1 / 28

Sparse Word Graphs: A Scalable Algorithm for Capturing Word Correlations in Topic Models

Sparse Word Graphs: A Scalable Algorithm for Capturing Word Correlations in Topic Models Ramesh Nallapati Joint work with John Lafferty, Amr Ahmed, William Cohen and Eric Xing Machine Learning Department Carnegie Mellon University Introduction

paul2
Download Presentation

Sparse Word Graphs: A Scalable Algorithm for Capturing Word Correlations in Topic Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sparse Word Graphs:A Scalable Algorithm for Capturing Word Correlations in Topic Models Ramesh NallapatiJoint work with John Lafferty, Amr Ahmed, William Cohen and Eric Xing Machine Learning Department Carnegie Mellon University

  2. Introduction • Statistical topic modeling: an attractive framework for topic discovery • Completely unsupervised • Models text very well • Lower perplexity compared to unigram models • Reveals meaningful semantic patterns • Can help summarize and visualize document collections • e.g.: PLSA, LDA, DPM, DTM, CTM, PA ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  3. Introduction • A common assumption in all the variants: • Exchangeability: “bag of words” assumption • Topics represented as a ranked list of words • Consequences: • Word Correlation information is lost • e.g.: “white-house” vs. “white” and “house” • Long distance correlations ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  4. Introduction • Objective: • To capture correlations between words within topics • Motivation: • More interpretable representation of topics as a network of words rather than a list • Helps better visualize and summarize document collections • May reveal unexpected relationships and patterns within topics ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  5. Past Work: Topic Models • Bigram topic models[Wallach, ICML 2006] • Requires KV(K-1) parameters • Only captures local dependencies • Does not model sparsity of correlations • Does not capture “within-topic” correlations ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  6. Past work: Other approaches • Hyperspace Analog to Language (HAL) [Lund and Burges, Cog. Sci., ‘96] • Word pair correlation measured as a weighted count of number of times they occur within a fixed length window • Weight of an occurrence / 1/(mutual distance) ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  7. Past work: Other approaches • Hyperspace Analog to Language (HAL) [Lund and Burges, Cog. Sci., ‘96] • Plusses: • Sparse solutions, scalability • Minuses: • Only unearths global correlations, not semantic correlations • E.g.: “river – bank”, “bank – check” • Only local dependencies ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  8. Past work: Other approaches • Query expansion in IR • Similar in spirit: finds words that highly co-occur with the query words • However, not a corpus visualization tool: requires a context to operate on • Wordnet • Semantic networks • Human labeled: not directly related to our goal ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  9. Our approach • L1 norm regularization • Known to enforce sparse solutions • Sparsity permits scalability • Convex optimization problem • Globally optimal solutions • Recent advances in learning structure of graphical models: • L1 regularization framework asymptotically leads to true structure ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  10. Background:LASSO • Example: linear regression • Regularization used to improve generalizability • E.g.1: Ridge regression: L2 norm regularization • E.g.2: Lasso: L1 norm regularization ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  11. Background: LASSO • Lasso encourages sparse solutions ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  12. Background: Gaussian Random Fields • Multivariate Gaussian distribution • Random field structure: G = (V,E) • V: set of all variables {X1,,Xp} • (s,t) 2 E ,-1st 0 • Xs? Xu | XN(s) where u  N(s) ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  13. Background: Gaussian Random Fields • Estimating the graph structure of GRF from data [Meinshausen and Buhlmann, Annals. Stats., 2006] • Regress each variable onto others imposing L1 penalty to encourage sparsity • Estimated neighborhood: ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  14. Background: Gaussian Random Fields Estimated graph True Graph Courtesy: [Meinshausen and Buhlmann, Annals. Stats., 2006] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  15. Background: Gaussian Random Fields • Application to topic models: CTM [Blei and Lafferty, NIPS, 2006] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  16. Background: Gaussian Random Fields • Application to CTM:[Blei & Lafferty, Annals. Appl. Stats., ‘07] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  17. Structure learning of an MRF • Ising model • L1 regularized conditional likelihood learns true structure asymptotically [Wainwright, Ravikumar and Lafferty, NIPS’06] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  18. Structure learning of an MRF Courtesy: [Wainwright, Ravikumar and Lafferty, NIPS’06] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  19. Sparse Word Graphs • Algorithm • Run LDA on the document collection and obtain topic assignments • Convert topic assignments for each document into K binary vectors X: • Assume an MRF for each topic with X as underlying data • Apply structure learning for MRF using regularized conditional likelihood ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  20. Sparse Word Graphs ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  21. Sparse Word Graphs: Scalability • We still run V logistic regression problems, each of size V for each topic: O(KV2) ! • However, each example is very sparse • L1 penalty results in sparse solutions • Can run each topic in parallel • Efficient interior point based L1 regularized logistic regression [Koh, Kim & Boyd, JMLR,’07] ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  22. Experiments • Small AP corpus • 2.2K Docs, 10.5K unique words • Ran 10 topic LDA model • Used  = 0.1 in L1 logistic regression • Took just 45 min. per topic • Very sparse solutions • Computes only under 0.1% of the total number of possible edges ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  23. Topic “Business”: neighborhood of top LDA terms ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  24. Topic “Business”: neighborhood of top edges ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  25. Topic “War”: neighborhood of top LDA terms ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  26. Topic “War”: neighborhood of top edges ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  27. Concluding remarks • Pros • A highly scalable algorithm for capturing within topic word correlations • Captures both short distance and long distance correlations • Makes topics more interpretable • Cons • Not a complete probabilistic model • Significant modeling challenge since the correlations are latent ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

  28. Concluding remarks • Applications of Sparse Word Graphs • Better document summarization and visualization tool • Word sense disambiguation • Semantic query expansion • Future Work • Evaluation on a “real task” • Build a unified statistical model ICDM’07 HPDM workskop

More Related