Improving feature extraction can often have a significant positive impact on classifier accuracy (and precision and recall). In this article, I’ll be evaluating two modifications of the
word_feats feature extraction method:
- filter out stopwords
- include bigram collocations
To do this effectively, we’ll modify the previous code so that we can use an arbitrary feature extractor function that takes the words in a file and returns the feature dictionary. As before, we’ll use these features to train a Naive Bayes Classifier.
import collections import nltk.classify.util, nltk.metrics from nltk.classify import NaiveBayesClassifier from nltk.corpus import movie_reviews def evaluate_classifier(featx): negids = movie_reviews.fileids('neg') posids = movie_reviews.fileids('pos') negfeats = [(featx(movie_reviews.words(fileids=[f])), 'neg') for f in negids] posfeats = [(featx(movie_reviews.words(fileids=[f])), 'pos') for f in posids] negcutoff = len(negfeats)*3/4 poscutoff = len(posfeats)*3/4 trainfeats = negfeats[:negcutoff] + posfeats[:poscutoff] testfeats = negfeats[negcutoff:] + posfeats[poscutoff:] classifier = NaiveBayesClassifier.train(trainfeats) refsets = collections.defaultdict(set) testsets = collections.defaultdict(set) for i, (feats, label) in enumerate(testfeats): refsets[label].add(i) observed = classifier.classify(feats) testsets[observed].add(i) print 'accuracy:', nltk.classify.util.accuracy(classifier, testfeats) print 'pos precision:', nltk.metrics.precision(refsets['pos'], testsets['pos']) print 'pos recall:', nltk.metrics.recall(refsets['pos'], testsets['pos']) print 'neg precision:', nltk.metrics.precision(refsets['neg'], testsets['neg']) print 'neg recall:', nltk.metrics.recall(refsets['neg'], testsets['neg']) classifier.show_most_informative_features()
Baseline Bag of Words Feature Extraction
Here’s the baseline feature extractor for bag of words feature selection.
def word_feats(words): return dict([(word, True) for word in words]) evaluate_classifier(word_feats)
The results are the same as in the previous articles, but I’ve included them here for reference:
accuracy: 0.728 pos precision: 0.651595744681 pos recall: 0.98 neg precision: 0.959677419355 neg recall: 0.476 Most Informative Features magnificent = True pos : neg = 15.0 : 1.0 outstanding = True pos : neg = 13.6 : 1.0 insulting = True neg : pos = 13.0 : 1.0 vulnerable = True pos : neg = 12.3 : 1.0 ludicrous = True neg : pos = 11.8 : 1.0 avoids = True pos : neg = 11.7 : 1.0 uninvolving = True neg : pos = 11.7 : 1.0 astounding = True pos : neg = 10.3 : 1.0 fascination = True pos : neg = 10.3 : 1.0 idiotic = True neg : pos = 9.8 : 1.0
Stopwords are words that are generally considered useless. Most search engines ignore these words because they are so common that including them would greatly increase the size of the index without improving precision or recall. NLTK comes with a stopwords corpus that includes a list of 128 english stopwords. Let’s see what happens when we filter out these words.
from nltk.corpus import stopwords stopset = set(stopwords.words('english')) def stopword_filtered_word_feats(words): return dict([(word, True) for word in words if word not in stopset]) evaluate_classifier(stopword_filtered_word_feats)
And the results for a stopword filtered bag of words are:
accuracy: 0.726 pos precision: 0.649867374005 pos recall: 0.98 neg precision: 0.959349593496 neg recall: 0.472
Accuracy went down .2%, and pos precision and neg recall dropped as well! Apparently stopwords add information to sentiment analysis classification. I did not include the most informative features since they did not change.
As mentioned at the end of the article on precision and recall, it’s possible that including bigrams will improve classification accuracy. The hypothesis is that people say things like “not great”, which is a negative expression that the bag of words model could interpret as positive since it sees “great” as a separate word.
To find significant bigrams, we can use nltk.collocations.BigramCollocationFinder along with nltk.metrics.BigramAssocMeasures. The BigramCollocationFinder maintains 2 internal FreqDists, one for individual word frequencies, another for bigram frequencies. Once it has these frequency distributions, it can score individual bigrams using a scoring function provided by BigramAssocMeasures, such chi-square. These scoring functions measure the collocation correlation of 2 words, basically whether the bigram occurs about as frequently as each individual word.
import itertools from nltk.collocations import BigramCollocationFinder from nltk.metrics import BigramAssocMeasures def bigram_word_feats(words, score_fn=BigramAssocMeasures.chi_sq, n=200): bigram_finder = BigramCollocationFinder.from_words(words) bigrams = bigram_finder.nbest(score_fn, n) return dict([(ngram, True) for ngram in itertools.chain(words, bigrams)]) evaluate_classifier(bigram_word_feats)
After some experimentation, I found that using the 200 best bigrams from each file produced great results:
accuracy: 0.816 pos precision: 0.753205128205 pos recall: 0.94 neg precision: 0.920212765957 neg recall: 0.692 Most Informative Features magnificent = True pos : neg = 15.0 : 1.0 outstanding = True pos : neg = 13.6 : 1.0 insulting = True neg : pos = 13.0 : 1.0 vulnerable = True pos : neg = 12.3 : 1.0 ('matt', 'damon') = True pos : neg = 12.3 : 1.0 ('give', 'us') = True neg : pos = 12.3 : 1.0 ludicrous = True neg : pos = 11.8 : 1.0 uninvolving = True neg : pos = 11.7 : 1.0 avoids = True pos : neg = 11.7 : 1.0 ('absolutely', 'no') = True neg : pos = 10.6 : 1.0
Yes, you read that right, Matt Damon is apparently one of the best predictors for positive sentiment in movie reviews. But despite this chuckle-worthy result
- accuracy is up almost 9%
posprecision has increased over 10% with only 4% drop in recall
negrecall has increased over 21% with just under 4% drop in precision
So it appears that the bigram hypothesis is correct, and including significant bigrams can increase classifier effectiveness. Note that it’s significant bigrams that enhance effectiveness. I tried using nltk.util.bigrams to include all bigrams, and the results were only a few points above baseline. This points to the idea that including only significant features can improve accuracy compared to using all features. In a future article, I’ll try trimming down the single word features to only include significant words.