.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pro

babi

lity

rate

Different shaped gamma distribitions

alpha=0.2alpha=0.8alpha=1.2alpha=1.0alpha=2.0alpha=4.0

28

DCA Versions

• On left is GaP modelfrom Canny 2004

• Normalise to get theright, the multino-mial PCA (assumesβ of gammas is con-stant).

29

Gamma-Poisson model, cont.

• Introduced by Canny, SIGIR 2004.

• Originally given as a version of non-negative matrix factorisation (NMF)of Lee and Seung (1999).

• Correspondence with ICA noted, Canny 2004.

• NMF optimization criteria somewhat different.

• Proof that NMF equations arrive at a maximum likelihood solution for theGamma-Poisson (or equivalently, the Dirichlet-multinomial model givennext) in Buntine and Jakulin, 2005, and Goutte and Gaussier, SIGIR2005.

30

Dirichlet-multinomial model

Start with the Gamma-Poisson. Assume the βk are constant, given by β.

Total of ~l is∑

k lk. Define hidden variable (a vector) ~m = ~l/(∑

k lk)

.

• Components now jointly distributed:

∑

k

lk ∼ Gamma

(

∑

k

αk, β

)

~m ∼ DirichletK(~α)

• Using the word total L =∑

j wj, get

L ∼ Poisson

(

∑

k

lk

)

~w ∼ multinomial

(

∑

k

mkθk,j : j

, L

)

• (∑

k lk, L) independent of rest so can be ignored.

31

Dirichlet-multinomial model, cont.

• Probabilistically completed version of PLSI introduced by Hofmann 1999.

• Admixture modelling of Pritchard et al. 2000.

• Latent Dirichlet Allocation, Blei et al. 2001, replaces the multinomial onthe bag by a sequence of discretes.

• Multinomial PCA by Buntine 2002.

32

Variations of the Gamma-Poisson

Poisson Admixture Poisson-Multinomial Tagged Words

lk ∼ Gamma(αk, βk)

wj ∼ Poisson

(

∑

k

lkθk,j

)

∑

k

lk ∼ Gamma

(

∑

k

αk, β

)


L ∼ Poisson

(

∑

k

lk

)

~w ∼ multinom. (~mΘ, L)

lk ∼ Gamma(αk, βk)

vj,k ∼ Poisson(lkθk,j)

wj =∑

k

vj,k

33

Variations of the Dirichlet-multinomial

Bagged Admixture Tagged Words Sequential Admixture


~w ∼ multinom. (~mΘ, L)


~c ∼ multinom.(~m, L)

~v·,k ∼ multinom.( ~θk,·, ck)

wj =∑

k

vj,k


kl ∼ discrete (~mΘ)

for l = 1, ..., L

where ~θk,· denotes the vector θk,j : j, and ~v·,k denotes the vector vj,k : j.

34

DCA interpretations for bag-of-words

For a given document:

• Components lk are expected count of words in component k.

• Normalised to mk, are proportion of words in component k. For cluster-ing, mk = 0,1. Hence method is called multifaceted clustering.

• Hidden variables vj,k means tagging each word by a particular component.

• Compare with regular clustering: one hidden topic per document, versus

one hidden topic per word in the document.

• Word probabilities given by∑

k mkθk,j, hence called admixtures.

35

Other Correspondences

PLSI, Hofmann: regularised max.likelihood version, uses multi-

nomial model for words, but no model for components, just

regularisation.

LDA, Blei et al.: Dirichlet-multinomial model, made sequential

(i.e., sequence of words, not bag of words).

36

Overview

• Background.






• Use in Search.

37

Likelihoods for Gamma-Poisson

Full likelihood for a document with hidden variables ~l is

p(~w,~l |Gamma-Poisson, K, ~α, ~β,Θ)

=∏

k

(

βαk

k

Γ(αk)lαk−1k e−βklk

)

e−(∑

klk)

∏

j

1

wj!

(

∑

k

lkθk,j

)wj

Full likelihood for a document with hidden variables ~l and v is

p(~w,v,~l |Gamma-Poisson, K, ~α, ~β,Θ)

=∏

k

(

βαk

k

Γ(αk)lαk−1k e−βklk

)

e−(∑

klk)

∏

j

∏

k

(lkθk,j)vj,k

vj,k!

• The (∑

k lk...)wj and l

vj,k

k terms in full likelihood means EM algorithm can-not be used.

• However EM can apply to maximise p(~w1, . . . , ~wI, ~l1, . . . ,~lI |DCA, K, ~α, ~β,Θ).

• Gibbs applies directly, but careful, see later.

• Mean field applies too.

38

Mean Field

General case for exponential family in Ghahramani and Beal, NIPS 2000.Works for Dirichlet-multinomial and Gamma-Poisson.

