I need a function that would compare two strings and outputs an edit distance like Levenshtein, but only if the characters are homoglyphs in cursives. I have a list of those homoglyphs so I could feed a custom list to this function.
Example
homoglyphs = [["o","a"],["rn","m","nn"],...] // In cursive they look-alike
compare("Mory", "Mary", homoglyphs) // Levenshtein gives 1
compare("Mory", "Tory", homoglyphs) // Levenshtein gives 1, but I want false, 99 or -1
compare("Morio", "Mario", homoglyphs) // I expect a distance of 1
compare("Morio", "Maria", homoglyphs) // I expect a distance of 2
Tory should give a false result since there's no way someone misread an M as a T. An A could be misread as an O so it can count as 1.
The scoring could be different, I just need to know that Mory is probably Mary not Tory and Morio is a little more likely to be Mario than Maria.
Do something like this exists?
The key to your problem can be thought of like an IQ word association question.
Sound Glyph
--------- = ----------
Homophone Homoglyphs
Now if you know that there is a way to find similar sounding words (homophone) then the same can be applied but instead of sounds change to glyphs (homoglyph).
The way to find similar sounding words is via Soundex (Sound Index).
So just do what Soundex does but instead of having a mapping from similar homophones use similar homoglyphs.
Once you convert each word (glyphs) input into a Glyphdex (Glyph Index) then you can compute the Levenshtein distance for the two Glyphdex.
Make sense?
If you are into cellular biology then codon translation into amino acids (ref) might make more sense. Many amino acids are coded by more than one 3 letter codon.
Note: Since the word glyhdex has been used prior to me writing this I can not say I coined that word, however the usage I currently find via Google (search) for the word are not in the same context as described here. So in the context of converting a sequence of glyphs into an index of similar sequence of glyphs I will take credit.
Related
I am sure this subject has been touched on a lot, but after hours of googling I'm afraid I can't find the answer I need. All I am really looking for is a direction, a path to follow to learn what I need. I have a MA Access database and I am trying to write a keyword search query, but I want to get a really wide range of results from my query. It's easy enough to say description LIKE "red" but I am looking for more powerful searches. Something that would return even parts of the searched words, so if I search "clipboard" I want to find "surfboards" too. What I would really like is to be able to do a keyword search that would return a ton of results but have a way of ranking them based one relevancy to the original search. Any ideas?
You can calculate the Levenshtein distance between words. Levenshtein distance measures the difference between two sequences. This would allow you to consider resembling words as well.
The Levenshtein distance ranges from 0 (words are equal) to length of longest word (words are completely different). You might want to transform the Levenshtein value to a more appropriate value.
Dim maxlength As Long
Dim similarity As Single
maxlength = Max(word1.Length, word2.Length)
similarity = (maxlength - levenshteinDist) / maxlength
This yields values for similarity between 0 (not similar) to 1 (equal).
You can find VBA implementations here:
Levenshtein Distance in Excel - Stack Overflow
ms access - Finding similar sounding text in VBA - Stack Overflow
Note: Access does not have a Max function. Write your own or code it explicitly.
I'm trying to create a "scrabble-solver" to run stress-tests on a scrabble-like game I'm developing. I have a database containing ~200.000 words and I'm now looking for a way to match the scrabble tiles given with the words in the database.
Example:
Given tiles: A, P, E, F, O, L, M
Result: APE, POLE, PALE, MOLE, PAL...
Is this possible by using a simple SELECT-statement with REGEXP? If possible I would also like to add letters on specific positions and be able to determine max/min length.
I hope this question made sense :)
I've been googling my eyes out but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Anyone got an idea?
Thanks! :)
It doesn't sound like a regex problem. I think you'll be better off simply creating all possible combinations of letters from the existing tiles and then running your SELECT statement with the IN clause. For example, with tiles:
A, P, E
your SELECT clause will be
SELECT word FROM words WHERE word IN ('APE', 'AEP', 'PAE' ,'PEA', 'EPA', 'EAP');
You'll get the list of valid words from your table.
A regex would not help you much in this case. You need to construct the possible words by yourself.
The problem is that you have a limited number of each possible letter and a regex cannot encode that information. If you had infinite supply of each letter, then you could use a regex like [APEFOI]*.
You will have to enumerate all the possible words yourself. The implementation would depend on the language your using, but your best bet might be a next_permutation function or better a function that enumerates all permutations. A simple (and slightly inefficient) implementation (in Python-like pseudocode) would be:
words = []
for permutation in permutations(letters): # enumerate all character orders
for i in range(1, len(permutation)): # enumerate all lengths of words
words.append(letters[:i]) # append to candidate set
At that point words will contain all the candidate words you would then use in a SELECT ... IN statement.
That isn't the most efficient approach, but should be practical enough to get you started.
Suppose I want to match address records (or person names or whatever) against each other to merge records that are most likely referring to the same address. Basically, I guess I would like to calculate some kind of correlation between the text values and merge the records if this value is over a certain threshold.
Example:
"West Lawnmower Drive 54 A" is probably the same as "W. Lawn Mower Dr. 54A" but different from "East Lawnmower Drive 54 A".
How would you approach this problem? Would it be necessary to have some kind of context-based dictionary that knows, in the address case, that "W", "W." and "West" are the same? What about misspellings ("mover" instead of "mower" etc)?
I think this is a tricky one - perhaps there are some well-known algorithms out there?
A good baseline, probably an impractical one in terms of its relatively high computational cost and more importantly its production of many false positive, would be generic string distance algorithms such as
Edit distance (aka Levenshtein distance)
Ratcliff/Obershelp
Depending on the level of accuracy required (which, BTW, should be specified both in terms of its recall and precision, i.e. generally expressing whether it is more important to miss a correlation than to falsely identify one), a home-grown process based on [some of] the following heuristics and ideas could do the trick:
tokenize the input, i.e. see the input as an array of words rather than a string
tokenization should also keep the line number info
normalize the input with the use of a short dictionary of common substituions (such as "dr" at the end of a line = "drive", "Jack" = "John", "Bill" = "William"..., "W." at the begining of a line is "West" etc.
Identify (a bit like tagging, as in POS tagging) the nature of some entities (for example ZIP Code, and Extended ZIP code, and also city
Identify (lookup) some of these entities (for example a relative short database table can include all the Cities / town in the targeted area
Identify (lookup) some domain-related entities (if all/many of the address deal with say folks in the legal profession, a lookup of law firm names or of federal buildings may be of help.
Generally, put more weight on tokens that come from the last line of the address
Put more (or less) weight on tokens with a particular entity type (ex: "Drive", "Street", "Court" should with much less than the tokens which precede them.
Consider a modified SOUNDEX algorithm to help with normalization of
With the above in mind, implement a rule-based evaluator. Tentatively, the rules could be implemented as visitors to a tree/array-like structure where the input is parsed initially (Visitor design pattern).
The advantage of the rule-based framework, is that each heuristic is in its own function and rules can be prioritized, i.e. placing some rules early in the chain, allowing to abort the evaluation early, with some strong heuristics (eg: different City => Correlation = 0, level of confidence = 95% etc...).
An important consideration with search for correlations is the need to a priori compare every single item (here address) with every other item, hence requiring as many as 1/2 n^2 item-level comparisons. Because of this, it may be useful to store the reference items in a way where they are pre-processed (parsed, normalized...) and also to maybe have a digest/key of sort that can be used as [very rough] indicator of a possible correlation (for example a key made of the 5 digit ZIP-Code followed by the SOUNDEX value of the "primary" name).
I would look at producing a similarity comparison metric that, given two objects (strings perhaps), returns "distance" between them.
If you fulfil the following criteria then it helps:
distance between an object and
itself is zero. (reflexive)
distance from a to b is the same in
both directions (transitive)
distance from a to c is not more
than distance from a to b plus
distance from a to c. (triangle
rule)
If your metric obeys these they you can arrange your objects in metric space which means you can run queries like:
Which other object is most like
this one
Give me the 5 objects
most like this one.
There's a good book about it here. Once you've set up the infrastructure for hosting objects and running the queries you can simply plug in different comparison algorithms, compare their performance and then tune them.
I did this for geographic data at university and it was quite fun trying to tune the comparison algorithms.
I'm sure you could come up with something more advanced but you could start with something simple like reducing the address line to the digits and the first letter of each word and then compare the result of that using a longest common subsequence algorithm.
Hope that helps in some way.
You can use Levenshtein edit distance to find strings that differ by only a few characters. BK Trees can help speed up the matching process.
Disclaimer: I don't know any algorithm that does that, but would really be interested in knowing one if it exists. This answer is a naive attempt of trying to solve the problem, with no previous knowledge whatsoever. Comments welcome, please don't laugh too laud.
If you try doing it by hand, I would suggest applying some kind of "normalization" to your strings : lowercase them, remove punctuation, maybe replace common abbreviations with the full words (Dr. => drive, St => street, etc...).
Then, you can try different alignments between the two strings you compare, and compute the correlation by averaging the absolute differences between corresponding letters (eg a = 1, b = 2, etc.. and corr(a, b) = |a - b| = 1) :
west lawnmover drive
w lawnmower street
Thus, even if some letters are different, the correlation would be high. Then, simply keep the maximal correlation you found, and decide that their are the same if the correlation is above a given threshold.
When I had to modify a proprietary program doing this, back in the early 90s, it took many thousands of lines of code in multiple modules, built up over years of experience. Modern machine-learning techniques ought to make it easier, and perhaps you don't need to perform as well (it was my employer's bread and butter).
So if you're talking about merging lists of actual mailing addresses, I'd do it by outsourcing if I can.
The USPS had some tests to measure quality of address standardization programs. I don't remember anything about how that worked, but you might check if they still do it -- maybe you can get some good training data.
I'd like to write a program that lets users draw points, lines, and circles as though with a straightedge and compass. Then I want to be able to answer the question, "are these three points collinear?" To answer correctly, I need to avoid rounding error when calculating the points.
Is this possible? How can I represent the points in memory?
(I looked into some unusual numeric libraries, but I didn't find anything that claimed to offer both exact arithmetic and exact comparisons that are guaranteed to terminate.)
Yes.
I highly recommend Introduction to constructions, which is a good basic guide.
Basically you need to be able to compute with constructible numbers - numbers that are either rational, or of the form a + b sqrt(c) where a,b,c were previously created (see page 6 on that PDF). This could be done with algebraic data type (e.g. data C = Rational Integer Integer | Root C C C in Haskell, where Root a b c = a + b sqrt(c)). However, I don't know how to perform tests with that representation.
Two possible approaches are:
Constructible numbers are a subset of algebraic numbers, so you can use algebraic numbers.
All algebraic numbers can be represented using polynomials of whose they are roots. The operations are computable, so if you represent a number a with polynomial p and b with polynomial q (p(a) = q(b) = 0), then it is possible to find a polynomial r such that r(a+b) = 0. This is done in some CASes like Mathematica, example. See also: Computional algebraic number theory - chapter 4
Use Tarski's test and represent numbers. It is slow (doubly exponential or so), but works :) Example: to represent sqrt(2), use the formula x^2 - 2 && x > 0. You can write equations for lines there, check if points are colinear etc. See A suite of logic programs, including Tarski's test
If you turn to computable numbers, then equality, colinearity etc. get undecidable.
I think the only way this would be possible is if you used a symbolic representation,
as opposed to trying to represent coordinate values directly -- so you would have
to avoid trying to coerce values like sqrt(2) into some numerical format. You will
be dealing with irrational numbers that are not finitely representable in binary,
decimal, or any other positional notation.
To expand on Jim Lewis's answer slightly, if you want to operate on points that are constructible from the integers with exact arithmetic, you will need to be able to operate on representations of the form:
a + b sqrt(c)
where a, b, and c are either rational numbers, or representations in the form given above. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the subject of what points are constructible.
Answering the question of exact equality (as necessary to establish colinearity) with such representations is a rather tricky problem.
If you try to compare co-ordinates for your points, then you have a problem. Leaving aside co-linearity for a moment, how about just working out whether two points are the same or not?
Supposing that one has given co-ordinates, and the other is a compass-straightedge construction starting from certain other co-ordinates, you want to determine with certainty whether they're the same point or not. Either way is a theorem of Euclidean geometry, it's not something you can just measure. You can prove they aren't the same by spotting some difference in their co-ordinates (for example by computing decimal places of each until you encounter a difference). But in general to prove they are the same cannot be done by approximate methods. Compute as many decimal places as you like of some expansions of 1/sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2, and you can prove they're very close together but you won't ever prove they're equal. That takes algebra (or geometry).
Similarly, to show that three points are co-linear you will need theorem-proving software. Represent the points A, B, C by their constructions, and attempt to prove the theorem "A, B and C are colinear". This is very hard - your program will prove some theorems but not others. Much easier is to ask the user for a proof that they are co-linear, and then verify (or refute) that proof, but that's probably not what you want.
In general, constructable points may have an arbitrarily complex symbolic form, so you must use a symbolic representation to work them exactly. As Stephen Canon noted above, you often need numbers of the form a+b*sqrt(c), where a and b are rational and c is an integer. All numbers of this form form a closed set under arithmetic operations. I have written some C++ classes (see rational_radical1.h) to work with these numbers if that is all you need.
It is also possible to construct numbers which are sums of any number of terms of rational multiples of radicals. When dealing with more than a single radicand, the numbers are no longer closed under multiplication and division, so you will need to store them as variable length rational coefficient arrays. The time complexity of operations will then be quadratic in the number of terms.
To go even further, you can construct the square root of any given number, so you could potentially have nested square roots. Here, the representations must be tree-like structures to deal with root hierarchy. While difficult to implement, there is nothing in principle preventing you from working with these representations. I'm not sure just what additional numbers can be constructed, but beyond a certain point, your symbolic representation will be expressive enough to handle very large classes of numbers.
Addendum
Found this Google Books link.
If the grid axes are integer valued then the answer is fairly straight forward, the points are either exactly colinear or they are not.
Typically however, one works with real numbers (well, floating points) and then draws the rounded values on the screen which does exist in integer space. In this case you have no choice but to pick a tolerance and use it to determine colinearity. Keep it small and the users will never know the difference.
You seem to be asking, in effect, "Can the normal mathematics (integer or floating point) used by computers be made to represent real numbers perfectly, with no rounding errors?" And, of course, the answer to that is "No." If you want theoretical correctness, then you will be stuck with the much harder problem of symbolic manipulation and coding up the equivalent of the inferences that are done in geometry. (In short, I'm agreeing with Steve Jessop, above.)
Some thoughts in the hope that they might help.
The sort of constructions you're talking about will require multiplication and division, which means that to preserve exactness you'll have to use rational numbers, which are generally easy to implement on top of a suitable sort of big integer (i.e., of unbounded magnitude). (Common Lisp has these built-in, and there have to be other languages.)
Now, you need to represent square roots of arbitrary numbers, and these have to be mixed in.
Therefore, a number is one of: a rational number, a rational number multiplied by a square root of a rational number (or, alternately, just the square root of a rational), or a sum of numbers. In order to prove anything, you're going to have to get these numbers into some sort of canonical form, which for all I can figure offhand may be annoying and computationally expensive.
This of course means that the users will be restricted to rational points and cannot use arbitrary rotations, but that's probably not important.
I would recommend no to try to make it perfectly exact.
The first reason for this is what you are asking here, the rounding error and all that stuff that comes with floating point calculations.
The second one is that you have to round your input as the mouse and screen work with integers. So, initially all user input would be integers, and your output would be integers.
Beside, from a usability point of view, its easier to click in the neighborhood of another point (in a line for example) and that the interface consider you are clicking in the point itself.
I'm not a Natural Language Programming student, yet I know it's not trivial strcmp(n1,n2).
Here's what i've learned so far:
comparing Personal Names can't be solved 100%
there are ways to achieve certain degree of accuracy.
the answer will be locale-specific, that's OK.
I'm not looking for spelling alternatives! The assumption is that the input's spelling is correct.
For example, all the names below can refer to the same person:
Berry Tsakala
Bernard Tsakala
Berry J. Tsakala
Tsakala, Berry
I'm trying to:
build (or copy) an algorithm which grades the relationship 2 input names
find an indexing method (for names in my database, for hash tables, etc.)
note:
My task isn't about finding names in text, but to compare 2 names. e.g.
name_compare( "James Brown", "Brown, James", "en-US" ) ---> 99.0%
I used Tanimoto Coefficient for a quick (but not super) solution, in Python:
"""
Formula:
Na = number of set A elements
Nb = number of set B elements
Nc = number of common items
T = Nc / (Na + Nb - Nc)
"""
def tanimoto(a, b):
c = [v for v in a if v in b]
return float(len(c)) / (len(a)+len(b)-len(c))
def name_compare(name1, name2):
return tanimoto(name1, name2)
>>> name_compare("James Brown", "Brown, James")
0.91666666666666663
>>> name_compare("Berry Tsakala", "Bernard Tsakala")
0.75
>>>
Edit: A link to a good and useful book.
Soundex is sometimes used to compare similar names. It doesn't deal with first name/last name ordering, but you could probably just have your code look for the comma to solve that problem.
We've just been doing this sort of work non-stop lately and the approach we've taken is to have a look-up table or alias list. If you can discount misspellings/misheard/non-english names then the difficult part is taken away. In your examples we would assume that the first word and the last word are the forename and the surname. Anything in between would be discarded (middle names, initials). Berry and Bernard would be in the alias list - and when Tsakala did not match to Berry we would flip the word order around and then get the match.
One thing you need to understand is the database/people lists you are dealing with. In the English speaking world middle names are inconsistently recorded. So you can't make or deny a match based on the middle name or middle initial. Soundex will not help you with common name aliases such as "Dick" and "Richard", "Berry" and "Bernard" and possibly "Steve" and "Stephen". In some communities it is quite common for people to live at the same address and have 2 or 3 generations living at that address with the same name. The only way you can separate them is by date of birth. Date of birth may or may not be recorded. If you have the clout then you should probably make the recording of date of birth mandatory. A lot of "people databases" either don't record date of birth or won't give them away due to privacy reasons.
Effectively people name matching is not that complicated. Its entirely based on the quality of the data supplied. What happens in practice is that a lot of records remain unmatched - and even a human looking at them can't resolve the mismatch. A human may notice name aliases not recorded in the aliases list or may be able to look up details of the person on the internet - but you can't really expect your programme to do that.
Banks, credit rating organisations and the government have a lot of detailed information about us. Previous addresses, date of birth etc. And that helps them join up names. But for us normal programmers there is no magic bullet.
Analyzing name order and the existence of middle names/initials is trivial, of course, so it looks like the real challenge is knowing common name alternatives. I doubt this can be done without using some sort of nickname lookup table. This list is a good starting point. It doesn't map Bernard to Berry, but it would probably catch the most common cases. Perhaps an even more exhaustive list can be found elsewhere, but I definitely think that a locale-specific lookup table is the way to go.
I had real problems with the Tanimoto using utf-8.
What works for languages that use diacritical signs is difflib.SequenceMatcher()