Language

Modeling
Introduction to N-grams
Dan Jurafsky

Probabilistic Language Models

• Today’s goal: assign a probability to a sentence
• Machine Translation:
• P(high winds tonite) > P(large winds tonite)
• Spell Correction
Why?
• The office is about fifteen minuets from my house
• P(about fifteen minutes from) > P(about fifteen minuets from)
• Speech Recognition
• P(I saw a van) >> P(eyes awe of an)
• + Summarization, question-answering, etc., etc.!!
Dan Jurafsky

Probabilistic Language Modeling

• Goal: compute the probability of a sentence or
sequence of words:
P(W) = P(w1,w2,w3,w4,w5…wn)

• Related task: probability of an upcoming word:

P(w5|w1,w2,w3,w4)
• A model that computes either of these:
P(W) or P(wn|w1,w2…wn-1) is called a language model.
• Better: the grammar But language model or LM is standard
Dan Jurafsky

How to compute P(W)

• How to compute this joint probability:

• P(its, water, is, so, transparent, that)

• Intuition: let’s rely on the Chain Rule of Probability

Dan Jurafsky

Reminder: The Chain Rule

• Recall the definition of conditional probabilities
Rewriting:

• More variables:
P(A,B,C,D) = P(A)P(B|A)P(C|A,B)P(D|A,B,C)
• The Chain Rule in General
P(x1,x2,x3,…,xn) = P(x1)P(x2|x1)P(x3|x1,x2)…P(xn|x1,…,xn-1)
Dan Jurafsky
The Chain Rule applied to compute
joint probability of words in sentence

P(w1w2 … wn ) = Õ P(wi | w1w2 … wi-1 )

i

P(“its water is so transparent”) =

P(its) × P(water|its) × P(is|its water)
× P(so|its water is) × P(transparent|its water is
so)
Dan Jurafsky

How to estimate these probabilities

• Could we just count and divide?

P(the | its water is so transparent that) =

Count(its water is so transparent that the)
Count(its water is so transparent that)

• No! Too many possible sentences!

• We’ll never see enough data for estimating these
Dan Jurafsky

Markov Assumption

• Simplifying assumption:
Andrei Markov

P(the | its water is so transparent that) » P(the | that)

• Or maybe
P(the | its water is so transparent that) » P(the | transparent that)
Dan Jurafsky

Markov Assumption

P(w1w2 … wn ) » Õ P(wi | wi-k … wi-1 )

i

• In other words, we approximate each

component in the product
P(wi | w1w2 … wi-1) » P(wi | wi-k … wi-1)
Dan Jurafsky

Simplest case: Unigram model

P(w1w2 … wn ) » Õ P(w i )
i
Some automatically generated sentences from a unigram model

fifth, an, of, futures, the, an, incorporated, a,

a, the, inflation, most, dollars, quarter, in, is,
mass

thrift, did, eighty, said, hard, 'm, july, bullish

that, or, limited, the

Dan Jurafsky

Bigram model
Condition on the previous word:

P(wi | w1w2 … wi-1) » P(wi | wi-1)

texaco, rose, one, in, this, issue, is, pursuing, growth, in,
a, boiler, house, said, mr., gurria, mexico, 's, motion,
control, proposal, without, permission, from, five, hundred,
fifty, five, yen

outside, new, car, parking, lot, of, the, agreement, reached

this, would, be, a, record, november

Dan Jurafsky

N-gram models
• We can extend to trigrams, 4-grams, 5-grams
• In general this is an insufficient model of language
• because language has long-distance dependencies:
“The computer which I had just put into the machine room on
the fifth floor crashed.”

