Sequence Labeling on a Structured Data
Sequence labeling is one of the classic ML tasks, that include well-studied problems of Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging, Named Entity Recognition (NER), Address parsing, and more. Here I want to discuss two related topics: tokenization, and satisfying constrains imposed by the structure of input document.
Throughout this blog, data is represented in the IOB format.
In sequence labeling our input object is … a sequence (surprise!). But the sequence of what? It is common in Natural Language Processing to convert input text to a sequence of tokens. Here token is understood to be a word. Intuitively this is logical and reasonable. However, when diving into implementation details, there are many questions to answer on order to define word boundary. Basic tokenization scheme would be to split text on every whitespace (blank, TAB, newline). A more sophisticated one will also split on punctuation. Then we still need to decide how to treat numbers and text that mixes numbers and letters. Thus, there are several popular tokenization schemes out there.
Choice of tokenization scheme can me important, and technically should be considered as part of general feature selection and parameter tuning search. The same applies to word capitalization information that must be kept as a feature on top of tokens (if we decide to lowercase tokens).
But here is the current wisdom:
- all tokenization schemes should work good if you have enough data, and if tokenization is not too weird
- there was some success in token-less learning as well - check out the work of Andrej Karpathy on the subject. He uses character as a token and proves that LSTM can learn long-range structure, inclusing balanced paranthesis, (almost) balanced XML tags and (almost) parseable LaTeX and C++ sources. Unfortunately character-level models are still somewhat sub-par in terms of performance comparing to word-level tokenized representations. So we have to work with word tokens for now.
Classic NLP problems use text blocks (or sentences) as input. But these days structured input (HTML or XML) is much more common. What are the implications of structured input?
First, let us narrow the inputs to XML documents. HTML sources can be folded into the same class, obviously. But we are ignoring other structured type of sources: RTF, LaTeX, SGML, etc. Let us concentrate on XML.
In XML text is mixed with structural information. Example input may look like this:
<doc> <chapter id="1" name="Chapitre XIV"> <p align="left" indent="1em">La cinquième planète était <i>très curieuse</i>.</p> </chapter> </doc>
How to deal with it? Here are the options:
- Transform to plain text. By stripping out XML tags one is left with the text-only content and this can be used for ML.
- Pretend XML is text. Just use ML algorithms on full serialized XML text, hoping that machine will learn to use (or ignore) XML tags.
- Incorporate Structure into learning. Use CDATA text of the the XML document for tokenization, and use structure tags as features. I will talk more about this below.
Here we forget that there was any structure in the input document, and we extract text only and tokenize it:
La cinquième planète était très curieuse.
Advantage: pretty easy to create a training dataset and use standard methods of tokenization and ML. Also, in order to cope with implicit word and sentence boundaries, one may need to inject spaces and new lines in the text.
Disadvantage: looses information about structure, that may be important for prediction.
Lets take the text of XML document and tokenize it:
< doc > < chapter id =" 1 " name =" Chapitre XIV "> < p align =" left " indent =" 1em "> La cinquième planète était < i > très curieuse </ i >. </ p > </ chapter > </ doc >
Puff. A lot of noise we get from XML markup.
Advantagse: easy to implement - no change required in the tooling.
Disadvantage: input is very ambiguous. There are many equivalent ways to serialize the same XML document.
Consider that this one:
<doc> <chapter name="Chapitre XIV" id="1"> <p indent="1em" align="left">La cinquième planète était <i>très curieuse</i>.</p> </chapter> </doc>
is the same XML document as before, just a different serialized form of it.
We can hope that given a lot of data system can eventually learn that order of attributes does not matter and that
cinquième represents the same word as
cinquième. Alternatively, we may want to normalize the serialized text
by parsing and serializing with standard settings, but then we are changing the user-supplied input and
can not easily transfer annotations back to the original input. It is obviously a huge and artificial complication.
In short, this approach can not be expected to generalize well across all XML serialized forms.
Another disadvantage is that text tokens are mixed with structure tokens. Here structure tokens separate text tokens, making it harder
for the machine (think LSTM) to connect the meaning of two text tokens when thay are separated with structure tokens. Just adding some
purely presentational attribute to XML tag (e.g.
tooltip="look here") adds more tokens and moves information contained in text tokens
on each side of it further apart!
Yet another problem with this approach is the inserting XML tags into the serialized XML text does not take into account XML structure and will sometimes generate invalid XML documents.
Well, we did not yet define this approach, did we? Lets for now state that
- we want to work with parsed XML tree as our input object, and
- somehow cast this to a standard NLP sequence labeling task
One way of doing this would be to tokenize only CDATA portion of the XML, and treat tags and tag attributes as features
La feats=[doc,chapter] cinquième feats=[doc,chapter] planète feats=[doc,chapter] était feats=[doc,chapter] très feats=[doc,chapter,i] curieuse feats=[doc,chapter,i] . feats=[doc,chapter]
Somehow this approach feels better than both previous ones. We do not tokenize control information (tags), and we do preserve the control information in the form of token features.
XML tags may interfere with tokenization
One assumption silently embedded in the token/feature sketch above is that we can unambiguously assign XML tag content to a token. This is not a trivial requirement. Consider this XML fragment:
and they lived <i>happily ev</i>er after
This is somewhat contrieved, but still. Note that
<i> tag covers only half of the word
ever. What should we do?
Practical solution is to change tokenization such that it is always consistent with XML tagging. The rule is: XML start and end tags induce token break:
and feats= they feats= lived feats= happily feats=[i] ev feats=[i] er feats= after feats=
We are essentially assuming that input document has XML tagging that is sensical with respect to the text content. It is just an assumption.
