CS412 – Machine Learning Sentiment Analysis - Turkish Tweets

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Florida International University COP 4770 Introduction of Weka.
Advertisements

Ensemble Learning Reading: R. Schapire, A brief introduction to boosting.
For Wednesday Read chapter 19, sections 1-3 No homework.
CMPUT 466/551 Principal Source: CMU
Probabilistic Generative Models Rong Jin. Probabilistic Generative Model Classify instance x into one of K classes Class prior Density function for class.
A Survey on Text Categorization with Machine Learning Chikayama lab. Dai Saito.
Paper presentation for CSI5388 PENGCHENG XI Mar. 23, 2005
Semantic Analysis of Movie Reviews for Rating Prediction
Announcements  Project proposal is due on 03/11  Three seminars this Friday (EB 3105) Dealing with Indefinite Representations in Pattern Recognition.
Machine Learning IV Ensembles CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Machine Learning Outline Machine learning: Supervised learning Overfitting Ensembles of classifiers.
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Three kinds of learning
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
ML ALGORITHMS. Algorithm Types Classification (supervised) Given -> A set of classified examples “instances” Produce -> A way of classifying new examples.
CS Ensembles and Bayes1 Semi-Supervised Learning Can we improve the quality of our learning by combining labeled and unlabeled data Usually a lot.
Forecasting with Twitter data Presented by : Thusitha Chandrapala MARTA ARIAS, ARGIMIRO ARRATIA, and RAMON XURIGUERA.
Who would be a good loanee? Zheyun Feng 7/17/2015.
SPAM DETECTION USING MACHINE LEARNING Lydia Song, Lauren Steimle, Xiaoxiao Xu.
Machine Learning CS 165B Spring 2012
AdaBoost Robert E. Schapire (Princeton University) Yoav Freund (University of California at San Diego) Presented by Zhi-Hua Zhou (Nanjing University)
Comparing the Parallel Automatic Composition of Inductive Applications with Stacking Methods Hidenao Abe & Takahira Yamaguchi Shizuoka University, JAPAN.
Predicting Income from Census Data using Multiple Classifiers Presented By: Arghya Kusum Das Arnab Ganguly Manohar Karki Saikat Basu Subhajit Sidhanta.
ENSEMBLE LEARNING David Kauchak CS451 – Fall 2013.
Boosting Neural Networks Published by Holger Schwenk and Yoshua Benggio Neural Computation, 12(8): , Presented by Yong Li.
CS 391L: Machine Learning: Ensembles
Boosting of classifiers Ata Kaban. Motivation & beginnings Suppose we have a learning algorithm that is guaranteed with high probability to be slightly.
CS Fall 2015 (© Jude Shavlik), Lecture 7, Week 3
BOOSTING David Kauchak CS451 – Fall Admin Final project.
ICS 178 Introduction Machine Learning & data Mining Instructor max Welling Lecture 6: Logistic Regression.
Scaling up Decision Trees. Decision tree learning.
Combining multiple learners Usman Roshan. Bagging Randomly sample training data Determine classifier C i on sampled data Goto step 1 and repeat m times.
Today Ensemble Methods. Recap of the course. Classifier Fusion
Ensemble Learning Spring 2009 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
An Ensemble of Three Classifiers for KDD Cup 2009: Expanded Linear Model, Heterogeneous Boosting, and Selective Naive Bayes Members: Hung-Yi Lo, Kai-Wei.
Learning with AdaBoost
COP5992 – DATA MINING TERM PROJECT RANDOM SUBSPACE METHOD + CO-TRAINING by SELIM KALAYCI.
Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning
Konstantina Christakopoulou Liang Zeng Group G21
Random Forests Ujjwol Subedi. Introduction What is Random Tree? ◦ Is a tree constructed randomly from a set of possible trees having K random features.
Classification Ensemble Methods 1
Ensemble Methods Construct a set of classifiers from the training data Predict class label of previously unseen records by aggregating predictions made.
Decision Trees IDHairHeightWeightLotionResult SarahBlondeAverageLightNoSunburn DanaBlondeTallAverageYesnone AlexBrownTallAverageYesNone AnnieBlondeShortAverageNoSunburn.
Competition II: Springleaf Sha Li (Team leader) Xiaoyan Chong, Minglu Ma, Yue Wang CAMCOS Fall 2015 San Jose State University.
BOOTSTRAPPING INFORMATION EXTRACTION FROM SEMI-STRUCTURED WEB PAGES Andrew Carson and Charles Schafer.
Combining multiple learners Usman Roshan. Decision tree From Alpaydin, 2010.
A Framework for Detection and Measurement of Phishing Attacks Reporter: Li, Fong Ruei National Taiwan University of Science and Technology 2/25/2016 Slide.
SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES Presented by: Naman Fatehpuria Sumana Venkatesh.
Ensemble Learning, Boosting, and Bagging: Scaling up Decision Trees (with thanks to William Cohen of CMU, Michael Malohlava of 0xdata, and Manish Amde.
1 Machine Learning Lecture 8: Ensemble Methods Moshe Koppel Slides adapted from Raymond J. Mooney and others.
Opinion spam and Analysis 소프트웨어공학 연구실 G 최효린 1 / 35.
Restaurant Revenue Prediction using Machine Learning Algorithms
Bagging and Random Forests
Lecture 17. Boosting¶ CS 109A/AC 209A/STAT 121A Data Science: Harvard University Fall 2016 Instructors: P. Protopapas, K. Rader, W. Pan.
Trees, bagging, boosting, and stacking
Demographics and Weblog Hackathon – Case Study
Estimating Link Signatures with Machine Learning Algorithms
COMP61011 : Machine Learning Ensemble Models
Basic machine learning background with Python scikit-learn
Features & Decision regions
Machine Learning Week 1.
CIKM Competition 2014 Second Place Solution
Introduction to Data Mining, 2nd Edition
Ensembles.
Ensemble learning.
Support Vector Machine _ 2 (SVM)
Leverage Consensus Partition for Domain-Specific Entity Coreference
MAS 622J Course Project Classification of Affective States - GP Semi-Supervised Learning, SVM and kNN Hyungil Ahn
Machine Learning in Business John C. Hull
Advisor: Dr.vahidipour Zahra salimian Shaghayegh jalali Dec 2017
An introduction to Machine Learning (ML)
Presentation transcript:

CS412 – Machine Learning Sentiment Analysis - Turkish Tweets 17610 - Berke Dilekoğlu 17912 - Burak Aksoy 19080 - Berkan Teber 19459 - Arda Olmezsoy

I. Introduction to Problem Given: A number of tweets written about banks in Turkish Goal: Classify how bad or good a review is. Features: Initially 21 Features are given. Score Scale: Continuous, [-1(Very Bad), +1(Very Good)] So: A REGRESSION problem.

II. Initial Data Analysis Training Set: 757 tweets are given with their labels. 01 Test Set: 200 tweets are going to be tested. 02 Before starting our analysis we wanted to examine the 21 features given to us. We plotted how features are distributed over labels. 03

Example of a Good Feature Example of a Bad Feature We realized that Features 6,8,12,15,16,17,18 and 19 are similarly bad.

III. Additional Features Since most of the features are not very informative, we decided to create our own features such as; Feature Name Explanation F22 Whether tweet has :) or not F23 Whether tweet has :)) or not F24 Whether tweet has :))) or not F25 Whether tweet has :D or not F26 Whether tweet has :( or not F27 Whether tweet has :(( or not F28 Whether tweet has :(((or not Feature Name Explanation F29 Whether tweet has ! or not F30 Whether tweet has ? or not F31 Whether tweet has capital words or not F32 Whether tweet has repeated letters/not F33 Position of the @ in the tweet F34 Common words score of the tweet

IV. Building Models First we tried the training set without additional features on different Training Models such as Linear Regression, Decision Trees, Ensemble Methods, and SVMs. Model Name RMSE Ensemble – Boosted Trees 0.39 Ensemble – Bagged Trees Tree – Simple Tree 0.41 Tree – Medium Tree 0.43 SVN – Median Gaussian SVM 0.44 Trees performed better! -Why? Because…

Removed features numbered 6,7,8,12,15,16,17,18 and 19 Model Name RMSE Ensemble – Boosted Trees 0.39 Ensemble – Bagged Trees 0.40 Tree – Simple Tree 0.41 Tree – Medium Tree 0.43 SVN – Medium Gaussian SVM It seems like there is no significant improvement. However other models performed better. Because… With additional features 22 to 34 On High order models and Overfitting… Model Name RMSE Ensemble – Boosted Trees 0.37 Ensemble – Bagged Trees Tree – Simple Tree 0.40 Tree – Medium Tree SVN – Medium Gaussian SVM 0.41 Finally, with meaningful additional features better results achieved!!

V. Conclusion At the very end, we ended up with 5% better accuracy in our best model after removing some of the features and adding our own features. Also, our correctly guessing rate has increased 81% to 85%.