• But we can often get away with N-gram models

 Language
Modeling
Introduction to N-grams
 Language
Modeling
Estimating N-gram
Probabilities
Dan Jurafsky

Estimating bigram probabilities

• The Maximum Likelihood Estimate

count(wi-1,wi )
P(wi | w i-1) =
count(w i-1 )

c(wi-1,wi )
P(wi | w i-1 ) =
c(wi-1)
 Dan Jurafsky

An example

<s> I am Sam </s>

c(wi-1,wi )
P(wi | w i-1 ) = <s> Sam I am </s>
c(wi-1) <s> I do not like green eggs and ham </s>
Dan Jurafsky

More examples:
Berkeley Restaurant Project sentences

• can you tell me about any good cantonese restaurants close by

• mid priced thai food is what i’m looking for
• tell me about chez panisse
• can you give me a listing of the kinds of food that are available
• i’m looking for a good place to eat breakfast
• when is caffe venezia open during the day
Dan Jurafsky

Raw bigram counts

• Out of 9222 sentences
Dan Jurafsky

Raw bigram probabilities

• Normalize by unigrams:

• Result:
Dan Jurafsky

Bigram estimates of sentence probabilities

P(<s> I want english food </s>) =
P(I|<s>)
× P(want|I)
× P(english|want)
× P(food|english)
× P(</s>|food)
= .000031
Dan Jurafsky

What kinds of knowledge?

• P(english|want) = .0011
• P(chinese|want) = .0065
• P(to|want) = .66
• P(eat | to) = .28
• P(food | to) = 0
• P(want | spend) = 0
• P (i | <s>) = .25
Dan Jurafsky

Practical Issues
• We do everything in log space
• Avoid underflow
• (also adding is faster than multiplying)

log(p1 ´ p2 ´ p3 ´ p4 ) = log p1 + log p2 + log p3 + log p4

Dan Jurafsky

Language Modeling Toolkits

• SRILM
• http://www.speech.sri.com/projects/srilm/
Dan Jurafsky

Google N-Gram Release, August 2006

…
 Dan Jurafsky

Google N-Gram Release

• serve as the incoming 92
• serve as the incubator 99
• serve as the independent 794
• serve as the index 223
• serve as the indication 72
• serve as the indicator 120
• serve as the indicators 45
• serve as the indispensable 111
• serve as the indispensible 40
• serve as the individual 234

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/08/all-our-n-gram-are-belong-to-you.html
Dan Jurafsky

Google Book N-grams

• http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/
 Language
Modeling
Estimating N-gram
Probabilities
Language
Modeling
Evaluation and
Perplexity
Dan Jurafsky

Evaluation: How good is our model?

• Does our language model prefer good sentences to bad ones?
• Assign higher probability to “real” or “frequently observed” sentences
• Than “ungrammatical” or “rarely observed” sentences?
• We train parameters of our model on a training set.
• We test the model’s performance on data we haven’t seen.
• A test set is an unseen dataset that is different from our training set,
totally unused.
• An evaluation metric tells us how well our model does on the test set.
Dan Jurafsky

Extrinsic evaluation of N-gram models

• Best evaluation for comparing models A and B
• Put each model in a task
• spelling corrector, speech recognizer, MT system
• Run the task, get an accuracy for A and for B
• How many misspelled words corrected properly
• How many words translated correctly
• Compare accuracy for A and B
Dan Jurafsky

Difficulty of extrinsic (in-vivo) evaluation

of N-gram models
• Extrinsic evaluation
• Time-consuming; can take days or weeks
• So
• Sometimes use intrinsic evaluation: perplexity
• Bad approximation
• unless the test data looks just like the training data
• So generally only useful in pilot experiments
• But is helpful to think about.
Dan Jurafsky

Intuition of Perplexity
mushrooms 0.1
• The Shannon Game:
• How well can we predict the next word? pepperoni 0.1
anchovies 0.01
I always order pizza with cheese and ____
….
The 33rd President of the US was ____
fried rice 0.0001
I saw a ____ ….
• Unigrams are terrible at this game. (Why?) and 1e-100
• A better model of a text
• is one which assigns a higher probability to the word that actually occurs
Dan Jurafsky

