Dergiler / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

A Comparison of Different Approaches to Document Representation in Turkish Language

Sayfa
569–576
Yayın Tarihi
2018-08-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

We also observed that tradition approaches have still comparable results with Neural Network models in terms of document classification.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Recently, deep learning methods have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in numerous complex Natural Language Processing (NLP) problems.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Easy accessibility of high-performance computing resources and open-source libraries makes Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches more applicable for researchers.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:We also observed that tradition approaches have still comparable results with Neural Network models in terms of document classification.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Document representation · Deep learning · Natural language processing

Özet

Recently, deep learning methods have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in numerous complex Natural Language Processing (NLP) problems. Easy accessibility of high-performance computing resources and open-source libraries makes Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches more applicable for researchers. This sudden growth of available techniques shaped and improved standards in the field of NLP. Thus, we find an opportunity to compare different approaches to document representation, owing to various open-source libraries and a large amount of research. We evaluate four different paradigms to represent documents: Traditional bag-of-words approaches, topic modeling, embedding based approach and deep learning. As the main contribution of this article, we aim at evaluating all these representation approaches with suitable machine learning algorithms for document categorization problem in the Turkish language. The supervised architecture uses a benchmark dataset specifically prepared for this language. Within the architecture, we evaluate the representation approaches with corresponding machine learning algorithms such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), multi-nominal Naive Bayes Algorithm (m-NB) and so forth. We conduct a variety of experiments and present successful results for the Turkish document categorization. We also observed that tradition approaches have still comparable results with Neural Network models in terms of document classification.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YILDIRIM, S., YILDIZ, T. (2018). A Comparison of Different Approaches to Document Representation in Turkish Language. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 569–576. https://ajindex.com/articles/701151

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. B. Açıkalın and N. G. Bayazıt. 2016. The importance of preprocessing in Turkish Text classification. In 2016 24th Signal Processing and Communication Application Conference (SIU). 2053–2056.
  2. Burak Kerim Akkus and Ruket Çakıcı. 2013. Categorization of Turkish News Documents with Morphological Analysis. (2013)
  3. Mehmet Fatih Amasyalı, Sümeyra Balcı, Emrah Mete, and Esra Nur Varlı. 2012. A Comparison of Text Representation Methods for Turkish Text Classification. EMO Scientific Journal 2 (2012). arXiv:1309-5501 [4] M. Fatih Amasyalı and Banu Diri. 2006. Automatic Turkish Text Categorization in Terms of Author, Genre and Gender. In Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, Christian Kop, Günther Fliedl, Heinrich C. Mayr, and Elisabeth Métais (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 221–226
  4. Çağrı Toraman. 2011. Text Categorization and Ensemble Pruning in Turkish News Portals. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bilkent Uniiversity, Ankara
  5. Y. Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi. 1994. Learning Long-term Dependencies with Gradient Descent is Difficult. Trans. Neur. Netw. 5, 2 (March 1994), 157–166.
  6. David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (March 2003), 993–1022.
  7. Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Çaglar Gülçehre, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation. CoRR abs/1406.1078 (2014). arXiv:1406.1078
  8. Scott Deerwester, Susan T. Dumais, George W. Furnas, Thomas K. Landauer, and Richard Harshman. 1990. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 41, 6 (1990), 391–407
  9. M Fatih Amasyali, Aytunç Beken, and Yildiz Teknik Üniversitesi. 2018. Türkçe Kelimelerin Anlamsal Benzerliklerinin Ölçülmesi ve Metin Siniflandirmada Kullanilmasi Measurement of Turkish Word Semantic Similarity and Text Categorization Application. (03 2018)
  10. Aysun Güran, Selim Akyokus, Nilgün Güler Bayazıt, and M Zahid Gürbüz. 2009. (07 2009)
  11. Alex Graves, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2013. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2013, Vancouver, BC, Canada,