Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Which Encoding is the Best for Text Classification in Chinese, English, Japanese and Korean?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1708.02657 v2 pith:YTDKT23N submitted 2017-08-08 cs.CL cs.LG

Which Encoding is the Best for Text Classification in Chinese, English, Japanese and Korean?

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords encodingchineseclassificationconvolutionalenglishjapanesekoreanmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This article offers an empirical study on the different ways of encoding Chinese, Japanese, Korean (CJK) and English languages for text classification. Different encoding levels are studied, including UTF-8 bytes, characters, words, romanized characters and romanized words. For all encoding levels, whenever applicable, we provide comparisons with linear models, fastText and convolutional networks. For convolutional networks, we compare between encoding mechanisms using character glyph images, one-hot (or one-of-n) encoding, and embedding. In total there are 473 models, using 14 large-scale text classification datasets in 4 languages including Chinese, English, Japanese and Korean. Some conclusions from these results include that byte-level one-hot encoding based on UTF-8 consistently produces competitive results for convolutional networks, that word-level n-grams linear models are competitive even without perfect word segmentation, and that fastText provides the best result using character-level n-gram encoding but can overfit when the features are overly rich.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.