Perplexity
The best language model is one that best predicts an unseen test set
• Gives the highest P(sentence) -
1
PP(W ) = P(w1w2 ...wN ) N
Perplexity is the inverse probability of
the test set, normalized by the number
1
of words: = N
P(w1w2 ...wN )

Chain rule:

For bigrams:

Minimizing perplexity is the same as maximizing probability

Dan Jurafsky

The Shannon Game intuition for perplexity

• From Josh Goodman
• How hard is the task of recognizing digits ‘0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9’
• Perplexity 10
• How hard is recognizing (30,000) names at Microsoft.
• Perplexity = 30,000
• If a system has to recognize
• Operator (1 in 4)
• Sales (1 in 4)
• Technical Support (1 in 4)
• 30,000 names (1 in 120,000 each)
• Perplexity is 53
• Perplexity is weighted equivalent branching factor
Dan Jurafsky

Perplexity as branching factor

• Let’s suppose a sentence consisting of random digits
• What is the perplexity of this sentence according to a model
that assign P=1/10 to each digit?
Dan Jurafsky

Lower perplexity = better model

• Training 38 million words, test 1.5 million words, WSJ

N-gram Unigram Bigram Trigram

Order
Perplexity 962 170 109
Language
Modeling
Evaluation and
Perplexity
 Language
Modeling
Generalization and
zeros
Dan Jurafsky

The Shannon Visualization Method

• Choose a random bigram
<s> I
(<s>, w) according to its probability I want
• Now choose a random bigram want to
(w, x) according to its probability to eat
• And so on until we choose </s> eat Chinese
• Then string the words together Chinese food
food </s>
I want to eat Chinese food
Dan Jurafsky

Approximating Shakespeare
Dan Jurafsky

Shakespeare as corpus
• N=884,647 tokens, V=29,066
• Shakespeare produced 300,000 bigram types
out of V2= 844 million possible bigrams.
• So 99.96% of the possible bigrams were never seen
(have zero entries in the table)
• Quadrigrams worse: What's coming out looks
like Shakespeare because it is Shakespeare
Dan Jurafsky

The wall street journal is not shakespeare

(no offense)
Dan Jurafsky

The perils of overfitting

• N-grams only work well for word prediction if the test
corpus looks like the training corpus
• In real life, it often doesn’t
• We need to train robust models that generalize!
• One kind of generalization: Zeros!
• Things that don’t ever occur in the training set
• But occur in the test set
 Dan Jurafsky

Zeros
• Training set: • Test set
… denied the allegations … denied the offer
… denied the reports … denied the loan
… denied the claims
… denied the request

P(“offer” | denied the) = 0

Dan Jurafsky

Zero probability bigrams

• Bigrams with zero probability
• mean that we will assign 0 probability to the test set!
• And hence we cannot compute perplexity (can’t divide by 0)!
 Language
Modeling
Generalization and
zeros
 Language
Modeling
Smoothing: Add-one
(Laplace) smoothing
 Dan Jurafsky

The intuition of smoothing (from Dan Klein)

• When we have sparse statistics:
P(w | denied the)

allegations
3 allegations

outcome
reports
2 reports

attack
…

request
claims
1 claims

man
1 request
7 total
• Steal probability mass to generalize better
P(w | denied the)
2.5 allegations

allegations
allegations
1.5 reports

outcome
0.5 claims

reports

attack
0.5 request
…

man
claims

request
2 other
7 total
Dan Jurafsky

Add-one estimation

• Also called Laplace smoothing

• Pretend we saw each word one more time than we did
• Just add one to all the counts!
c(wi-1, wi )
PMLE (wi | wi-1 ) =
• MLE estimate: c(wi-1 )
c(wi-1, wi ) +1
• Add-1 estimate: PAdd-1 (wi | wi-1 ) =
c(wi-1 ) +V
Dan Jurafsky

Maximum Likelihood Estimates

• The maximum likelihood estimate
• of some parameter of a model M from a training set T
• maximizes the likelihood of the training set T given the model M
• Suppose the word “bagel” occurs 400 times in a corpus of a million words
• What is the probability that a random word from some other text will be
“bagel”?
• MLE estimate is 400/1,000,000 = .0004
• This may be a bad estimate for some other corpus
• But it is the estimate that makes it most likely that “bagel” will occur 400 times in
a million word corpus.
Dan Jurafsky

Berkeley Restaurant Corpus: Laplace

smoothed bigram counts
Dan Jurafsky

Laplace-smoothed bigrams
Dan Jurafsky

Reconstituted counts
Dan Jurafsky

Compare with raw bigram counts

Dan Jurafsky

Add-1 estimation is a blunt instrument

• So add-1 isn’t used for N-grams:
• We’ll see better methods
• But add-1 is used to smooth other NLP models
• For text classification
• In domains where the number of zeros isn’t so huge.
 Language
Modeling
Smoothing: Add-one
(Laplace) smoothing
 Language
Modeling
Interpolation, Backoff,
and Web-Scale LMs
Dan Jurafsky

Backoff and Interpolation

• Sometimes it helps to use less context
• Condition on less context for contexts you haven’t learned much about
• Backoff:
• use trigram if you have good evidence,
• otherwise bigram, otherwise unigram
• Interpolation:
• mix unigram, bigram, trigram

• Interpolation works better

Dan Jurafsky

Linear Interpolation
• Simple interpolation

• Lambdas conditional on context:

Dan Jurafsky

How to set the lambdas?

• Use a held-out corpus
Held-Out Test
Training Data Data Data
• Choose λs to maximize the probability of held-out data:
• Fix the N-gram probabilities (on the training data)
• Then search for λs that give largest probability to held-out set:

log P(w1...wn | M(l1...lk )) = å log PM ( l1... lk ) (wi | wi-1 )

i
Dan Jurafsky

Unknown words: Open versus closed

vocabulary tasks
• If we know all the words in advanced
• Vocabulary V is fixed
• Closed vocabulary task
• Often we don’t know this
• Out Of Vocabulary = OOV words
• Open vocabulary task
• Instead: create an unknown word token <UNK>
• Training of <UNK> probabilities
• Create a fixed lexicon L of size V
• At text normalization phase, any training word not in L changed to <UNK>
• Now we train its probabilities like a normal word
• At decoding time
• If text input: Use UNK probabilities for any word not in training
Dan Jurafsky

Huge web-scale n-grams

• How to deal with, e.g., Google N-gram corpus
• Pruning
• Only store N-grams with count > threshold.
• Remove singletons of higher-order n-grams
• Entropy-based pruning
• Efficiency
• Efficient data structures like tries
• Bloom filters: approximate language models
• Store words as indexes, not strings
• Use Huffman coding to fit large numbers of words into two bytes
• Quantize probabilities (4-8 bits instead of 8-byte float)
Dan Jurafsky

Smoothing for Web-scale N-grams

• “Stupid backoff” (Brants et al. 2007)
• No discounting, just use relative frequencies
ì i
ïï count(wi-k+1 )
i-k+1 ) > 0
i
i-1
if count(w
S(wi | wi-k+1 ) = í count(wi-k+1 )
i-1

ï i-1
ïî 0.4S(wi | wi-k+2 ) otherwise

count(wi )
S(wi ) =
63 N
Dan Jurafsky

N-gram Smoothing Summary

• Add-1 smoothing:
• OK for text categorization, not for language modeling
• The most commonly used method:
• Extended Interpolated Kneser-Ney
• For very large N-grams like the Web:
• Stupid backoff

64
Dan Jurafsky

Advanced Language Modeling

• Discriminative models:
• choose n-gram weights to improve a task, not to fit the
training set
• Parsing-based models
• Caching Models
• Recently used words are more likely to appear
c(w Î history)
PCACHE (w | history) = l P(wi | wi-2 wi-1 ) + (1- l )
| history |
• These perform very poorly for speech recognition (why?)
 Language
Modeling
Interpolation, Backoff,
and Web-Scale LMs
 Language
Modeling

