简体   繁体   English

如何从R中的ngram标记列表中有效地删除停用词

[英]How to remove stopwords efficiently from a list of ngram tokens in R

Here's an appeal for a better way to do something that I can already do inefficiently: filter a series of n-gram tokens using "stop words" so that the occurrence of any stop word term in an n-gram triggers removal. 这是一个更好的方法来做一些我已经无法做到的事情的吸引力: 使用“停用词”过滤一系列n-gram标记,以便n-gram中任何停用词术语的出现触发删除。

I'd very much like to have one solution that works for both unigrams and n-grams, although it would be ok to have two versions, one with a "fixed" flag and one with a "regex" flag. 我非常希望有一个解决方案适用于unigrams和n-gram,虽然可以有两个版本,一个带有“固定”标志,另一个带有“正则表达式”标志。 I'm putting the two aspects of the question together since someone may have a solution that tries a different approach that addresses both fixed and regular expression stopword patterns. 我将这个问题的两个方面放在一起,因为有人可能有一个解决方案尝试一种解决固定和正则表达式停用词模式的不同方法。

Formats: 格式:

  • tokens are a list of character vectors, which may be unigrams, or n-grams concatenated by a _ (underscore) character. 标记是一个字符向量列表,可以是unigrams,也可以是由_ (下划线)字符连接的n-gram。

  • stopwords are a character vector. 停用词是一个字符向量。 Right now I am content to let this be a fixed string, but it would be a nice bonus to be able to implement this using regular expression formatted stopwords too. 现在我满足于让它成为一个固定的字符串,但是能够使用正则表达式格式化的停用词实现它将是一个很好的奖励。

Desired Output: A list of characters matching the input tokens but with any component token matching a stop word being removed. 期望输出:与输入标记匹配但与任何组件标记匹配的字符列表被删除。 (This means a unigram match, or a match to one of the terms which the n-gram comprises.) (这意味着unigram匹配,或与n-gram包含的术语之一匹配。)

Examples, test data, and working code and benchmarks to build on: 构建的示例,测试数据以及工作代码和基准:

tokens1 <- list(text1 = c("this", "is", "a", "test", "text", "with", "a", "few", "words"), 
                text2 = c("some", "more", "words", "in", "this", "test", "text"))
tokens2 <- list(text1 = c("this_is", "is_a", "a_test", "test_text", "text_with", "with_a", "a_few", "few_words"), 
                text2 = c("some_more", "more_words", "words_in", "in_this", "this_text", "text_text"))
tokens3 <- list(text1 = c("this_is_a", "is_a_test", "a_test_text", "test_text_with", "text_with_a", "with_a_few", "a_few_words"),
                text2 = c("some_more_words", "more_words_in", "words_in_this", "in_this_text", "this_text_text"))
stopwords <- c("is", "a", "in", "this")

# remove any single token that matches a stopword
removeTokensOP1 <- function(w, stopwords) {
    lapply(w, function(x) x[-which(x %in% stopwords)])
}

# remove any word pair where a single word contains a stopword
removeTokensOP2 <- function(w, stopwords) {
    matchPattern <- paste0("(^|_)", paste(stopwords, collapse = "(_|$)|(^|_)"), "(_|$)")
    lapply(w, function(x) x[-grep(matchPattern, x)])
}

removeTokensOP1(tokens1, stopwords)
## $text1
## [1] "test"  "text"  "with"  "few"   "words"
## 
## $text2
## [1] "some"  "more"  "words" "test"  "text" 

removeTokensOP2(tokens1, stopwords)
## $text1
## [1] "test"  "text"  "with"  "few"   "words"
## 
## $text2
## [1] "some"  "more"  "words" "test"  "text" 

removeTokensOP2(tokens2, stopwords)
## $text1
## [1] "test_text" "text_with" "few_words"
## 
## $text2
## [1] "some_more"  "more_words" "text_text" 

removeTokensOP2(tokens3, stopwords)
## $text1
## [1] "test_text_with"
## 
## $text2
## [1] "some_more_words"

# performance benchmarks for answers to build on
require(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(OP1_1 = removeTokensOP1(tokens1, stopwords),
               OP2_1 = removeTokensOP2(tokens1, stopwords),
               OP2_2 = removeTokensOP2(tokens2, stopwords),
               OP2_3 = removeTokensOP2(tokens3, stopwords),
               unit = "relative")
## Unit: relative
## expr      min       lq     mean   median       uq      max neval
## OP1_1 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000   100
## OP2_1 5.119066 3.812845 3.438076 3.714492 3.547187 2.838351   100
## OP2_2 5.230429 3.903135 3.509935 3.790143 3.631305 2.510629   100
## OP2_3 5.204924 3.884746 3.578178 3.753979 3.553729 8.240244   100

This isn't really an answer - more of a comment to reply to rawr's comment of going through all combinations of stopwords. 这不是一个真正的答案 - 更多的评论来回答rawr关于经历所有停用词组合的评论。 With a longer stopwords list, using something like %in% doesn't seem to suffer that dimensionality issue. 使用更长的stopwords列表,使用%in%似乎不会受到维度问题的影响。

library(purrr)
removetokenstst <- function(tokens, stopwords) 
  map2(tokens, 
       lapply(tokens3, function(x) { 
         unlist(lapply(strsplit(x, "_"), function(y) { 
           any(y %in% stopwords) 
         })) 
       }), 
       ~ .x[!.y])

require(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(OP1_1 = removeTokensOP1(tokens1, morestopwords),
           OP2_1 = removeTokensOP2(tokens1, morestopwords),
           OP2_2 = removeTokensOP2(tokens2, morestopwords),
           OP2_3 = removeTokensOP2(tokens3, morestopwords),
           Ak_3 = removetokenstst(tokens3, stopwords),
           Ak_3msw = removetokenstst(tokens3, morestopwords),
           unit = "relative")