Approximate posterior on ~l and v by jointly independent form q(~l)q(v).

q(~l) ←→1

Zl

exp(

Eq(v)

log p(

~w,~l,v |Θ, ~α, ~β, K))

q(v) ←→1

Zvexp

(

Eq(~l)

log p(

~w,~l,v |Θ, ~α, ~β, K))

,

Functional form is therefore:

lk ∼ Gamma(ak, bk)

vj,k : k = 1, . . . , K ∼ multinomial(nj,k : k = 1, . . . , K, wj)

39

Likelihood with Components Marginalised

Full likelihood for a document with hidden variables v (marginalise out ~l): is

p(~w,v |DCA, K, ~α, ~β,Θ)

=∏

k

βαk

k

Γ(αk)

∏

k

Γ(

αk +∑

j vj,k

)

(1 + βk)αk+∑

jvj,k

∏

j

∏

k

θvj,k

k,j

vj,k!

• To use, resample each word’s component assignment sequentially. (e.g.,decrement vj,kold

and increment vj,knew).

• Marginalising out variables in a problem prior to applying Gibbs samplingis called Rao-Blackwellisation.

• We can also marginalise out Θ from the full joint likelihood to get aclosed formula for p(~w1, . . . , ~wI,v1, . . . ,vI |DCA, ~α, ~β, K).

• Rao-Blackwellisation applies to Gibbs for the Dirichlet-multinomial, Grif-fiths and Steyvers, 2004, and Gamma-Poisson.

40

Computational Issues

I documentsJ lexemesK componentsS words in corpus

• Mean field and Gibbs on bag of words are O(JK+SK) in time per cycleand O(IK+JK) in space.

• Mean field DCA at dimension K a few times slower than incremental(i.e., fast) PCA at same dimension.

• Gibbs with Rao-Blackwellisation is O(SK) in time per cycle and O(S+JK)in space. Less then others.

• Gibbs with Rao-Blackwellisation much better time and space for verysmall “documents”, e.g., analysis of sentences or noun-verb pairs, etc.

• Minka’s Expectation-Propagation (EP) is an extra order of magnitudeso is not practical.

41

Computational Issues, cont.

• While doing Gibbs sampling, we do not really want Gibbs sampling:

– Components defined symmetrically, thus a true posterior mean wouldsmear out all parameters to a bland uniform.

– We should really be doing millions of major cycles, we just do 1000’swhen doing discovery (as opposed to hypothesis testing).

i.e., we use Gibbs as an algorithm to generate an estimate, not as amethod to do sound statistical inference.

• Text data as bags of words and the document intermediate variables(proportions ~m, topic assignments ~k, etc.) don’t need to be kept in mainmemory and can be streamed over using mmap().

• Memory constraints are thus two copies (current value and sufficientstatistics) for Θ, and a typical desktop could handle J = 200k and K =400.

42

DCA Component Priors

Hidden component vector ~l. For each component k = 0, ..., K − 1


Component prior parameters are ~α and ~β.

• Can estimate ~α from the data. Its posterior has a conjugate distributionto a Gamma(α,1), and is well-behaved. Roughly corresponds to settingαk to the geometric mean (mean taken in log space) of the lk’s in thedata.

• Can estimate ~β from the data. This has a gamma distribution, and iswell-behaved. Corresponds to setting βk = αk/ 〈lk〉.

• In practice, with many features (J large), the data swamps the compo-nent prior and everything is pushed rapidly towards a Gamma model withno “prior data”, i.e., αk → 0, and βk set as above.

• Thus we usually fix αk = 2K, but set a hard minimum of 0.01 or so.

• A Dirichlet Process with parameter α is approximated when αk = αK.

NB. the prior expected number of components is approximately α.

43

Conditional Gamma-Poisson model

Gamma-Poisson model results in many exponentially small components foreach document. Seems wasteful. The conditional Gamma-Poisson modelzeros these. Usually done as a polishing step without loss in likelihood.

• Hidden variable ~l. For each component k = 0, ..., K − 1

lk = 0 with probability ρk

lk ∼ Gamma(αk, βk) otherwise

• Otherwise same as Gamma-Poisson model.

• For each feature/word j

wj ∼ Poisson

(

∑

k

lkθk,j

)

• For text data, using a fixed αk = 1 and letting βk be fit as per previous,ρk often above 0.95. When ρk → 1.0, the component can be deleted.

44

Dirichlet Process models for component priors

• A Dirichlet Process model with parameter α for the component assign-ments and proportions ~m is approximated by using a K dimensionalDirichlet with parameters all equal to α

K.

• Alternatively one can use the truncated Dirichlet Process model (see Bleiet al., various).

• As a side effect, one gets an estimate for K by watching the number ofunused components during a run.

• While this is clearly more efficient than the previous harmonic meanmethod, it appears the models so developed may be inferior to others.

• More experimental work needed here.

45

Overview

• Background.






• Use in Search.

46

Comparative Performance of Component Priors

• Gamma-Poisson with β constant and Dirichlet-multinomial very close inperformance, i.e., as per theory!

• In practice, with many features (J large), the data swamps the compo-nent prior and everything is pushed rapidly towards a Gamma model withno “prior data”, i.e., αk → 0, and βk set as above.

