library(morphemepiece)
library(dplyr)
This vignette is developer-focused, and outlines an example process for evaluating different (versions of) fall-through algorithms for the morphemepiece tokenizer. The basic approach is...
# These are local paths for illustration purposes
vocab_path <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_vocab_large.txt"
lookup_path <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_lookup_large.txt"
# We will be interested in words that are in the large lookup, but not the small
# one (as a proxy for the most common words that will hit the fallthrough
# algorithm).
lookup_path_small <- "/shared/morphemepiece_vocabs/mp_lookup_small.txt"
mp_vocab <- load_or_retrieve_vocab(vocab_path)
mp_lookup <- load_or_retrieve_lookup(lookup_path)
mp_lookup_small <- load_or_retrieve_lookup(lookup_path_small)
Obtain the words, and process...
breakdown1 <- list()
breakdown2 <- list()
words_to_do <- setdiff(names(mp_lookup), names(mp_lookup_small))
# It takes about an hour to do all words in this set.
for (word in words_to_do) {
bd1 <- morphemepiece:::.mp_tokenize_word_bidir(word,
mp_vocab,
allow_compounds = FALSE)
bd2 <- morphemepiece:::.mp_tokenize_word_bidir(word,
mp_vocab,
allow_compounds = TRUE)
breakdown1 <- append(breakdown1, paste0(bd1, collapse = " "))
breakdown2 <- append(breakdown2, paste0(bd2, collapse = " "))
}
actual_bd <- mp_lookup[words_to_do]
wdtbl <- dplyr::tibble(words_to_do, actual_bd, bd1 = unlist(breakdown1), bd2 = unlist(breakdown2))
calc_score <- function(bd0, bd) {
bd0 <- stringr::str_split(bd0, " ", simplify = FALSE)
bd <- stringr::str_split(bd, " ", simplify = FALSE)
bd0 <- purrr::map(bd0, function(b) {b[b != "##"]} )
bd <- purrr::map(bd, function(b) {b[b != "##"]} )
purrr::map2_dbl(bd0, bd, function(a, b) {
re <- mean(a %in% b)
pr <- mean(b %in% a)
if (re == 0 & pr == 0) {
return(0)
}
f1 <- 2*re*pr / (re + pr)
return(f1)
})
}
scored <- wdtbl %>%
# The filter helps focus on the difference between the two algorithms.
# To measure absolute performance, we'd take out this filter.
filter(bd1 != bd2) %>%
mutate(score1 = calc_score(actual_bd, bd1)) %>%
mutate(score2 = calc_score(actual_bd, bd2))
# what was the mean score of each algorithm? (1=old, 2=new)
mean(scored$score1) # 0.3717737
mean(scored$score2) # 0.4134288
# what fraction of words did each algorithm score 100% on?
mean(scored$score1 == 1) # 0.03477313
mean(scored$score2 == 1) # 0.1674262
# what fraction of words did each algorithm score 0% on?
mean(scored$score1 == 0) # 0.1803051
mean(scored$score2 == 0) # 0.2317713
# in what fraction of cases was the old or new algorithm strictly better?
scored %>%
mutate(old_better = score1 > score2) %>%
mutate(new_better = score1 < score2) %>%
summarize(mean(old_better), mean(new_better))
# # A tibble: 1 x 2
# `mean(old_better)` `mean(new_better)`
# <dbl> <dbl>
# 1 0.343 0.536
By almost all measures, the new algorithm gives breakdowns closer to "correct" than the old one. However, the new algorithm scores 0 more often than the old, so the comparison isn't completely one-sided.