Small Data Classification for NLP
•
0 likes•259 views
We have a lot of tools to help us with big data. What happens when our data is tiny? This talk will discuss a novel way of classifying NLP data from a very small training set, explaining some of the ways we deal with strongly unbalanced classes when working in the 100’s of rows of data.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Small Data Classification for NLP
Similar to Small Data Classification for NLP (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Small Data Classification for NLP
- 1. Small Data Classification for Natural Language Processing Michael Thorne Head of Data Science, CaliberMind
- 2. 2 | ©2016 CaliberMind Goals • Intro • What Makes NLP Different • Solutions • Questions
- 3. 3 | ©2016 CaliberMind Michael Thorne Head of Data Science, Caliber Mind MS Data Science Program, GalvanizeU B.S. Physics, Fordham University NSA Analytic Lead US Navy Digital Network Intelligence Analyst / Cryptolinguist Obligatory Speaker Bio
- 4. 4 | ©2016 CaliberMind CaliberMind • B2B marketing SaaS • Persona modeling and personality insights • Content matching across buyer journey for high-value, complex purchase decisions • Our core competency is natural language processing
- 5. 5 | ©2016 CaliberMind What’s So Special About NLP? • Not random (Zipf’s Law) • Huge feature space • Subjective Criteria
- 6. 6 | ©2016 CaliberMind Small Data NLP
- 7. 7 | ©2016 CaliberMind Persona Status Quo • Assumptive Personas • Qualitative Criteria • Subjective Labels • Static Output
- 8. 8 | ©2016 CaliberMind Starting Point Demographics Psychographics Firmographics
- 9. 9 | ©2016 CaliberMind Let’s Validate the Status Quo
- 10. 10 | ©2016 CaliberMind CaliberMind’s Data Challenge • We match the right message, to the right person, at the right time • We operate at the upper limits of human scale problems (100’s - 10,000’s of documents) • We weren’t getting as accurate results as we expected
- 11. 11 | ©2016 CaliberMind Our Friend: The Central Limit Theorem • This is the theorem that lets us assume our data is well behaved, assuming we have enough of it • Let’s look at a classic example, coin tosses
- 12. 12 | ©2016 CaliberMind Coin Flip Distribution
- 13. 13 | ©2016 CaliberMind 1 Trial
- 14. 14 | ©2016 CaliberMind 100 Trials
- 15. 15 | ©2016 CaliberMind Example: K-Means • K-means is a workhorse algorithm when doing unsupervised learning • What are the assumptions we make when we use k-means? Spherical data Same variance Same prior probability Turns out NLP data is none of these things
- 16. 16 | ©2016 CaliberMind Happy K-Means
- 17. 17 | ©2016 CaliberMind NLP K-Means
- 18. 18 | ©2016 CaliberMind But Wait, It Gets Better • Our documents tend to be of vastly different sizes within the same corpus • Unbalanced Classes • Qualitative Criteria • Unlabeled data • Human-labeling is time intensive
- 19. Our Solution
- 20. 20 | ©2016 CaliberMind Dimensionality Reduction • Dimensionality was the first thing we tackled • Manual dictionaries to collapse similar terms • mark = [‘growth hacker’, ‘marketer’, ‘demand gen’] • LSA to remove low-information terms • Automating the process using word2vec, dbpedia, and skip gram similarities • As we aggregate more data, we’re able to do this process more effectively
- 21. 21 | ©2016 CaliberMind Spiky Data
- 22. 22 | ©2016 CaliberMind Metrics Over Raw Scores • Especially important when comparing data of different sizes • How many standard deviations off the mean works better than a simple similarity score • Pick the best similarity score (with NLP, it’s not cosine)
- 23. 23 | ©2016 CaliberMind Pretend We Have Labeled Data • Rules-based scoring algorithm for a first pass • Take a small subset of high-scoring people as exemplars • Use a latent semantic analysis of these exemplars to make a template • Compare remaining data rows against each exemplar cluster • Assign highest score to that exemplar cluster, broadening the definition • Continue until all data rows are assigned • Any row with a similarity below a threshold we set is labeled as an ‘Unknown’, indicates additional, underlying personas
- 24. 24 | ©2016 CaliberMind Round 1 (Rules) Name Title Similarity Score Persona Luke J VP Marketing 1.0 Value Randy P Founder Lucas M Growth Ninja Bec G Tech Guru Fiona F Sysops 1.0 Security Claude S Growth Hacker Art L Data Analyst
- 25. 25 | ©2016 CaliberMind Round 2 (LSA) Name Title Similarity Score Persona Luke J VP Marketing 1.0 Value Randy P Founder 0.45 Lucas M Growth Ninja 0.11 Bec G Tech Guru 0.71 Security Fiona F Sysops 1.0 Security Claude S Growth Hacker 0.87 Value Art L Data Analyst 0.41
- 26. 26 | ©2016 CaliberMind Round 3 (LSA) Name Title Similarity Score Persona Luke J VP Marketing 1.0 Value Randy P Founder 0.68 Security Lucas M Growth Ninja 0.18 Bec G Tech Guru 0.86 Security Fiona F Sysops 1.0 Security Claude S Growth Hacker 0.89 Value Art L Data Analyst 0.72 Security
- 27. 27 | ©2016 CaliberMind Round 3 (LSA) Name Title Similarity Score Persona Luke J VP Marketing 1.0 Value Randy P Founder 0.71 Security Lucas M Growth Ninja 0.16 Unknown Bec G Tech Guru 0.88 Security Fiona F Sysops 1.0 Security Claude S Growth Hacker 0.91 Value Art L Data Analyst 0.78 Security
- 28. 28 | ©2016 CaliberMind Exampl e
- 29. 29 | ©2016 CaliberMind Exampl e
- 30. 30 | ©2016 CaliberMind Exampl e
- 31. 31 | ©2016 CaliberMind Takeaways • Human-generated data is never really random • Small data models are hyper-sensitive • Validate assumptions