Advanced: Good
Turing Smoothing
Dan Jurafsky

Reminder: Add-1 (Laplace) Smoothing

c(wi-1, wi ) +1
PAdd-1 (wi | wi-1 ) =
c(wi-1 ) +V
Dan Jurafsky

More general formulations: Add-k

c(wi-1, wi ) + k
PAdd-k (wi | wi-1 ) =
c(wi-1 ) + kV
1
c(wi-1, wi ) + m( )
PAdd-k (wi | wi-1 ) = V
c(wi-1 ) + m
Dan Jurafsky

Unigram prior smoothing

1
c(wi-1, wi ) + m( )
PAdd-k (wi | wi-1 ) = V
c(wi-1 ) + m

c(wi-1, wi ) + mP(wi )
PUnigramPrior (wi | wi-1 ) =
c(wi-1 ) + m
Dan Jurafsky

Advanced smoothing algorithms

• Intuition used by many smoothing algorithms
• Good-Turing
• Kneser-Ney
• Witten-Bell
• Use the count of things we’ve seen once
• to help estimate the count of things we’ve never seen
Dan Jurafsky

Notation: Nc = Frequency of frequency c

• Nc = the count of things we’ve seen c times
• Sam I am I am Sam I do not eat
I 3
sam 2
am 2 N1 = 3
do 1 N2 = 2
not 1
N3 = 1
eat 1
72
Dan Jurafsky

Good-Turing smoothing intuition

• You are fishing (a scenario from Josh Goodman), and caught:
• 10 carp, 3 perch, 2 whitefish, 1 trout, 1 salmon, 1 eel = 18 fish
• How likely is it that next species is trout?
• 1/18
• How likely is it that next species is new (i.e. catfish or bass)
• Let’s use our estimate of things-we-saw-once to estimate the new things.
• 3/18 (because N1=3)
• Assuming so, how likely is it that next species is trout?
• Must be less than 1/18
• How to estimate?
Dan Jurafsky

Good Turing calculations

N1 (c +1)N c+1
P (things with zero frequency) =
*
GT c* =
N Nc
• Unseen (bass or catfish) • Seen once (trout)
• c = 0: • c=1
• MLE p = 0/18 = 0 • MLE p = 1/18

• P*GT (unseen) = N1/N = 3/18 • C*(trout) = 2 * N2/N1

= 2 * 1/3
= 2/3
• P*GT(trout) = 2/3 / 18 = 1/27
Dan Jurafsky

Ney et al.’s Good Turing Intuition

H. Ney, U. Essen, and R. Kneser, 1995. On the estimation of 'small' probabilities by leaving-one-out.
IEEE Trans. PAMI. 17:12,1202-1212

Held-out words:

75
Dan Jurafsky
Training Held out
Ney et al. Good Turing Intuition
(slide from Dan Klein)
N1 N0
• Intuition from leave-one-out validation
• Take each of the c training words out in turn
• c training sets of size c–1, held-out of size 1
• What fraction of held-out words are unseen in training? N2 N1
• N1/c
• What fraction of held-out words are seen k times in
training? N3 N2
• (k+1)Nk+1/c

....
....
• So in the future we expect (k+1)Nk+1/c of the words to be
those with training count k
• There are Nk words with training count k
• Each should occur with probability:
• (k+1)Nk+1/c/Nk N3511 N3510
(k +1)N k+1
• …or expected count: k* =
Nk N4417 N4416
 Dan Jurafsky

Good-Turing complications
(slide from Dan Klein)

• Problem: what about “the”? (say c=4417)

• For small k, Nk > Nk+1
N1
• For large k, too jumpy, zeros wreck N2 N
estimates 3

• Simple Good-Turing [Gale and

Sampson]: replace empirical Nk with a
best-fit power law once counts get N1
unreliable N2
Dan Jurafsky

Resulting Good-Turing numbers

• Numbers from Church and Gale (1991) Count Good Turing c*
c
• 22 million words of AP Newswire
0 .0000270
(c +1)N c+1 1 0.446
c* = 2 1.26
Nc
3 2.24
4 3.24
5 4.22
6 5.19
7 6.21
8 7.24
9 8.25
 Language
Modeling

Advanced: Good
Turing Smoothing
 Language
Modeling

Advanced:
Kneser-Ney Smoothing
Dan Jurafsky

Resulting Good-Turing numbers

• Numbers from Church and Gale (1991) Count Good Turing c*
c
• 22 million words of AP Newswire
0 .0000270
(c +1)N c+1 1 0.446
c* = 2 1.26
Nc
3 2.24
• It sure looks like c* = (c - .75) 4 3.24
5 4.22
6 5.19
7 6.21
8 7.24
9 8.25
Dan Jurafsky

Absolute Discounting Interpolation

• Save ourselves some time and just subtract 0.75 (or some d)!
discounted bigram Interpolation weight

c(wi-1, wi ) - d
PAbsoluteDiscounting (wi | wi-1 ) = + l (wi-1 )P(w)
c(wi-1 )
unigram

• (Maybe keeping a couple extra values of d for counts 1 and 2)

• But should we really just use the regular unigram P(w)?
82
Dan Jurafsky

Kneser-Ney Smoothing I
• Better estimate for probabilities of lower-order unigrams!
Francisco
glasses
• Shannon game: I can’t see without my reading___________?
• “Francisco” is more common than “glasses”
• … but “Francisco” always follows “San”
• The unigram is useful exactly when we haven’t seen this bigram!
• Instead of P(w): “How likely is w”
• Pcontinuation(w): “How likely is w to appear as a novel continuation?
• For each word, count the number of bigram types it completes
• Every bigram type was a novel continuation the first time it was seen
PCONTINUATION (w)µ {wi-1 : c(wi-1, w) > 0}
Dan Jurafsky

Kneser-Ney Smoothing II
• How many times does w appear as a novel continuation:
PCONTINUATION (w)µ {wi-1 : c(wi-1, w) > 0}

• Normalized by the total number of word bigram types

{(w j-1, w j ) : c(w j-1, w j ) > 0}

{wi-1 : c(wi-1, w) > 0}

PCONTINUATION (w) =
{(w j-1, w j ) : c(w j-1, w j ) > 0}
Dan Jurafsky

Kneser-Ney Smoothing III

• Alternative metaphor: The number of # of word types seen to precede w

| {wi-1 : c(wi-1, w) > 0} |

• normalized by the # of words preceding all words:

{wi-1 : c(wi-1, w) > 0}

PCONTINUATION (w) =
å {w' i-1 : c(w'i-1, w') > 0}
w'

• A frequent word (Francisco) occurring in only one context (San) will have a
low continuation probability
Dan Jurafsky

Kneser-Ney Smoothing IV

max(c(wi-1, wi ) - d, 0)
PKN (wi | wi-1 ) = + l (wi-1 )PCONTINUATION (wi )
c(wi-1 )
λ is a normalizing constant; the probability mass we’ve discounted

d
l (wi-1 ) = {w : c(wi-1, w) > 0}
c(wi-1 )
The number of word types that can follow wi-1
the normalized discount = # of word types we discounted
86 = # of times we applied normalized discount
 Dan Jurafsky

Kneser-Ney Smoothing: Recursive

formulation

i
max(c (w i-n+1 ) - d, 0)
i-1
PKN (wi | wi-n+1 ) = KN
i-1
+ l (w i-1
)P
i-n+1 KN (wi | w i-1
i-n+2 )
cKN (wi-n+1 )

ìï count(·) for the highest order

cKN (·) = í
ïî continuationcount(·) for lower order

Continuation count = Number of unique single word contexts for 

87
 Language
Modeling

Advanced:
Kneser-Ney Smoothing