Sequence labeling under the hood
Again, sequence labeling takes a sequence of tokens as its input, and outputs a sequence of labels, assigned to each token.
In practice, we know the set of possible labels up-front, and typical ML output will be an array of
logits for every token.
Training is done by applying Softmax operator to the
logits and attaching Negaive Log Likelihood loss function as an optimization objective. Prediction is done with argmax operation on logits.
The above is very standard and therefore I presented it in a very terse form, just to recap.
Note that at prediction time values of logits can also be used to estimate the confidence. The intuition is simple: if there is one dominating (strong) value in the array of the logits, then system is quite confident it that label. If there are two or more close values, then system is not so sure.
Net conclusion to be taken from this section is that classical sequence labeling takes a list of tokens, and returns a list of logits arrays (one array for each input token). These logits values can be used to get label and confidence estimation.
It is easy to use
argmax method on logits to get the current label for a given token. Yet the result may not be sensical.
There are two problems:
- IOB encoding implied constraints. In IOB label encoding scheme there are natural constrains:
Ilabel must be preceded by
I. Sequence of
O Idoes not make sense, as one can not get inside label without first beginning the label.
- XML structure constraints. XML tags must be well-formed (correctly nested). The result of tagging is addition of XML annotation tag. We should make sure that adding annotation tag still preserves well-formedness of the XML tree. Technically, one can invent an alternative way of annotationg text spans in XML document, without using XML annotation tag. One solution could be to use XML processing instructions to add annotations. But in practice XML annotations are way more convenient (and XML tooling is much more mature for tags), that we almost always use tags and must obey correct nesting.
Both these problems move us into the domain of constrained label decoding. Among all possible label assignments we must pick the one that minimises the total loss given the structural constrains.
The problem of IOB constraints can be addressed by applying Viterbi-style decoding with the transition matrix that defines the constraint (and identity emission matrix). We will create another blog post detailing how Viterbi can be adapted for constrained label decoding.
The problem of satisfying XML structure constraint is just a bit more complicated. To understand it better, let’s re-formulate it in terms of interval nesting problem.
XML tree as a set of nested intervals
First, lets define the text content of an XML document. Text content is the text we get after removing all XML tags.
Each XML tag has its start and end offset into the text content. In other words, each XML tag defines an interval on the text content. If we take all XML tags and look at all intervals induced by these tags, we will get a set of well-nested intervals. Given any two intervals, only following is possible:
- one interval is completely inside the other
- intervals have zero intersection
- intervals are identical
What can not possibly happen is when two intervals partially overlap. This is because it is not an arbitrary set of intervals, but the set induced by a tree XML structure.
And, conversly, if we have a set of intervals that obeys properties 1-3 above, we can build a set of valid XML trees out of it! This is
somewhat ambiguous (because if intervals have the same span, we can choose any order of tag nesting in the tree), but it is
possible. To elaborate a bit: if in this set there are two intervals A and B that have exactly the same span, then we can build
xml chunk like this:
<A><B>blah</B></A> or like this:
<B><A>blah</A></B> and tree construction becomes ambiguous. This can be
solved in practice by declaring that intervals are sorted by the start offset and that order of intervals matters.
Now we have a simple way to check if suggested annotation can be put into original XML tree as a tag or not. We just need to check that the new interval that this annotation is proposing does not break rules 1-3 above wrt any other interval already present in the tree.
Data-dependant transition matrix
When doing Viterbi decoding we can use transition matrix that depends on the token index. If in a given sequence we have
t is in range
T-1, then we have
T+1 transitions: one transition from padding to the first token,
T-1 token-to-token transitions, and one last transition from the last token to the trailing padding. For each of these
T+1 transitions we can have a different matrix that specifies allowed and forbidden moves (based on the structure of current
Depth of intervals
Since XML-induced intervals are nicely nested, we can define a depth value for each of them. The top-level XML tag and its interval will have depth 0. Immediate children of top-level interval will have depth 1, and so on. Consider:
<doc>Hello, <i>beautiful</i> world!</doc>
Intervals look like this:
Hello, beautiful world! [---------------------] doc depth=0 [-------] i depth=1
When we add an annotation to the existing XML tree, we are adding it as some concrete depth. If the depth of the current XML document
L, then after adding our annotation, depth will either be the same, or will increase by 1 (depending on where annotation is
added). Thus, adding an annotation interval consists of the following decisions:
- choose depth at which interval is added, between 0 and
- choose the start and end token of the interval
Once depth is chosen, we can easily check that new interval we are adding is well formed by just looking at two neighboring depths - no need to look at all intervals at all depths.
Depth-expanded IOB labels
To adjust labeling algorithm to structured data, let us replace
IOB set of labels with the new set:
O- means no tagging here
B_k starts tag at depth
I_k continues tag at depth
Note that these are artificial labels used only for structure-constrained decoding. We still have just three logits: I, O and B.
We expand logits values when feeding into Viterbi by copying the predicted logits value from
I_k, and from
By this we are just saying that sequence labeling gives us the logits for I/O/B, but since we want to apply structure constraint
and effectively explore all possible depth labels, we clone these logits to every depth.
The last step we need is to note that it is possible to define transition matrix for every token index such that:
- all allowed transitions will yield a well-formed intervals
- all possible well-formed intervals are allowed by the transition matrix.
Putting it all together
We do tokenization in a way that is consistent with XML structure, and capture XML tags as features.
When predicting, we use document structure to build transition matrix (for every token position), then run Viterbi to obtain the best decoding that is consistent with the XML markup.
In the scheme sketched above, training is done in a classic sequence labeling fashion. But decoding was augmented to obey structural constraints. A more principled approach would be to use structural decoding constrains during the training too. For that we can modify loss function such that it only considers decodings that are consistent with document structure.