mirror of
https://github.com/explosion/spaCy.git
synced 2024-11-11 12:18:04 +03:00
334 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
334 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. spaCy documentation master file, created by
|
||
sphinx-quickstart on Tue Aug 19 16:27:38 2014.
|
||
You can adapt this file completely to your liking, but it should at least
|
||
contain the root `toctree` directive.
|
||
|
||
==============================
|
||
spaCy: Industrial-strength NLP
|
||
==============================
|
||
|
||
|
||
.. _Issue Tracker: https://github.com/honnibal/spaCy/issues
|
||
|
||
**12/05**: *Version 0.84 released. Includes bug fixes to parsing and NER. Be
|
||
sure to download the most recent data, with "python -m spacy.en.download all".*
|
||
|
||
`spaCy`_ is a new library for text processing in Python and Cython.
|
||
I wrote it because I think small companies are terrible at
|
||
natural language processing (NLP). Or rather:
|
||
small companies are using terrible NLP technology.
|
||
|
||
.. _spaCy: https://github.com/honnibal/spaCy/
|
||
|
||
To do great NLP, you have to know a little about linguistics, a lot
|
||
about machine learning, and almost everything about the latest research.
|
||
The people who fit this description seldom join small companies.
|
||
Most are broke --- they've just finished grad school.
|
||
If they don't want to stay in academia, they join Google, IBM, etc.
|
||
|
||
The net result is that outside of the tech giants, commercial NLP has changed
|
||
little in the last ten years. In academia, it's changed entirely. Amazing
|
||
improvements in quality. Orders of magnitude faster. But the
|
||
academic code is always GPL, undocumented, unuseable, or all three. You could
|
||
implement the ideas yourself, but the papers are hard to read, and training
|
||
data is exorbitantly expensive. So what are you left with? A common answer is
|
||
NLTK, which was written primarily as an educational resource. Nothing past the
|
||
tokenizer is suitable for production use.
|
||
|
||
I used to think that the NLP community just needed to do more to communicate
|
||
its findings to software engineers. So I wrote two blog posts, explaining
|
||
`how to write a part-of-speech tagger`_ and `parser`_. Both were well received,
|
||
and there's been a bit of interest in `my research software`_ --- even though
|
||
it's entirely undocumented, and mostly unuseable to anyone but me.
|
||
|
||
.. _`my research software`: https://github.com/syllog1sm/redshift/tree/develop
|
||
|
||
.. _`how to write a part-of-speech tagger`: https://honnibal.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/a-good-part-of-speechpos-tagger-in-about-200-lines-of-python/
|
||
|
||
.. _`parser`: https://honnibal.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/a-simple-fast-algorithm-for-natural-language-dependency-parsing/
|
||
|
||
So six months ago I quit my post-doc, and I've been working day and night on
|
||
spaCy since. I'm now pleased to announce an alpha release.
|
||
|
||
If you're a small company doing NLP, I think spaCy will seem like a minor miracle.
|
||
It's by far the fastest NLP software ever released.
|
||
The full processing pipeline completes in 7ms per document, including accurate
|
||
tagging and parsing. All strings are mapped to integer IDs, tokens are linked
|
||
to embedded word representations, and a range of useful features are pre-calculated
|
||
and cached.
|
||
|
||
If none of that made any sense to you, here's the gist of it. Computers don't
|
||
understand text. This is unfortunate, because that's what the web almost entirely
|
||
consists of. We want to recommend people text based on other text they liked.
|
||
We want to shorten text to display it on a mobile screen. We want to aggregate
|
||
it, link it, filter it, categorise it, generate it and correct it.
|
||
|
||
spaCy provides a library of utility functions that help programmers build such
|
||
products. It's commercial open source software: you can either use it under
|
||
the AGPL, or you can `buy a commercial license`_ for a one-time fee.
|
||
|
||
.. _buy a commercial license: license.html
|
||
|
||
Example functionality
|
||
---------------------
|
||
|
||
Let's say you're developing a proofreading tool, or possibly an IDE for
|
||
writers. You're convinced by Stephen King's advice that `adverbs are not your
|
||
friend <http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/13/stephen-king-on-adverbs/>`_, so
|
||
you want to **highlight all adverbs**. We'll use one of the examples he finds
|
||
particularly egregious:
|
||
|
||
>>> import spacy.en
|
||
>>> from spacy.parts_of_speech import ADV
|
||
>>> # Load the pipeline, and call it with some text.
