Trainingless Ontologybased Text Categorization. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Title: Trainingless Ontologybased Text Categorization.


1
Training-less Ontology-based Text Categorization.

• Maciej Janik

Major professor Dr. Krzysztof J.
Kochut Committee Dr. John A. Miller Dr. Khaled
Rasheed Dr. Amit P. Sheth
December 14th, 2007 PhD Prospectus presentation
2
Outline

• Document categorization
• Classic approach to categorization
• Graph categorization and similarity metrics
• Ontology-based approach to categorization
• Algorithm sketch
• Algorithm details and assumptions
• Example and preliminary results
• Planned work and expected results
• References

3
Document categorization

• Document classification/categorization is a
  problem in information science. The task is to
  assign an electronic document to one or more
  categories, based on its contents. Wikipedia
  

4
Document categorization by people

• People categorize document by understanding its
  content, using their knowledge and understanding
  what the category is.
• Categorization is based on
• Document content
• Knowledge
• Category
• Perceived interest

features, graphontologycategory
definitioncategorization context
5
Automatic text categorization

• Automatic text classification can be defined as
  task of assigning category labels to new
  documents based on the knowledge gained in a
  classification system at the training stage.
• require training with pre-classified documents
• Proposed solution
• use already defined knowledge for document
  categorization and skip the training stage

6
Classic categorization

• Methods are based on word/phrase statistics,
  information gain and other probability or
  similarity measures.
• Examples Sebastiani
• Naïve Bayes, SVM, Decision Tree, k-NN
• Categorization based on information (frequencies,
  probabilities) learned from the training
  documents.
• Vocabulary extension/unification possible by use
  of synonyms, homonyms, word groups (eg. from
  WordNet)
• Document representation for categorization
• Set or vector of features - most popular and
  simple bag of words
• Does not include information about document
  structure, relative position of phrases, etc.

7
Graph representation of text

• Graph representation preserves (selected)
  structural information from document
• Relative words positions to find close
  co-occurring phrases.
• Paragraph, formatting (eg. emphasize), part of
  document.
• Sample representations
• Words form a directed graph, chained in order as
  they appear in each sentence.
• Words form a weighted graph, where edge connects
  words within certain distance and weight
  determines closeness.
• Connected terms based on NLP processing or
  co-occurrence.

8
Graph representations - examples
Schenker
Gamon
9
Graph-based categorization

• Categorization based on similarity metrics
  Schenker
• Isomorphism
• Maximum common subgraph/ minimum common
  supergraph
• Graph edit distance
• Statistical methods
• Diameter, degree distribution, betwenness
• Comparison of node neighbors
• Distance preservation measure
• Methods
• k-NN most straightforward
• similarity to centroids graph mean and graph
  median
• term distance to category

10
Ontology

• An explicit specification of a
  conceptualization. Tom Gruber
• Ontology is a data model that represents a set of
  concepts within a domain and the relationships
  between those concepts. It is used to reason
  about the objects within that domain. Wikipedia

11
Ontology - example
12
Use of ontologies in classification

• Term unification
• Hierarchy of concepts
• Entity recognition and disambiguation
• Strengthening co-occurrence of related entities
• Nearest neighbors

13
Ontology-based classification

• Ontology IS the knowledge base and THE
  CLASSIFIER no need for training set.
• Rich instance base defines known universe.
• Schema with taxonomy describe categorization
  structure.
• Classification is based on recognized entities in
  text and semantic relationships between them.
• Categories assigned are based on entities types
  and taxonomy embedded in schema.

14
OntoCategorization bases

• Probability
• Traditionally, document is classified based on
  probabilities that given feature (word, phrase)
  belongs to a certain category.
• Here the more features belong to a category, the
  more probable that document belongs to the
  category.
• Similarity
• Category is defined as ontology fragment
  (entities, classes, structures, etc.)
• Similarity of document graph to given ontology
  fragment describes closeness to selected category
• Connectivity (components)
• Knowledge is based on associations.
• Entities in one category should form a connected
  component, as they belong to the same subject.

15
Classes and categories

• Classes do not have to be categories
• Classes
• Form taxonomy / partonomy
• Strict, formal requirements
• Membership based on features
• Categories
• Can include other categories, intersect with
  them, etc. more set-like approach
• Category can be a complex structure of classes,
  relationships and instances
• Topic of interest that can span multiple,
  normally unrelated classes in schema

16
Who? What? Where? When? Why?

• WWW What (who)? Where? When?
• These text dimensions are orthogonal (in most
  text).
• Fairly easy to find place and date/time.
• What / who description of articles topic .
• Ontology classification
• Focus on text core find what and who by
  matching entities.
• Recognize relationships between entities to
  construct an initial document graph.
• Graph overlay from ontology on core entities
  reveals semantics from background knowledge of
  analyzed text.
• Why? Hmm

17
OntoCategorization system
18
Algorithm sketch

• Convert text to thematic graph
• From words to entities (spotting).
• Extract relationships and form triples (NLP).
• Overlay background knowledge.
• Remove unwanted entities (time/place).
• Categorize graph using ontology
• Select thematic component to categorization
  (disambiguation and topic set)
• Find best category coverage for selected thematic
  graph.

19
Algorithm sketch more details

• Match phrases in text with entities in ontology
  and assign initial weight.
• Graph overlay add relationships from ontology
  between matched entities.
• Mark / remove entities related to dates and
  places.
• Add extracted relationships (NLP) between
  recognized entities.
• Propagate entity weight in graph in similar way
  as in hubs-authorities algorithm Kleinberg.
• Find thematic graph(s) for further analysis
  connected component.
• Calculate most important entities based on weight
  and graph centrality.
• Find categories in schema that cover largest part
  of thematic component, are lowest in hierarchy
  and include most important entities.

20
Experiments

• Wikipedia ontology
• Includes around 2,000,000 entries
• Multiple entity names (variations for matching)
• Has rich instance base (articles)
• Internal href, templates and infobox relations
  carry semantic connections among entries
• Has large schema with categories over 310,00
  categories
• They DO NOT form a taxonomy, just a graph (even
  include cycles)

21
Experiments (2)

• Wikipedia 2 RDF
• Created initially by dbpedia.org
• Auer, Lehmann
• Creation of RDF some modifications
• Focus on href, infoboxes and templates
• Special relationships for entities in infoboxes
  and templates
• Only English version of Wikipedia
• Entity name variations for matching
• Name, short name (no brackets), redirect,
  disambiguation, alternate names

22
Algorithm details (1)

• Entity name matching
• Entities and relationships are the content of
  document they define topic(s).
• Ontology defines known entities, literals or
  phrases assigned to them and classifications.
• Analyzed text must contain some of these entities
  to be categorizable otherwise it is outside of
  the ontology scope.
• Matching assigns spotted phrases to known
  literals, and later to entities.
• Possible use of stop words and/or stemming.

23
Example of entity matching

• Ford Motor Co. is in the process of selling
• Jaguar and Land Rover, according to Ford
• CEO Alan Mulally.

24
Algorithm details (2)

• Semantic graph construction
• Add relationships between recognized entities
  from ontology, as ontology defines meaningful
  (semantic) connections between them.
• Add relationships extracted from NLP analysis of
  annotated text.
• Connected entites enable to perform graph
  analysis, connectivity, finding paths, etc.
• Date and place elimination
• Dates and places are orthogonal to topic.
• Path connecting entities through place or date is
  very little meaningful for document topic.

25
Example parse tree and triples

• Ford Motor Co. is in the process of selling
  Jaguar and Land Rover, according to Ford CEO Alan
  Mulally.

26
Example NLP ontology knowledge

• Ford Motor Co. is in the process of selling
  Jaguar and Land Rover, according to Ford CEO Alan
  Mulally.

named_after
Jaguar (animal)
Jaguar Cars
Chief Executive Officer
parent_company
sells
Ford Motor Company
has_CEO
is_a
sells
CEO_of
parent_company
Land Rover
Alan Mulally
27
Algorithm details (3)

• Weight propagation
• Each entity has its initial weight assigned by
  strength of phrase matching.
• Like in the web, entities are interconnected
  influence each other.
• We are looking for authority entities
  assumption is they are most representative for
  topic.

28
Algorithm details (4)

• Thematic subgraph in matched graph
• Assumption is that entities associated with the
  same or related topics are interconnected in
  ontology same as in real life.
• Graph component topic-related entites.
• Each document (or document fragment) should treat
  about one or two main topics leave only most
  important (weight) and largest component(s).

29
Thematic graph examples
Chief Executive Officer
Jaguar Cars
Jaguar (animal)
Ford Motor Company
Alan Mulally
Land Rover
Announcement
Sales
News
Business
Newspaper
Buyer
30
Algorithm details (5)

• Most important and central entities
• Topic tends to center around few entites that are
  either most important (weight) or are most
  central in graph.
• Also classification of whole subgraph should be a
  subset of possible classification of these
  entities.

31
Algorithm details (6)

• Categorization
• Category is defined as set and/or hierarchy of
  classes defined in ontology schema.
• Each entity has a hierarchy of assigned
  categories.
• Best ontology class for graph should
• Cover maximum number of entities in the graph.
• Be on relatively lowest level in hierarchy.
• Be close in hierarchy to classified entity.
• Include most important entities (the more, the
  better)

32
Entities and categories
Car Manufacturers
Felines
Living people
Off-road wehicles
Ford
Pantherinae
Ford people
Jaguar
Panthera
Ford executives
Jaguar Cars
Alan Mulally
Jaguar (animal)
Ford Motor Company
Land Rover
Chief Executive Officer
33
Longer example

• Ford, utility ready to work on plug-in car
  Automaker, Southern California Edison to unveil
  alliance in response to demand for
  energy-efficient vehicles.
• DETROIT (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. and power
  utility Southern California Edison will announce
  an unusual alliance Monday aimed at clearing the
  way for a new generation of rechargeable electric
  cars, the companies said.
• Ford (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive Alan
  Mulally and Edison International (Charts ,
  Fortune 500) Chief Executive John Bryson are
  scheduled to meet with reporters at Edison's
  headquarters in Rosemead, Calif., the companies
  said.
• ...
• Led by Toyota Motor Corp's (Charts) Prius, the
  current generation of hybrid vehicles uses
  batteries to power the vehicle at low speeds and
  in to provide assistance during stop-and-go
  traffic and hard acceleration, delivering higher
  fuel economy.
• General Motors Corp. (Charts , Fortune 500) has
  already begun work this year to develop its own
  plug-in hybrid car, designed to use little or no
  gasoline over short distances. The company showed
  off a concept version of the Chevrolet Volt in
  January at the Detroit Auto show and has awarded
  contracts to two battery makers to research
  advanced batteries for a possible production
  version.

34
Longer example

• Ford, utility ready to work on plug-in car
  Automaker, Southern California Edison to unveil
  alliance in response to demand for
  energy-efficient vehicles.
• DETROIT (Reuters) -- Ford Motor Co. and power
  utility Southern California Edison will announce
  an unusual alliance Monday aimed at clearing the
  way for a new generation of rechargeable electric
  cars, the companies said.
• Ford (Charts , Fortune 500) Chief Executive Alan
  Mulally and Edison International (Charts ,
  Fortune 500) Chief Executive John Bryson are
  scheduled to meet with reporters at Edison's
  headquarters in Rosemead, Calif., the companies
  said.
• ...
• Led by Toyota Motor Corp's (Charts) Prius, the
  current generation of hybrid vehicles uses
  batteries to power the vehicle at low speeds and
  in to provide assistance during stop-and-go
  traffic and hard acceleration, delivering higher
  fuel economy.
• General Motors Corp. (Charts , Fortune 500) has
  already begun work this year to develop its own
  plug-in hybrid car, designed to use little or no
  gasoline over short distances. The company showed
  off a concept version of the Chevrolet Volt in
  January at the Detroit Auto show and has awarded
  contracts to two battery makers to research
  advanced batteries for a possible production
  version.

35
(No Transcript)
36
Longer example graph properties

• Initial number of vertexes 205
• Initial number of edges 361
• Largest component 95
• Component for analysis 35
• Central and most important entities
• Hybrid_vehicle Centrality 208, weight
  1.516873
• Automobile Centrality 213, weight 1.249790,
• Internal_combustion_engine Centrality 233,
  weight 1.069511
• Ford_Motor_Company Centrality 237, weight
  1.451533,
• Southern_California_Edison Centrality 351,
  weight 1.308824

37
Longer example categories

• CategoryAutomobiles
• CAT instances lt13gt, (avg. height 2.384615)weight
  0.874697
• CategoryAlternative_propulsion
• CAT instances lt4gt, (avg. height 1.250000) weight
  0.873287
• CategoryCar_manufacturers
• instances lt3gt (avg. height 1.000000) weight
  0.781271
• CategoryVehicles
• CAT instances lt13gt, (avg. height 2.923077)
  weight 0.647903
• CategoryTransportation
• CAT instances lt11gt, (avg. Height 3.090909)
  weight 0.629714

38
Wikipedia categories

• Wikipedia categories DO NOT form a taxonomy
• It is just a directed graph, that contains
  cycles.
• Not possible to use subsumption for categories.
• Thesaurus-like structure. Voss
• Categories may be very deep and detailed, or very
  broad
• Hard to pinpoint the cut-off point good for
  categorization.
• There is no simple mapping between news
  categories and categories in Wikipedia.

39
Overall performance of initial tests

• Tests against classic BOW statistic classifier
  McCallum.
• Source articles and categories taken from CNN
  total of 7158 documents in 14 categories.
• Divided into 50 training / 50 testing split
• Mapping between Wikipedia and CNN categories done
  manually by crawling generated Wikipedia schema
  (still not really precise)

40
Text corpora CNN news
41
CNN and Wikipedia

• CNN categories
• Classified by people
• Describe mostly article interest, not necessarily
  its content
• Frequently described readers interest rather
  than true subject.
• Hard to match to Wikipedia categories
• Wikipedia categories
• Content-based
• Very detailed and deep

42
Categorization results - BOW
43
Categorization results BOW on Wikipedia
44
Categorization results - Wikipedia
45
Summary of work

• Ontology storage and querying
• Brahms RDF/S storage
• Sparqler query language extension with path
  queries
• For use in Glycomics project
• Prototype of ontology-based categorization
• Partial implementation not all modules included
  yet
• Use of general-purpose ontology RDF graph
  created from English Wikipedia
• Initial tests confirm proof of concept
• Published as technical report, submitted to WWW
  2008

46
Remaining research

• Goal
• Create comprehensive model for ontology-based
  categorization.
• Create semantic context definition
• Modify and/or create graph similarity measures
  that exploit context information

47
Current work in progress

• Goal
• Create a system, where user can categorize text
  document with given ontology using specified
  semantic context.
• NLP module for relationship extraction
• Definition of query context
• Extension of SPARQL with context queries

48
Proposed work

• Include NLP analysis in creating relationships
  between entities
• Will help to link entities that do not have
  connection in ontology or strengthen this
  connection.
• Explore categorization to a user-defined context
  (collection of instances, classes, structures,
  path expressions).
• Extend definition of category to include context.
• Experiment with other well-developed ontologies
  to categorize more specialized documents
• Eg. PubMed
• (optional) Study the applicability of the method
  for ontology-based document summarization.

49
Published papers

• Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "BRAHMS A WorkBench
  RDF Store And High Performance Memory System for
  Semantic Association Discovery", Fourth
  International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005,
  Galway, Ireland, 6-10 November 2005
• Krys Kochut, Maciej Janik. "SPARQLeR Extended
  Sparql for Semantic Association Discovery",
  Fourth European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC
  2007, Innsbruck, Austria, 3-7 June 2007
• Matthew Perry, Maciej Janik, Cartic Ramakrishnan,
  Conrad Ibanez, Budak Arpinar, Amit Sheth.
  "Peer-to-Peer Discovery of Semantic
  Associations", Second International Workshop on
  Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Management, San Diego, CA,
  July 17, 2005
• Maciej Janik, Krys Kochut. "Wikipedia in action
  Ontological Knowledge in Text Categorization",
  UGA Technical Report No. UGA-CS-TR-07-001,
  November 2007 submitted to WWW 2008
• S. Nimmagadda, A. Basu, M. Evenson, J. Han, M.
  Janik, R. Narra, K. Nimmagadda, A. Sharma, K.J.
  Kochut, J.A. Miller and W. S. York, "GlycoVault
  A Bioinformatics Infrastructure for Glycan
  Pathway Visualization, Analysis and Modeling,"
  Proceedings of the 5th International Conference
  on Information Technology New Generations
  (ITNG'08), Las Vegas, Nevada (April 2008) to
  appear

50
References

• Auer, S. and Lehmann, J., What have Innsbruck and
  Leipzig in common? Extracting Semantics from Wiki
  Content. in European Semantic Web Conference
  (ESWC'07), (Innsbruck, Austria, 2007), Springer,
  503-517.
• Gamon, M., Graph-Based Text Representation for
  Novelty Detection. in Workshop on TextGraphs at
  HLT-NAACL 2006, (New York, NY, US, 2006).
• Gruber, T. A Translation Approach to Portable
  Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5
  (2). 199-220, 1993.
• Kleinberg, J.M., Authoritative Sources in a
  Hyperlinked Environment. in ACM-SIAM Symposium on
  Discrete Algorithms, (1998).
• McCallum, A.K. Bow A toolkit for statistical
  language modeling, text retrieval, classification
  and clustering. http//www.cs.cmu.edu/mccallum/bo
  w, 1996.
• Nagarajan, M., Sheth, A.P., Aguilera, M., Keeton,
  K., Merchant, A. and Uysal, M. Altering Document
  Term Vectors for Classification - Ontologies as
  Expectations of Cooccurrence LSDIS Technical
  Report, November, 2006.
• Schenker, A., Bunke, H., Last, M. and Kandel, A.
  Graph-Theoretic Techniques for Web Content
  Mining. World Scientific, London, 2005.
• Sebastiani, F. Machine learning in automated text
  categorization. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 34
  (1). 1 - 47.
• Voss, J. Collaborative thesaurus tagging the
  Wikipedia way. ArXiv Computer Science e-prints,
  cs/0604036.