Unit: relative
    expr       min        lq       mean    median        uq      max neval
   OP1_1   1.00000   1.00000   1.000000  1.000000  1.000000  1.00000   100
   OP2_1 278.48260 176.22273  96.462854 79.787932 76.904987 38.31767   100
   OP2_2 280.90242 181.22013  98.545148 81.407928 77.637006 64.94842   100
   OP2_3 279.43728 183.11366 114.879904 81.404236 82.614739 72.04741   100
    Ak_3  15.74301  14.83731   9.340444  7.902213  8.164234 11.27133   100
 Ak_3msw  18.57697  14.45574  12.936594  8.513725  8.997922 24.03969   100

Stopwords 停用词

morestopwords = c("a", "about", "above", "after", "again", "against", "all", 
"am", "an", "and", "any", "are", "arent", "as", "at", "be", "because", 
"been", "before", "being", "below", "between", "both", "but", 
"by", "cant", "cannot", "could", "couldnt", "did", "didnt", "do", 
"does", "doesnt", "doing", "dont", "down", "during", "each", 
"few", "for", "from", "further", "had", "hadnt", "has", "hasnt", 
"have", "havent", "having", "he", "hed", "hell", "hes", "her", 
"here", "heres", "hers", "herself", "him", "himself", "his", 
"how", "hows", "i", "id", "ill", "im", "ive", "if", "in", "into", 
"is", "isnt", "it", "its", "its", "itself", "lets", "me", "more", 
"most", "mustnt", "my", "myself", "no", "nor", "not", "of", "off", 
"on", "once", "only", "or", "other", "ought", "our", "ours", 
"ourselves", "out", "over", "own", "same", "shant", "she", "shed", 
"shell", "shes", "should", "shouldnt", "so", "some", "such", 
"than", "that", "thats", "the", "their", "theirs", "them", "themselves", 
"then", "there", "theres", "these", "they", "theyd", "theyll", 
"theyre", "theyve", "this", "those", "through", "to", "too", 
"under", "until", "up", "very", "was", "wasnt", "we", "wed", 
"well", "were", "weve", "were", "werent", "what", "whats", "when", 
"whens", "where", "wheres", "which", "while", "who", "whos", 
"whom", "why", "whys", "with", "wont", "would", "wouldnt", "you", 
"youd", "youll", "youre", "youve", "your", "yours", "yourself", 
"yourselves", "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "g", "h", "i", "j", 
"k", "l", "m", "n", "o", "p", "q", "r", "s", "t", "u", "v", "w", 
"x", "y", "z")

We can improve on the lapply if you have many levels in your list using the parallel package. 如果您使用parallel包在列表中有许多级别,我们可以改善lapply

Create many levels 创建许多级别

tokens2 <- list(text1 = c("this_is", "is_a", "a_test", "test_text", "text_with", "with_a", "a_few", "few_words"), 
                text2 = c("some_more", "more_words", "words_in", "in_this", "this_text", "text_text"))
tokens2 <- lapply(1:500,function(x) sample(tokens2,1)[[1]])

We do this because the parallel package has a lot of overhead to set up, so just increasing the number of iterations on microbenchmark will continue to incur that cost. 我们这样做是因为并行包有很多设置开销,所以只增加microbenchmark上的迭代次数将继续产生这种成本。 By increasing the size of the list, you see the true improvement. 通过增加列表的大小,您可以看到真正的改进。

library(parallel)
#Setup
cl <- detectCores()
cl <- makeCluster(cl)

#Two functions:

#original
removeTokensOP2 <- function(w, stopwords) { 
  matchPattern <- paste0("(^|_)", paste(stopwords, collapse = "(_|$)|(^|_)"), "(_|$)")
  lapply(w, function(x) x[-grep(matchPattern, x)])
}

#new
removeTokensOPP <- function(w, stopwords) {
  matchPattern <- paste0("(^|_)", paste(stopwords, collapse = "(_|$)|(^|_)"), "(_|$)")
  return(w[-grep(matchPattern, w)])
}

#compare

microbenchmark(
  OP2_P = parLapply(cl,tokens2,removeTokensOPP,stopwords),
  OP2_2 = removeTokensOP2(tokens2, stopwords),
  unit = 'relative'
)

Unit: relative
  expr      min       lq     mean   median       uq      max neval
 OP2_P 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000  1.00000   100
 OP2_2 1.730565 1.653872 1.678781 1.562258 1.471347 10.11306   100

As the number of levels in your list increases, the performance will improve. 随着列表中级别数的增加,性能将得到改善。

You migth consider simlifying your regular expressions, ^ and $ are adding to the overhead 你认为你想要简化你的正则表达式,^和$正在增加开销

remove_short <- function(x, stopwords) {
  stopwords_regexp <- paste0('(^|_)(', paste(stopwords, collapse = '|'), ')(_|$)')
  lapply(x, function(x) x[!grepl(stopwords_regexp, x)])
}
require(microbenchmark)
microbenchmark(OP1_1 = removeTokensOP1(tokens1, stopwords),
               OP2_1 = removeTokensOP2(tokens2, stopwords),
               OP2_2 = remove_short(tokens2, stopwords),
               unit = "relative")
Unit: relative
  expr      min       lq     mean   median       uq      max neval cld
 OP1_1 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000   100 a  
 OP2_1 5.178565 4.768749 4.465138 4.441130 4.262399 4.266905   100   c
 OP2_2 3.452386 3.247279 3.063660 3.068571 2.963794 2.948189   100  b 

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM