ML Interview Q Series: What methods to perform Feature Engineering from text data do you know?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Feature engineering from text data can be carried out in a variety of ways, each offering unique strengths. Some methods retain sparse representations of text, such as bag-of-words, while others capture richer contextual or semantic information (for example, word embeddings and transformer-based embeddings). The choice depends on the nature of the problem, the size of the dataset, and the performance requirements.
Text Preprocessing and Cleaning
Raw text typically goes through normalization, which can include lowercasing, removing punctuation, eliminating stopwords, and handling repeated characters. Depending on language nuances and the downstream task, lemmatization or stemming might be used. This ensures words that have different inflections but share the same stem or lemma are treated consistently.
Bag-of-Words Representation
This is one of the most classical methods of text representation. Each document is represented as a large vector indicating the occurrence of words (or tokens). While it loses word order information, it remains popular due to simplicity and efficiency.
In Python, one might use CountVectorizer from scikit-learn to transform raw text into a bag-of-words vector. For example:
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import CountVectorizer
text_data = ["I love reading about deep learning",
"Reading books on deep learning is fun",
"Deep learning methods are powerful"]
vectorizer = CountVectorizer()
bow_features = vectorizer.fit_transform(text_data)
print(bow_features.toarray())
N-grams
To incorporate some notion of word ordering, n-grams can be used. Instead of single tokens (unigrams), you might consider pairs of consecutive words (bigrams) or longer sequences (trigrams, etc.). This is beneficial for capturing short phrases or common collocations.
TF-IDF Representation
A more refined approach than raw counts is Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency (tf-idf), which downweights frequently occurring words in the corpus and emphasizes terms that are more unique to a given document.
Here tf(t, d) is the count of term t in document d, N is the total number of documents, and df(t) is the number of documents in which term t appears. The logarithm ratio highlights terms that uniquely identify a document within the collection. The result is a numerical feature vector for each document, often used in text classification, clustering, or retrieval tasks.
Embedding-Based Approaches
Distributed word embeddings such as Word2Vec and GloVe allow words to be represented in a lower-dimensional dense vector space that encodes semantic and syntactic relationships. Models like FastText further break words into character n-grams, allowing the handling of out-of-vocabulary terms more gracefully.
In modern settings, many practitioners use transformer-based embeddings (e.g., BERT, RoBERTa, GPT) provided by libraries such as Hugging Face. Instead of simply returning a single vector per token, these models produce contextual embeddings that consider the surrounding words. If needed, one can pool these token embeddings to create a single vector for an entire sentence.
Doc2Vec
While Word2Vec focuses on word embeddings, Doc2Vec (Paragraph Vector) produces embeddings at the document (or paragraph) level. It is useful for classification tasks and similarity searches at a higher text granularity.
Topic Modeling
Unsupervised methods such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) or Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) can produce features that capture hidden semantic structure in text. LDA infers a set of latent “topics” in the corpus; then each document is represented by a distribution over these topics. Topic modeling is particularly useful for exploratory data analysis or summarizing large text corpora.
Feature Engineering with Additional Signals
Beyond purely textual transformations, text can yield other cues:
Part-of-speech tags or syntactic dependencies, which can help capture grammar-specific signals.
Named entity recognition to identify person names, locations, organizations, or other semantic categories.
Sentiment Lexicons or domain-specific dictionaries, which can help capture polarity or domain-specific signals (e.g., finance terms, medical jargon).
Readability features like average sentence length, number of complex words, or usage of domain-specific phrases.
All these transformations and signals can be aggregated into feature vectors used in downstream models. The exact choice of methods will depend on the size, complexity, and domain of the dataset, as well as performance demands and interpretability requirements.
How to Implement Some of These Methods
Combining textual representations can be as simple as concatenating TF-IDF features with domain-specific or sentiment-based features to feed into a model (e.g., logistic regression, random forest, or neural network). One could also leverage pretrained embeddings from huggingface Transformers:
!pip install transformers # for demonstration purposes
from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModel
import torch
tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("bert-base-uncased")
model = AutoModel.from_pretrained("bert-base-uncased")
text = ["Deep learning is powerful"]
encoded_input = tokenizer(text, padding=True, truncation=True, return_tensors='pt')
with torch.no_grad():
output = model(**encoded_input)
# output.last_hidden_state is a batch of embeddings
# We might pool them to get a single vector representation per sentence
embeddings = torch.mean(output.last_hidden_state, dim=1)
print(embeddings.shape)
This shows how to transform text into a contextual representation using a pretrained BERT model.
Potential Follow-up Questions
What are the advantages and disadvantages of Bag-of-Words compared to more advanced methods?
Bag-of-Words is straightforward, easy to implement, and often very effective on reasonably sized datasets. However, it loses context since it does not encode word order (unless you consider n-grams). It also creates high-dimensional, sparse vectors that can be memory-intensive. More advanced methods like word embeddings reduce dimensionality and capture meaningful semantic relationships, but they may require more training data, higher computational cost, and careful hyperparameter tuning.
How would you handle out-of-vocabulary words when using classical embeddings like Word2Vec?
Classical embeddings like Word2Vec assign each unique word in the training corpus a fixed vector. Any new or uncommon words not seen during training are not assigned a meaningful vector. One workaround is to set a default vector (for unknown tokens), but this loses semantic information. FastText addresses this by breaking words into character n-grams so that unknown words can still get embeddings composed from subword units. Another solution is to use contextualized embeddings from transformer models, which handle words by subtokenization.
Why might you consider subword embeddings or character-level features in your pipeline?
These methods can help address the limitations of standard token-based approaches. They handle spelling variations, morphological differences, or slang more gracefully. Subword embeddings ensure that similar chunks of text share similar representations, which is crucial in domains with specialized or rapidly evolving vocabulary. They also handle out-of-vocabulary words better, improving model robustness.
How do you choose between TF-IDF and more modern embedding techniques like BERT embeddings?
This depends on multiple factors, such as dataset size, task requirements, and resource constraints. TF-IDF is fast, interpretable, and suitable for many traditional classification or retrieval tasks. It also works well on small to medium datasets. However, for tasks involving subtle nuances (e.g., sentiment analysis, question answering, or entity recognition), contextual embeddings such as BERT can significantly improve performance. Yet, these models require more computational resources and are less interpretable. Practitioners often experiment with both approaches, possibly combining them in ensemble models or using embeddings as features in a traditional ML model.
What are some edge cases when dealing with text from multiple languages or noisy user-generated content?
Mixed-language text can cause tokenizers or embedding models trained on a single language to perform poorly. If your data includes code-switching or multiple languages, consider using multilingual embeddings or language detection to handle text segments separately. Noisy or user-generated text such as social media posts or chat messages may contain spelling errors, slang, emojis, or domain-specific jargon. Subword tokenization or specialized language models for social media text can mitigate these issues. Handling emojis or symbolic expressions might require special pipelines or additional preprocessing steps.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How might you incorporate domain-specific knowledge or specialized dictionaries into your text feature engineering pipeline?
Domain-specific knowledge can vastly improve the quality of text features. For instance, if you are working with medical text, you might have access to ontologies like UMLS. Similarly, for financial data, you can use sentiment lexicons geared toward finance news or corporate filings. One strategy is to identify key terms or concepts from these specialized dictionaries and create additional binary or count-based features indicating their presence in a piece of text. This approach can capture critical domain signals that generic embeddings might miss. A potential pitfall is overfitting if the dictionaries are too narrow or the text is highly variable. Also, maintaining and updating domain-specific dictionaries can be challenging when language evolves quickly or new terminology frequently arises.
When might you consider morphological analysis or chunking as part of text feature engineering?
Morphological analysis, which examines the structure of words (like prefixes, suffixes, and roots), can be important for languages with rich morphology (e.g., Turkish, Finnish, or Arabic). For these languages, relying on naive tokenization might miss crucial grammatical and semantic information embedded in word structure. Chunking (shallow parsing) can also be useful when you want phrases or syntactic constituents rather than just word tokens. This is helpful in information extraction tasks, where capturing noun phrases or verb phrases reveals more about the text’s subject matter. One edge case is dealing with textual data that is noisy or has many misspellings, where morphological tools might fail if they rely on well-formed words. Another challenge is that morphological analyzers might not handle code-mixed text (multiple languages in the same sentence) very well.
How do you handle very large and high-dimensional text feature sets in practice to avoid memory issues or overfitting?
Text features, especially those derived from bag-of-words or n-gram approaches, can produce extremely high-dimensional vectors, leading to computational bottlenecks and potential overfitting. Strategies to address this include:
Dimensionality Reduction: Techniques like PCA or truncated SVD can project the text feature space onto a lower-dimensional subspace while preserving most of the variance.
Regularization: Models such as L1-regularized logistic regression can zero out less useful features, reducing dimensionality and improving interpretability.
Feature Selection: Methods like mutual information or chi-square tests can prune features that are not strongly related to the target label. An edge case is when the text vocabulary is dynamic and grows over time. In streaming or continually updated scenarios, repeated dimensionality reduction or feature selection might be needed, which adds extra complexity to the pipeline.
What strategies promote interpretability when using advanced embeddings?
Contextual embeddings (e.g., BERT, RoBERTa) and deep neural models can be less transparent than simpler bag-of-words or TF-IDF features. Strategies to improve interpretability include:
Attention Visualization: In models that use attention mechanisms, you can visualize where the model is “paying attention” in the text.
Embedding Probing: Evaluate subspaces of embedding vectors with tasks designed to measure semantic or syntactic relationships. This can reveal which linguistic features the embeddings capture.
LIME or SHAP: These model-agnostic explanation tools can highlight important tokens or token embeddings in a given decision. One subtlety is that interpretability methods sometimes become computationally expensive or produce explanations that are still hard to understand for domain experts. Also, changes in the model architecture or updates to embeddings might require re-running interpretability methods, which can complicate production deployment.
How can you ensure your text features are robust to synonyms, polysemy, and context dependence?
Synonyms pose a challenge in bag-of-words or n-gram representations because different words that share similar meaning appear as separate features. Polysemy (words with multiple meanings) complicates representation if the correct sense is not disambiguated. Contextual embedding methods can mitigate these issues, as they capture how the same token may shift meaning in different contexts. For synonyms, one can map words to pretrained embeddings that may cluster similar words in the same region of vector space. However, domain or language drift can still create confusion if the embeddings are not updated over time. Also, synonyms in specialized domains might not align well with general-purpose pretrained embeddings.
How do you handle drifting language or changing topics over time in streaming text data?
Language drift can happen when new slang terms emerge, product names change, or topics shift in a domain. Traditional static embeddings might not capture these updates, and bag-of-words approaches might miss new terms. Potential solutions include:
Incremental Training: Periodically retrain or fine-tune your embeddings or vectorizer on recent data. This approach can be computationally expensive if the dataset is large or if frequent updates are required.
Adaptive Vocabularies: For bag-of-words or n-grams, you can maintain a rolling window of words, removing stale vocabulary entries while adding new ones.
Meta-Learning or Online Learning: Models that can adapt in an online fashion, updating parameters without a full retraining, might handle drift more smoothly. A significant pitfall is catastrophic forgetting, where updating the model on new distributions causes performance degradation on older data. Mitigation might require a careful balance of old and new samples during updates.
How would you design an experiment to compare different text feature engineering approaches on a real-world dataset?
A typical experiment includes:
Data Splits: Prepare robust training, validation, and test sets, ensuring they are representative of the domain. If possible, use multiple random splits or cross-validation.
Baseline Models: Start with simple text features (e.g., TF-IDF) with a standard classifier like logistic regression.
Advanced Methods: Incorporate word embeddings, subword embeddings, or contextual embeddings. Possibly add domain-specific features.
Evaluation Metrics: Track accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, or other domain-relevant metrics. Consider using more than one metric if the domain requires it (e.g., ranking-based metrics in information retrieval).
Statistical Significance: Use statistical tests to see if performance differences are meaningful. One subtlety is handling hyperparameter selection for each approach fairly. For instance, a neural-based approach might require more extensive tuning than a simpler TF-IDF pipeline. Another concern is that advanced embeddings could require more computational resources, so you should factor in practicality when deciding which method “wins.”
What are the main differences between LDA-based topic modeling and neural-based topic modeling approaches for feature engineering?
LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation): Uses a probabilistic generative model, representing documents as mixtures of topics. It tends to be easier to interpret because each topic comes with a distribution of words, and each document can be associated with interpretable topic proportions. However, it can struggle with very large vocabularies, requires specifying the number of topics, and might yield less coherent topics if the text is highly varied.
Neural-Based Topic Modeling: Employs neural networks (e.g., autoencoders, variational autoencoders) and can capture more complex patterns. Some architectures can auto-tune the number of topics. However, they can be less transparent; you might need specialized techniques to interpret or label the discovered topics. They also typically require more data and computational resources to generalize effectively. In real-world scenarios, interpretability often tilts the choice toward LDA for analysts who want to see exactly which words define a given topic. But if you have enough data and can manage the complexity, neural models may capture more nuanced patterns, potentially yielding richer features.
How do you deal with extremely rare relevant phrases or severe class imbalance in text classification?
When a dataset is imbalanced, especially if critical classes or rare phrases appear infrequently, standard approaches might overlook these important signals. Techniques include:
Oversampling or Data Augmentation: Increase the representation of minority classes, possibly by generating synthetic text (though this can introduce noise).
Undersampling: Reduce the majority class. However, this could lead to throwing away potentially useful data.
Focal Loss or Class Weights: Modify the loss function of neural networks or scikit-learn classifiers to pay more attention to the minority class.
Targeted Feature Engineering: Specifically highlight the rare but highly predictive keywords or phrases by weighting them more heavily. A key pitfall is overfitting to rare terms, which might cause the model to generalize poorly. Oversampling can also distort the underlying data distribution if done naively. A carefully balanced approach that monitors metrics like recall and precision on the minority classes is crucial.
How might you handle sarcasm or irony in textual data, which is often missed by standard feature extraction methods?
Sarcasm and irony present a significant challenge because they depend heavily on context and even extralinguistic cues (tone of voice, facial expressions, or cultural context). For textual data:
Context-Aware Models: Large pretrained language models or specialized architectures that capture conversation history or user context may pick up on subtle cues.
Extra Linguistic Markers: Emoticons, punctuation (excessive exclamation marks or quotes), or user profiles can hint at sarcasm. Incorporating these signals into the feature set might help.
Annotated Datasets: Sarcasm detection often requires carefully labeled data. Without explicit annotation, models might remain blind to ironic usage. A major pitfall is that sarcasm can be domain-specific or rely on cultural references. A general sarcasm detection method might fail on a new domain or a different language style. Maintaining performance as language usage evolves can be exceptionally hard, so consistent re-annotation or domain adaptation is crucial.