|
||
>>> nlp = spacy.en.English()
|
||
>>> tokens = nlp(u"‘Give it back,’ he pleaded abjectly, ‘it’s mine.’", tag=True, parse=False)
|
||
>>> print u''.join(tok.string.upper() if tok.pos == ADV else tok.string for tok in tokens)
|
||
u‘Give it BACK,’ he pleaded ABJECTLY, ‘it’s mine.’
|
||
|
||
|
||
Easy enough --- but the problem is that we've also highlighted "back".
|
||
While "back" is undoubtedly an adverb, we probably don't want to highlight it.
|
||
If what we're trying to do is flag dubious stylistic choices, we'll need to
|
||
refine our logic. It turns out only a certain type of adverb is of interest to
|
||
us.
|
||
|
||
There are lots of ways we might do this, depending on just what words
|
||
we want to flag. The simplest way to exclude adverbs like "back" and "not"
|
||
is by word frequency: these words are much more common than the prototypical
|
||
manner adverbs that the style guides are worried about.
|
||
|
||
The :py:attr:`Lexeme.prob` and :py:attr:`Token.prob` attribute gives a
|
||
log probability estimate of the word:
|
||
|
||
>>> nlp.vocab[u'back'].prob
|
||
-7.403977394104004
|
||
>>> nlp.vocab[u'not'].prob
|
||
-5.407193660736084
|
||
>>> nlp.vocab[u'quietly'].prob
|
||
-11.07155704498291
|
||
|
||
(The probability estimate is based on counts from a 3 billion word corpus,
|
||
smoothed using the `Simple Good-Turing`_ method.)
|
||
|
||
.. _`Simple Good-Turing`: http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse/Courses/CS8761-FALL02/Code/sgt-gale.pdf
|
||
|
||
So we can easily exclude the N most frequent words in English from our adverb
|
||
marker. Let's try N=1000 for now:
|
||
|
||
>>> import spacy.en
|
||
>>> from spacy.parts_of_speech import ADV
|
||
>>> nlp = spacy.en.English()
|
||
>>> # Find log probability of Nth most frequent word
|
||
>>> probs = [lex.prob for lex in nlp.vocab]
|
||
>>> probs.sort()
|
||
>>> is_adverb = lambda tok: tok.pos == ADV and tok.prob < probs[-1000]
|
||
>>> tokens = nlp(u"‘Give it back,’ he pleaded abjectly, ‘it’s mine.’")
|
||
>>> print u''.join(tok.string.upper() if is_adverb(tok) else tok.string for tok in tokens)
|
||
‘Give it back,’ he pleaded ABJECTLY, ‘it’s mine.’
|
||
|
||
There are lots of other ways we could refine the logic, depending on just what
|
||
words we want to flag. Let's say we wanted to only flag adverbs that modified words
|
||
similar to "pleaded". This is easy to do, as spaCy loads a vector-space
|
||
representation for every word (by default, the vectors produced by
|
||
`Levy and Goldberg (2014)`_). Naturally, the vector is provided as a numpy
|
||
array:
|
||
|
||
>>> pleaded = tokens[7]
|
||
>>> pleaded.repvec.shape
|
||
(300,)
|
||
>>> pleaded.repvec[:5]
|
||
array([ 0.04229792, 0.07459262, 0.00820188, -0.02181299, 0.07519238], dtype=float32)
|
||
|
||
.. _Levy and Goldberg (2014): https://levyomer.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/dependency-based-word-embeddings/
|
||
|
||
We want to sort the words in our vocabulary by their similarity to "pleaded".
|
||
There are lots of ways to measure the similarity of two vectors. We'll use the
|
||
cosine metric:
|
||
|
||
>>> from numpy import dot
|
||
>>> from numpy.linalg import norm
|
||
|
||
>>> cosine = lambda v1, v2: dot(v1, v2) / (norm(v1) * norm(v2))
|
||
>>> words = [w for w in nlp.vocab if w.has_repvec]
|
||
>>> words.sort(key=lambda w: cosine(w.repvec, pleaded.repvec))
|
||
>>> words.reverse()
|
||
>>> print('1-20', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[0:20]))
|
||
1-20 pleaded, pled, plead, confessed, interceded, pleads, testified, conspired, motioned, demurred, countersued, remonstrated, begged, apologised, consented, acquiesced, petitioned, quarreled, appealed, pleading
|
||
>>> print('50-60', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[50:60]))
|
||
50-60 counselled, bragged, backtracked, caucused, refiled, dueled, mused, dissented, yearned, confesses
|
||
>>> print('100-110', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[100:110]))
|
||
100-110 cabled, ducked, sentenced, perjured, absconded, bargained, overstayed, clerked, confided, sympathizes
|
||
>>> print('1000-1010', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[1000:1010]))
|
||
1000-1010 scorned, baled, righted, requested, swindled, posited, firebombed, slimed, deferred, sagged
|
||
>>> print('50000-50010', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[50000:50010]))
|
||
50000-50010, fb, ford, systems, puck, anglers, ik, tabloid, dirty, rims, artists
|
||
|
||
As you can see, the similarity model that these vectors give us is excellent
|
||
--- we're still getting meaningful results at 1000 words, off a single
|
||
prototype! The only problem is that the list really contains two clusters of
|
||
words: one associated with the legal meaning of "pleaded", and one for the more
|
||
general sense. Sorting out these clusters is an area of active research.
|
||
|
||
|
||
A simple work-around is to average the vectors of several words, and use that
|
||
as our target:
|
||
|
||
>>> say_verbs = ['pleaded', 'confessed', 'remonstrated', 'begged', 'bragged', 'confided', 'requested']
|
||
>>> say_vector = sum(nlp.vocab[verb].repvec for verb in say_verbs) / len(say_verbs)
|
||
>>> words.sort(key=lambda w: cosine(w.repvec * say_vector))
|
||
>>> words.reverse()
|
||
>>> print('1-20', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[0:20]))
|
||
1-20 bragged, remonstrated, enquired, demurred, sighed, mused, intimated, retorted, entreated, motioned, ranted, confided, countersued, gestured, implored, interceded, muttered, marvelled, bickered, despaired
|
||
>>> print('50-60', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[50:60]))
|
||
50-60 flaunted, quarrelled, ingratiated, vouched, agonized, apologised, lunched, joked, chafed, schemed
|
||
>>> print('1000-1010', ', '.join(w.orth_ for w in words[1000:1010]))
|
||
1000-1010 hoarded, waded, ensnared, clamoring, abided, deploring, shriveled, endeared, rethought, berate
|
||
|
||
These definitely look like words that King might scold a writer for attaching
|
||
adverbs to. Recall that our original adverb highlighting function looked like
|
||
this:
|
||
|
||
>>> import spacy.en
|
||
>>> from spacy.parts_of_speech import ADV
|
||
>>> # Load the pipeline, and call it with some text.
|
||
>>> nlp = spacy.en.English()
|
||
>>> tokens = nlp("‘Give it back,’ he pleaded abjectly, ‘it’s mine.’",
|
||
tag=True, parse=False)
|
||
>>> print(''.join(tok.string.upper() if tok.pos == ADV else tok.string for tok in tokens))
|
||
‘Give it BACK,’ he pleaded ABJECTLY, ‘it’s mine.’
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
We wanted to refine the logic so that only adverbs modifying evocative verbs
|
||
of communication, like "pleaded", were highlighted. We've now built a vector that
|
||
represents that type of word, so now we can highlight adverbs based on
|
||
subtle logic, honing in on adverbs that seem the most stylistically
|
||
problematic, given our starting assumptions:
|
||
|
||
>>> import numpy
|
||
>>> from numpy import dot
|
||
>>> from numpy.linalg import norm
|
||
>>> import spacy.en
|
||
>>> from spacy.parts_of_speech import ADV, VERB
|
||
>>> cosine = lambda v1, v2: dot(v1, v2) / (norm(v1) * norm(v2))
|
||
>>> def is_bad_adverb(token, target_verb, tol):
|
||
... if token.pos != ADV
|
||
... return False
|
||
... elif token.head.pos != VERB:
|
||
... return False
|
||
... elif cosine(token.head.repvec, target_verb) < tol:
|
||
... return False
|
||
... else:
|
||
... return True
|
||
|
||
|
||
This example was somewhat contrived --- and, truth be told, I've never really
|
||
bought the idea that adverbs were a grave stylistic sin. But hopefully it got
|
||
the message across: the state-of-the-art NLP technologies are very powerful.
