WHy support count of candidate 3-itemset "bread milk diaper" is given as 3, although it appears in only 2 transctions, kindly check the apriori algorithm association mining in datamining text book by Pang-ning tan, vipin kumar and steinbach please go trough the image for more clarity on question
That slide does not contain the original transactions.
Try scanning the original database. You cannot get the exact counts just from the previous itemsets; you can only get upper bounds.
Related
We are trying to create an intelligent chatbot for customer service. We have a corpus of customer service questions and answers, with a flagged intention of each conversation. We are exploring to use Deep Learning to train our models but we encounter a couple of issues:
1 - How to do feature engineering to train models on text data. Specifically, how do you turn language into vectors ?
2 - How to use non-word features that you use as input for the intent recognition deep learning classifier? How do you accommodate e.g. client product names?
3 - How to choose a neural network architecture for Deep Learning with text input?
4 - How can we deal with situations where we do not have enough data? Use Bayesian techniques?
Cool.. great start !!.
before you make jump to implementation, i would suggest please do learn some basics.
anyway , here are answers to your questions. !!
feature engineering : as name suggests , in your data there are something that may reduce accuracy of your model. like words mixed with small and capital character, digits ,special character , lines ends with some special character.. etc. which after feature engineering gives more accuracy!! but again it's required all depends on what type of data you have !!
language into vectors : any type of language , at the end it is text (here in your case). we can give vector representation to word or character. this vector representation can be get by one hot vector or using pre-built methods like word2vec or glove.
one hot vector :- let's say you have 100 words from your training dataset . then create k-dimensional vector for each word. where k is total number of words. sord word by their character position. and based on thire sorted order create vector with keeping their index position 1 and rest as 0.
ex: [1 0 0 0 0 ....] - word1
[0 1 0 0 0 ....] - word2
[0 0 0 0 0 ...1] - word100
non-word features : follow same rule as word-features
client product name :- create one hot vector as they are not usually used in text. and they don't have meaning in real life.
how to choose NN :- it depends on what you want to achieve. NN can be used in many ways for many purpose.
not enough data :- it again depends on your data. !! if your data has more common pattern and in future data also these patterns going to come !! then it's still okay to use NN. else i don't recommend to use NN.
Good Luck !!
Some additions to the previous answer from Achyuta nanda sahoo. (Numbering according to your questions)
As he said, use some pretrained word embedding layers (Fasttext, word2vec)
U can find pretrained Models e.g. Here:
https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText/blob/master/docs/pretrained-vectors.md
U can particularly find client product names using Named Entity Recognition. U can e.g. start off with the following repo
https://github.com/guillaumegenthial/tf_ner
U can start with some simple question answering matching according to cosine similarity, as done here:
https://github.com/sachinbiradar9/Question-Answer-Selection
Even if u initially do not have enough data, u may start with a deep neural net by pretraining on a huge dataset that comes from a similar question answering data distribution. There should be tons of websites, where u can find these question answering scenarios ready for scraping :-)
Best
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a large sales database of a 'home and construction' retail.
And I need to know who are the electricians, plumbers, painters, etc. in the store.
My first approach was to select the articles related to a specialty (wires [article] is related to an electrician [specialty], for example) And then, based on customer sales, know who the customers are.
But this is a lot of work.
My second approach is to make a cluster segmentation first, and then discover which cluster belong to a specialty. (this is a lot better because I would be able to discover new segments)
But, how can I do that? What type of clustering should I occupy? Kmeans, fuzzy? What variables should I take to that model? Should I use PCA to know how many cluster to search?
The header of my data (simplified):
customer_id | transaction_id | transaction_date | item_article_id | item_group_id | item_category_id | item_qty | sales_amt
Any help would be appreciated
(sorry my english)
You want to identify classes of customers based on what they buy (I presume this is for marketing reasons). This calls for a clustering approach. I will talk you through the entire setup.
The clustering space
Let us first consider what exactly you are clustering: either orders or customers. In either case, the way you characterize the items and the distances between them is the same. I will discuss the basic case for orders first, and then explain the considerations that apply to clustering by customers instead.
For your purpose, an order is characterized by what articles were purchased, and possibly also how many of them. In terms of a space, this means that you have a dimension for each type of article (item_article_id), for example the "wire" dimension. If all you care about is whether an article is bought or not, each item has a coordinate of either 0 or 1 in each dimension. If some order includes wire but not pipe, then it has a value of 1 on the "wire" dimension and 0 on the "pipe" dimension.
However, there is something to say for caring about the quantities. Perhaps plumbers buy lots of glue while electricians buy only small amounts. In that case, you can set the coordinate in each dimension to the quantity of the corresponding article (presumably item_qty). So suppose you have three articles, wire, pipe and glue, then an order described by the vector (2, 3, 0) includes 2 wire, 3 pipe and 0 glue, while an order described by the vector (0, 1, 4) includes 0 wire, 1 pipe and 4 glue.
