Research on performance variations of classifiers with the influence of pre-processing methods for Chinese short text classification
Text pre-processing is an important component of a Chinese text classification. At present, however, most of the studies on this topic focus on exploring the influence of preprocessing methods on a few text classification algorithms using English text. In this paper we experimentally compared fiftee...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2023-10, Vol.18 (10), p.e0292582-e0292582 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Text pre-processing is an important component of a Chinese text classification. At present, however, most of the studies on this topic focus on exploring the influence of preprocessing methods on a few text classification algorithms using English text. In this paper we experimentally compared fifteen commonly used classifiers on two Chinese datasets using three widely used Chinese preprocessing methods that include word segmentation, Chinese specific stop word removal, and Chinese specific symbol removal. We then explored the influence of the preprocessing methods on the final classifications according to various conditions such as classification evaluation, combination style, and classifier selection. Finally, we conducted a battery of various additional experiments, and found that most of the classifiers improved in performance after proper preprocessing was applied. Our general conclusion is that the systematic use of preprocessing methods can have a positive impact on the classification of Chinese short text, using classification evaluation such as macro-F1, combination of preprocessing methods such as word segmentation, Chinese specific stop word and symbol removal, and classifier selection such as machine and deep learning models. We find that the best macro-f1s for categorizing text for the two datasets are 92.13% and 91.99%, which represent improvements of 0.3% and 2%, respectively over the compared baselines. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0292582 |