• Conditional Gamma components can be done as polishing, or done fromthe beginning: sample βk’s and ρk’s dynamically via Gibbs and estimateαk’s via constrained gradient ascent. Generally better likelihoods will beachieved, with many component values zeroed, and some componentseliminated.

47

Comparative Performance: Algorithms

• Use a Dirichlet-discrete model with β = 1 and αk = 0.5.

• A Fisher Dirichlet prior is used for documents.

• Perplexity results are measured on a hold-out set.

• Algorithms:

Mean field with inner loop convergence: As done in Minka’s meanfield implementation available in Matlab, reported by some. Innerloop of the mean field algorithm repeated to convergence on firstcycle.

Mean field: As described.

Direct Gibbs: As described.

Rao-Blackwellised Gibbs: With adjustments to ensure unbiases esti-mates of the log-probabilities. This adds about 50% time penalty,thus time reported below discounts this.

48

Comparative Performance: Data

Data from the Reuters RCV1 corpus (Volume 1: English Language, 1996-08-20 to

1997-08-19).

Bigrams: verb-noun bigrams in sentences, extracted from a lemmatized ver-sion of the full corpus. Single “document” has all noun lemma used inthe vicinity of a given verb lemma. training I = 30000, J = 20000, andK = 20, 100, 500, S/I ≈ 700. Testing is on random selection of 20,000held out.

Documents: uses the first 150,000 documents in the corpus, but only recordsthe most frequent 50,000 lemmatised nouns extracted from a lemmatizedversion of the corpus. training I = 100000, J = 50000, and K = 20, 100,S/I ≈ 100. Testing on last 50000.

49

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

11.2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Per

plex

ity

Seconds

Relative performance for bigrams on hold-out set for K=20

mean field with inner loop convergencemean field

direct GibbsRao-Blackwellised Gibbs

9.6

9.8

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

0 5000 10000 15000 20000P

erpl

exity

Seconds

Relative performance for bigrams on hold-out set for K=100



50

9.6

9.8

10

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Per

plex

ity

Seconds

Relative performance for bigrams on hold-out setfor K=500



11

11.05

11.1

11.15

11.2

11.25

11.3

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Per

plex

ity

Seconds

Relative performance for documents on hold-out set for K=20



10.4

10.5

10.6

10.7

10.8

10.9

11

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000P

erpl

exity

Seconds

Relative performance for documents on hold-out set for K=100



51

Results summary

• Rao-Blackwellised Gibbs version has the fastest convergence (unless un-biased estimates of log-probabilities are required).

• Doing inner convergence of the loop in the mean field algorithm candamage performance.

• Mean field converges faster, and sometimes much faster. In one case,mean field also equals the others in perplexity.

• The direct Gibbs version sometimes catches up with the Rao-BlackwellisedGibbs version over time.

• The mean field version appears to start over-fitting quite quickly.

52

Overview

• Background.






• Use in Search.

53

Use in ALVIS

• Predefined topics (e.g., MESH, ODP, Dewey Decimal) best when theyapply.

• Otherwise, use DCA to develop topics. (Hierarchical version TBD top-down).

• Use topics to allow mixed topic-browse and search.

• Allow users to enter block of text to indicate topical-preference, thencombine this as the topical aspect of a fused language model.

54

Search engine topics: good coverage of a domain

Ads and banners; Advertising agency’s appointments; Advertising and mar-

keting; Affiliate program; America Online (AOL); Ask Jeeves and Google

Answers; Blogs; Book search; Customer service; Dates; Desktop search; Do-

main name registration; DoubleClick, Inc.; Earnings of companies; E-mail

spam; Film industry; Forums and discussions; Games; Google co-founders;

Interactive media and advertising; Internet; Legal; Local search; Maps; Mi-

crosoft and Google; Mobile communication; Music search; News; Online mul-

timedia; Organizations and standards; Paid inclusions and search; People;

Privacy issue; “Acceptable” SEO; Regions; Research; Search Engine Market-

ing; Search engine optimization; Search engine optimization and marketing;

Search marketing; Security issues; Shopping Search; Stock market; User in-

terfaces; Users, people, communities; Web advertising; Wikipedia/Deja;

55

Overview of techniques

• Extracting relevant named-entities using an IR system: extension of arelevance language model:

p(name|query) =∑

d∈docs

p(d|query)p(name|d, query)

p(d|query) got from the IR score for a document. p(name|d, query) is ad

hoc based on location arguments.

• Extracting relevant topics using an IR system.

p(topic|query) =∑

d∈docs

p(d|query)p(topic|d)

Efficient to compute (similar to IR retrieval) since topic probabilities(p(topic|d)) are sparse.

56

Overview





• Comparative Experiments†.

• Use in Search‡.

• The End.

† See http://www.componentanalysis.org and http://wikipedia.hiit.fi

‡ See http://cosco.hiit.fi/search/wikipedia400-1205

57