|
||
spaCy gives you easy and efficient access to them, which lets you build all
|
||
sorts of use products and features that were previously impossible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Speed Comparison
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
**Set up**: 100,000 plain-text documents were streamed from an SQLite3
|
||
database, and processed with an NLP library, to one of three levels of detail
|
||
--- tokenization, tagging, or parsing. The tasks are additive: to parse the
|
||
text you have to tokenize and tag it. The pre-processing was not subtracted
|
||
from the times --- I report the time required for the pipeline to complete.
|
||
I report mean times per document, in milliseconds.
|
||
|
||
**Hardware**: Intel i7-3770 (2012)
|
||
|
||
.. table:: Efficiency comparison. Lower is better.
|
||
|
||
+--------------+---------------------------+--------------------------------+
|
||
| | Absolute (ms per doc) | Relative (to spaCy) |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
| System | Tokenize | Tag | Parse | Tokenize | Tag | Parse |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
| spaCy | 0.2ms | 1ms | 7ms | 1x | 1x | 1x |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
| CoreNLP | 2ms | 10ms | 49ms | 10x | 10x | 7x |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
| ZPar | 1ms | 8ms | 850ms | 5x | 8x | 121x |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
| NLTK | 4ms | 443ms | n/a | 20x | 443x | n/a |
|
||
+--------------+----------+--------+-------+----------+---------+-----------+
|
||
|
||
|
||
Efficiency is a major concern for NLP applications. It is very common to hear
|
||
people say that they cannot afford more detailed processing, because their
|
||
datasets are too large. This is a bad position to be in. If you can't apply
|
||
detailed processing, you generally have to cobble together various heuristics.
|
||
This normally takes a few iterations, and what you come up with will usually be
|
||
brittle and difficult to reason about.
|
||
|
||
spaCy's parser is faster than most taggers, and its tokenizer is fast enough
|
||
for any workload. And the tokenizer doesn't just give you a list
|
||
of strings. A spaCy token is a pointer to a Lexeme struct, from which you can
|
||
access a wide range of pre-computed features, including embedded word
|
||
representations.
|
||
|
||
.. I wrote spaCy because I think existing commercial NLP engines are crap.
|
||
Alchemy API are a typical example. Check out this part of their terms of
|
||
service:
|
||
publish or perform any benchmark or performance tests or analysis relating to
|
||
the Service or the use thereof without express authorization from AlchemyAPI;
|
||
|
||
.. Did you get that? You're not allowed to evaluate how well their system works,
|
||
unless you're granted a special exception. Their system must be pretty
|
||
terrible to motivate such an embarrassing restriction.
|
||
They must know this makes them look bad, but they apparently believe allowing
|
||
you to evaluate their product would make them look even worse!
|
||
|
||
.. spaCy is based on science, not alchemy. It's open source, and I am happy to
|
||
clarify any detail of the algorithms I've implemented.
|
||
It's evaluated against the current best published systems, following the standard
|
||
methodologies. These evaluations show that it performs extremely well.
|
||
|
||
Accuracy Comparison
|
||
-------------------
|
||
|
||
.. table:: Accuracy comparison, on the standard benchmark data from the Wall Street Journal.
|
||
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| System | POS acc. | Parse acc. |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| spaCy | 97.2 | 92.4 |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| CoreNLP | 96.9 | 92.2 |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| ZPar | 97.3 | 92.9 |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| Redshift | 97.3 | 93.5 |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
| NLTK | 94.3 | n/a |
|
||
+--------------+----------+------------+
|
||
|
||
.. See `Benchmarks`_ for details.
|
||
|
||
The table above compares spaCy to some of the current state-of-the-art systems,
|
||
on the standard evaluation from the Wall Street Journal, given gold-standard
|
||
sentence boundaries and tokenization. I'm in the process of completing a more
|
||
realistic evaluation on web text.
|
||
|
||
|
||
spaCy's parser offers a better speed/accuracy trade-off than any published
|
||
system: its accuracy is within 1% of the current state-of-the-art, and it's
|
||
seven times faster than the 2014 CoreNLP neural network parser, which is the
|
||
previous fastest parser that I'm aware of.
|
||
|
||
|
||
.. toctree::
|
||
:maxdepth: 3
|
||
|
||
index.rst
|
||
quickstart.rst
|
||
api.rst
|
||
howworks.rst
|
||
license.rst
|
||
updates.rst
|