Tag Archives: performance

Text Classification for Sentiment Analysis – Precision and Recall

Accuracy is not the only metric for evaluating the effectiveness of a classifier. Two other useful metrics are precision and recall. These two metrics can provide much greater insight into the performance characteristics of a binary classifier.

Classifier Precision

Precision measures the exactness of a classifier. A higher precision means less false positives, while a lower precision means more false positives. This is often at odds with recall, as an easy way to improve precision is to decrease recall.

Classifier Recall

Recall measures the completeness, or sensitivity, of a classifier. Higher recall means less false negatives, while lower recall means more false negatives. Improving recall can often decrease precision because it gets increasingly harder to be precise as the sample space increases.

F-measure Metric

Precision and recall can be combined to produce a single metric known as F-measure, which is the weighted harmonic mean of precision and recall. I find F-measure to be about as useful as accuracy. Or in other words, compared to precision & recall, F-measure is mostly useless, as you’ll see below.

Measuring Precision and Recall of a Naive Bayes Classifier

The NLTK metrics module provides functions for calculating all three metrics mentioned above. But to do so, you need to build 2 sets for each classification label: a reference set of correct values, and a test set of observed values. Below is a modified version of the code from the previous article, where we trained a Naive Bayes Classifier. This time, instead of measuring accuracy, we’ll collect reference values and observed values for each label (pos or neg), then use those sets to calculate the precision, recall, and F-measure of the naive bayes classifier. The actual values collected are simply the index of each featureset using enumerate.

import collections
import nltk.metrics
from nltk.classify import NaiveBayesClassifier
from nltk.corpus import movie_reviews

def word_feats(words):
	return dict([(word, True) for word in words])

negids = movie_reviews.fileids('neg')
posids = movie_reviews.fileids('pos')

negfeats = [(word_feats(movie_reviews.words(fileids=[f])), 'neg') for f in negids]
posfeats = [(word_feats(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:]
print 'train on %d instances, test on %d instances' % (len(trainfeats), len(testfeats))

classifier = NaiveBayesClassifier.train(trainfeats)
refsets = collections.defaultdict(set)
testsets = collections.defaultdict(set)

for i, (feats, label) in enumerate(testfeats):
	observed = classifier.classify(feats)

print 'pos precision:', nltk.metrics.precision(refsets['pos'], testsets['pos'])
print 'pos recall:', nltk.metrics.recall(refsets['pos'], testsets['pos'])
print 'pos F-measure:', nltk.metrics.f_measure(refsets['pos'], testsets['pos'])
print 'neg precision:', nltk.metrics.precision(refsets['neg'], testsets['neg'])
print 'neg recall:', nltk.metrics.recall(refsets['neg'], testsets['neg'])
print 'neg F-measure:', nltk.metrics.f_measure(refsets['neg'], testsets['neg'])

Precision and Recall for Positive and Negative Reviews

I found the results quite interesting:

pos precision: 0.651595744681
pos recall: 0.98
pos F-measure: 0.782747603834
neg precision: 0.959677419355
neg recall: 0.476
neg F-measure: 0.636363636364

So what does this mean?

  1. Nearly every file that is pos is correctly identified as such, with 98% recall. This means very few false negatives in the pos class.
  2. But, a file given a pos classification is only 65% likely to be correct. Not so good precision leads to 35% false positives for the pos label.
  3. Any file that is identified as neg is 96% likely to be correct (high precision). This means very few false positives for the neg class.
  4. But many files that are neg are incorrectly classified. Low recall causes 52% false negatives for the neg label.
  5. F-measure provides no useful information. There’s no insight to be gained from having it, and we wouldn’t lose any knowledge if it was taken away.

Improving Results with Better Feature Selection

One possible explanation for the above results is that people use normally positives words in negative reviews, but the word is preceded by “not” (or some other negative word), such as “not great”. And since the classifier uses the bag of words model, which assumes every word is independent, it cannot learn that “not great” is a negative. If this is the case, then these metrics should improve if we also train on multiple words, a topic I’ll explore in a future article.

Another possibility is the abundance of naturally neutral words, the kind of words that are devoid of sentiment. But the classifier treats all words the same, and has to assign each word to either pos or neg. So maybe otherwise neutral or meaningless words are being placed in the pos class because the classifier doesn’t know what else to do. If this is the case, then the metrics should improve if we eliminate the neutral or meaningless words from the featuresets, and only classify using sentiment rich words. This is usually done using the concept of information gain, aka mutual information, to improve feature selection, which I’ll also explore in a future article.

If you have your own theories to explain the results, or ideas on how to improve precision and recall, please share in the comments.

Mnesia Records to MongoDB Documents

I recently migrated about 50k records from mnesia to MongoDB using my fork of emongo, which adds supervisors with transparent connection restarting, for reasons I’ll explain below.

Why Mongo instead of Mnesia

mnesia is great for a number of reasons, but here’s why I decided to move weotta’s place data into MongoDB:

Converting Records to Docs and vice versa

First, I needed to convert records to documents. In erlang, mongo documents are basically proplists. Keys going into emongo can be atoms, strings, or binaries, but keys coming out will always by binaries. Here’s a simple example of record to document conversion:

record_to_doc(Record, Attrs) ->
    % tl will drop record name
    lists:zip(Attrs, tl(tuple_to_list(Record))).

This would be called like record_to_doc(MyRecord, record_info(fields, my_record)). If you have nested dicts then you’ll have to flatten them using dict:to_list. Also note that list values are coming out of emongo are treated like yaws JSON arrays, i.e. [{key, {array, [val]}}]. For more examples, check out the emongo docs.

Heavy Write Load

To do the migration, I used etable:foreach to insert each document. Bulk insertion would probably be more efficient, but etable makes single record iteration very easy.

I started using the original emongo with a pool size of 10, but it was crashy when I dumped records as fast as possible. So initially I slowed it down with timer:sleep(200), but after adding supervised connections, I was able to dump with no delay. I’m not exactly sure what I fixed in this case, but I think the lesson is that using supervised gen_servers will give you reliability with little effort.

Read Performance

Now that I had data in mongo to play with, I compared the read performance to mnesia. Using timer:tc, I found that mnesia:dirty_read takes about 21 microseconds, whereas emongo:find_one can take anywhere from 600 to 1200 microseconds, querying on an indexed field. Without an index, read performance ranged from 900 to 2000 microseconds. I also tested only requesting specific fields, as recommended on the MongoDB Optimiziation page, but with small documents (<10 fields) that did not seem to have any effect. So while mongodb queries are pretty fast at 1ms, mnesia is about 50 times faster. Further inspection with fprof showed that nearly half of the cpu time of emongo:find is taken by BSON decoding.

Heavy Read Load

Under heavy read load (thousands of find_one calls in less than second), emongo_conn would get into a locked state. Somehow the process had accumulated unparsable data and wouldn’t reply. This problem went away when I increased the size of the pool size to 100, but that’s a ridiculous number of connections to keep open permanently. So instead I added some code to kill the connection on timeout and retry the find call. This was the main reason I added supervision. Now, every pool is locally registered as a simple_one_for_one supervisor that supervises every emongo_server connection. This pool is in turn supervised by emongo_sup, with dynamically added child specs. All this supervision allowed me to lower the pool size back to 10, and made it easy to kill and restart emongo_server connections as needed.

Why you may want to stick with Mnesia

Now that I have experience with both MongoDB and mnesia, here’s some reasons you may want to stick with mnesia:

Despite all that, I’m very happy with MongoDB. Installation and setup were a breeze, and schema-less data storage is very nice when you have variable fields and a high probability of adding and/or removing fields in the future. It’s simple, scalable, and as mentioned above, it’s very easy to access from many different languages. emongo isn’t perfect, but it’s open source and will hopefully benefit from more exposure.

Erlang Webserver & Database Links

Erlang databases:

Erlang web servers and frameworks:

jQuery and Usability Links

jQuery sliders:

jQuery tooltips:

Usability testing: