Mistake-Driven Learning in Text Categorization

Learning problems in the text processing domain often map the text to a space whose dimensions are the measured features of the text, e.g., its words. Three characteristic properties of this domain are (a) very high dimensionality, (b) both the learned concepts and the instances reside very sparsely in the feature space, and (c) a high variation in the number of active features in an instance. In this work we study three mistake-driven learning algorithms for a typical task of this nature -- text categorization. We argue that these algorithms -- which categorize documents by learning a linear separator in the feature space -- have a few properties that make them ideal for this domain. We then show that a quantum leap in performance is achieved when we further modify the algorithms to better address some of the specific characteristics of the domain. In particular, we demonstrate (1) how variation in document length can be tolerated by either normalizing feature weights or by using negative weights, (2) the positive effect of applying a threshold range in training, (3) alternatives in considering feature frequency, and (4) the benefits of discarding features while training. Overall, we present an algorithm, a variation of Littlestone's Winnow, which performs significantly better than any other algorithm tested on this task using a similar feature set.Comment: 9 pages, uses aclap.st

A Winnow-Based Approach to Context-Sensitive Spelling Correction

A large class of machine-learning problems in natural language require the characterization of linguistic context. Two characteristic properties of such problems are that their feature space is of very high dimensionality, and their target concepts refer to only a small subset of the features in the space. Under such conditions, multiplicative weight-update algorithms such as Winnow have been shown to have exceptionally good theoretical properties. We present an algorithm combining variants of Winnow and weighted-majority voting, and apply it to a problem in the aforementioned class: context-sensitive spelling correction. This is the task of fixing spelling errors that happen to result in valid words, such as substituting "to" for "too", "casual" for "causal", etc. We evaluate our algorithm, WinSpell, by comparing it against BaySpell, a statistics-based method representing the state of the art for this task. We find: (1) When run with a full (unpruned) set of features, WinSpell achieves accuracies significantly higher than BaySpell was able to achieve in either the pruned or unpruned condition; (2) When compared with other systems in the literature, WinSpell exhibits the highest performance; (3) The primary reason that WinSpell outperforms BaySpell is that WinSpell learns a better linear separator; (4) When run on a test set drawn from a different corpus than the training set was drawn from, WinSpell is better able than BaySpell to adapt, using a strategy we will present that combines supervised learning on the training set with unsupervised learning on the (noisy) test set.Comment: To appear in Machine Learning, Special Issue on Natural Language Learning, 1999. 25 page

The perceptron algorithm versus winnow: linear versus logarithmic mistake bounds when few input variables are relevant

AbstractWe give an adversary strategy that forces the Perceptron algorithm to make Ω(kN) mistakes in learning monotone disjunctions over N variables with at most k literals. In contrast, Littlestone's algorithm Winnow makes at most O(k log N) mistakes for the same problem. Both algorithms use thresholded linear functions as their hypotheses. However, Winnow does multiplicative updates to its weight vector instead of the additive updates of the Perceptron algorithm. In general, we call an algorithm additive if its weight vector is always a sum of a fixed initial weight vector and some linear combination of already seen instances. Thus, the Perceptron algorithm is an example of an additive algorithm. We show that an adversary can force any additive algorithm to make (N + k −1)2 mistakes in learning a monotone disjunction of at most k literals. Simple experiments show that for k ⪡ N, Winnow clearly outperforms the Perceptron algorithm also on nonadversarial random data