If there is a large spread in the quantities for a given article, i.e. if some orders include order of magnitude more of some article than other orders, then it may be helpful to work with a log scale. Suppose you have these four orders:
2 wire, 2 pipe, 1 glue
3 wire, 2 pipe, 0 glue
0 wire, 100 pipe, 1 glue
0 wire, 300 pipe, 3 glue
The former two orders look like they may belong to electricians while the latter two look like they belong to plumbers. However, if you work with a linear scale, order 3 will turn out to be closer to orders 1 and 2 than to order 4. We fix that by using a log scale for the vectors that encode these orders (I use the base 10 logarithm here, but it does not matter which base you take because they differ only by a constant factor):
(0.30, 0.30, 0)
(0.48, 0.30, -2)
(-2, 2, 0)
(-2, 2.48, 0.48)
Now order 3 is closest to order 4, as we would expect. Note that I have used -2 as a special value to indicate the absence of an article, because the logarithm of 0 is not defined (log(x) tends to negative infinity as x tends to 0). -2 means that we pretend that the order included 1/100th of the article; you could make the special value more or less extreme, depending on how much weight you want to give to the fact that an article was not included.
The input to your clustering algorithm (regardless of which algorithm you take, see below) will be a position matrix with one row for each item (order or customer), one column for each dimension (article), and either the presence (0/1), amount, or logarithm of the amount in each cell, depending on which you choose based on the discussion above. If you cluster by customers, you can simply sum the amounts from all orders that belong to that customer before you calculate what goes into each cell of your position matrix (if you use the log scale, sum the amounts before taking the logarithm).
Clustering by orders rather than by customers gives you more detail, but also more noise. Customers may be consistent within an order but not between them; perhaps a customer sometimes behaves like a plumber and sometimes like an electrician. This is a pattern that you will only find if you cluster by orders. You will then find how often each customer belongs to each cluster; perhaps 70% of somebody's orders belong to the electrician type and 30% belong to the plumber type. On the other hand, a plumber may only buy pipe in one order and then only buy glue in the next order. Only if you cluster by customers and sum the amounts of their orders, you get a balanced view of what each customer needs on average.
From here on I will refer to your position matrix by the name my.matrix.
The clustering algorithm
If you want to be able to discover new customer types, you probably want to let the data speak for themselves as much as possible. A good old fashioned
hierarchical clustering with complete linkage (CLINK) may be an appropriate choice in this case. In R, you simply do hclust(dist(my.matrix)) (this will use the Euclidean distance measure, which is probably good enough in your case). It will join closely neighbouring items or clusters together until all items are categorized in a hierarchical tree. You can treat any branch of the tree as a cluster, observe typical article amounts for that branch and decide whether that branch represents a customer segment by itself, should be split in sub-branches, or joined with a sibling branch instead. The advantage is that you find the "full story" of which items and clusters of items are most similar to each other and how much. The disadvantage is that the outcome of the algorithm does not tell you where to draw the borders between your customer segments; you can cut up the clustering tree in many ways, so it's up to your interpretation how you want to identify your customer types.
On the other hand, if you are comfortable fixing the number of clusters (k) beforehand, k-means is a very robust way to get just any segmentation of your customers in k distinct types. In R, you would do kmeans(my.matrix, k). For marketing purposes, it may be sufficient to have (say) 5 different profiles of customers that you make custom advertisement for, rather than treating all customers the same. With k-means you don't explore all of the diversity that is present in your data, but you might not need to do so anyway.
If you don't want to fix the number of clusters beforehand, but you also don't want to manually decide where to draw the borders between the segments afterwards, there is a third possibility. You start with the k-means algorithm, where you let it generate an amount of cluster centers that is much larger than the number of clusters that you hope to end up with (for example, if you hope to end up with somewhere about 10 clusters, let the k-means algorithm look for 200 clusters). Then, use the mean shift algorithm to further cluster the resulting centers. You will end up with a smaller number of compact clusters. The approach is explained in more detail by James Li over here. You can use the mean shift algorithm in R with the ms function from the LPCM package, see this documentation.
About using PCA
PCA will not tell you how many clusters you need. PCA answers a different question: which variables seem to represent a common underlying (hidden) factor. In a sense, it is a way to cluster variables, i.e. properties of entities, not to cluster the entities themselves. The number of principal components (common underlying factors) is not indicative of the number of clusters needed. PCA can still be interesting if you want to learn something about the predictive value of each article about a customer's interests.
Sources
Michael J. Crawley, 2005. Statistics. An Introduction using R.
Gerry P. Quinn and Michael J. Keough, 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists.
Wikipedia: hierarchical clustering, k-means, mean shift, PCA
There is a question illustrate below:
//--------question start---------------------
Consider the following small corpus consisting of three sentences:
The judge struck the gavel to silence the court. Buying the cheap saw is false
economy. The nail was driven in when the hammer struck it hard.
Use distributional similarity to determine whether the word gavel is more similar in mean-
ing to hammer or saw . To compute distributional similarity you must (1) use bag-of-words
in a ± 2 window around the target as features, (2) not alter the context words in any way
(e.g. by stemming or removing stop words) and (3) use the Dice measure to compare
the feature vectors. Make sure to show all stages of your working.
//--------question end---------------------
I don't understand what is a ± 2 window in (1). Would someone explain for me? Thank you guys very much.
A ± 2 window means 2 words to the left and 2 words to the right of the target word. For target word "silence", the window would be ["gavel", "to", "the", "court"], and for "hammer", it would be ["when", "the", "struck", "it"].
I have managed to evaluate the tf-idf function for a given corpus. How can I find the stopwords and the best words for each document? I understand that a low tf-idf for a given word and document means that it is not a good word for selecting that document.
Stop-words are those words that appear very commonly across the documents, therefore loosing their representativeness. The best way to observe this is to measure the number of documents a term appears in and filter those that appear in more than 50% of them, or the top 500 or some type of threshold that you will have to tune.
The best (as in more representative) terms in a document are those with higher tf-idf because those terms are common in the document, while being rare in the collection.
As a quick note, as #Kevin pointed out, very common terms in the collection (i.e., stop-words) produce very low tf-idf anyway. However, they will change some computations and this would be wrong if you assume they are pure noise (which might not be true depending on the task). In addition, if they are included your algorithm would be slightly slower.
edit:
As #FelipeHammel says, you can directly use the IDF (remember to invert the order) as a measure which is (inversely) proportional to df. This is completely equivalent for ranking purposes, and therefore to select the top "k" terms. However, it is not possible to use it to select based on ratios (e.g., words that appear in more than 50% of the documents), although a simple thresholding will fix that (i.e., selecting terms with idf lower than a specific value). In general, a fix number of terms is used.
I hope this helps.
From "Introduction to Information Retrieval" book:
tf-idf assigns to term t a weight in document d that is
highest when t occurs many times within a small number of documents (thus lending high discriminating power to those documents);
lower when the term occurs fewer times in a document, or occurs in many documents (thus offering a less pronounced relevance signal);
lowest when the term occurs in virtually all documents.
So words with lowest tf-idf can considered as stop words.
There's a problem I've encountered a lot (in the broad fields of data analyis or AI). However I can't name it, probably because I don't have a formal CS background. Please bear with me, I'll give two examples:
Imagine natural language parsing:
The flower eats the cow.
You have a program that takes each word, and determines its type and the relations between them. There are two ways to interpret this sentence:
1) flower (substantive) -- eats (verb) --> cow (object)
using the usual SVO word order, or
2) cow (substantive) -- eats (verb) --> flower (object)
using a more poetic world order. The program would rule out other possibilities, e.g. "flower" as a verb, since it follows "the". It would then rank the remaining possibilites: 1) has a more natural word order than 2), so it gets more points. But including the world knowledge that flowers can't eat cows, 2) still wins. So it might return both hypotheses, and give 1) a score of 30, and 2) a score of 70.
Then, it remembers both hypotheses and continues parsing the text, branching off. One branch assumes 1), one 2). If a branch reaches a contradiction, or a ranking of ~0, it is discarded. In the end it presents ranked hypotheses again, but for the whole text.
For a different example, imagine optical character recognition:
** **
** ** *****
** *******
******* **
* ** **
** **
I could look at the strokes and say, sure this is an "H". After identifying the H, I notice there are smudges around it, and give it a slightly poorer score.
Alternatively, I could run my smudge recognition first, and notice that the horizontal line looks like an artifact. After removal, I recognize that this is ll or Il, and give it some ranking.
After processing the whole image, it can be Hlumination, lllumination or Illumination. Using a dictionary and the total ranking, I decide that it's the last one.
The general problem is always some kind of parsing / understanding. Examples:
Natural languages or ambiguous languages
OCR
Path finding
Dealing with ambiguous or incomplete user imput - which interpretations make sense, which is the most plausible?
I'ts recursive.
It can bail out early (when a branch / interpretation doesn't make sense, or will certainly end up with a score of 0). So it's probably some kind of backtracking.
It keeps all options in mind in light of ambiguities.
It's based off simple rules at the bottom can_eat(cow, flower) = true.
It keeps a plausibility ranking of interpretations.
It's recursive on a meta level: It can fork / branch off into different 'worlds' where it assumes different hypotheses when dealing with the next part of data.
It'll forward the individual rankings, probably using bayesian probability, to dependent hypotheses.
In practice, there will be methods to train this thing, determine ranking coefficients, and there will be cutoffs if the tree becomes too big.
I have no clue what this is called. One might guess 'decision tree' or 'recursive descent', but I know those terms mean different things.
I know Prolog can solve simple cases of this, like genealogies and finding out who is whom's uncle. But you have to give all the data in code, and it doesn't seem convienent or powerful enough to do this for my real life cases.
I'd like to know, what is this problem called, are there common strategies for dealing with this? Is there good literature on the topic? Are there libraries for ideally C(++), Python, were you can just define a bunch of rules, and it works out all the rankings and hypotheses?
I don't think there is one answer that fits all the bullet points you have. But I hope my links will lead you closer to an answer or might give you a different question.
I think the closest answer is Bayesian network since you have probabilities affecting each other as I understand it, it is also related to Conditional probability and Fuzzy Logic
You also describe a bit of genetic programming as well as Artificial Neural Networks
I can name drop some more topics which might be related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule-based_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference