research proposal in natural language processing

Natural Language Processing NLP Research Proposal

The term NLP refers to the Natural Language Processing that uses speech and the text data are being integrated for classification of its nature. The NLP approach empowers the smart approaches to effortlessly execute various NLP tasks such as text parsing, POS tagging, and automated translations . Hence, this article is useful for you in creating an intelligent approach for NLP tasks with good performance.

“A good NLP research proposal requires the benchmark datasets, effective problems; novel solutions and different scenarios based performance measures evaluation”

At the end of this article, you will be familiar with the fields of NLP research areas and proposal writing. You may not aware of the importance of proposal writing. In fact, it is the key component of research that displays the broad overview of the determined research. Stay tuned with the article to master the NLP research proposal.   We additionally covered this article with the eminent aspects of the NLP. Here, we have started the article with the basics of the NLP . Shall we sail in the same boat? Come let’s have the section.

What are the basics of NLP?

• Natural language processing techniques handle the human languages effortlessly
• It collects multilingual  text data from social media, emails & articles
• Initially it tokenizes the sentences, classifies the texts & analyzes the emotions
• Also deals with question answering, extracting meaning, text parsing, text corrections

In fact, NLP is the combination of Artificial Intelligence , computer science to evaluate the various languages that are being interacted with the computers by human beings. In a matter of fact, NLP is a popular and useful research area to be sure. Doing researches on this concept will yield fruitful results.

Generally, every technology is facing several issues in practical. Similar to the statement, NLP is also facing so many issues in its processes. In the following, we are going to list out the biggest issues that are faced by the NLP for the ease of your understanding. Come let us try to understand them with crystal clear points.

What is the Biggest Issue of NLP?

• Continuous Conversations
• Ambiguity & False-positives
• Phrases/ Words with Different Meaning
• Instinctive Preconceptions
• Spelling Mistakes
• Infinite Development Time

The foregoing passage has conveyed to you the spontaneous issues that arise in the NLP process. However, we can overcome these issues by integrating various types of learning algorithms into the NLP technology. Besides, hunting down these kinds of issues is an effortless task done by our technical team because they are highly proficient in NLP and other technologies. This is possible by combining various techniques and methodologies. Now we can see the different types of learning algorithms used in the NLP.

Different Types of Learning Algorithms in NLP

• It is the subset of the curriculum learning
• Interacts with the human in an open environ
• Identifies the new learning tasks and gets adapt
• Samples are presented in a chronological order
• Learning task streaming is continuous in nature
• Expressive training example arrangements
• If it fails complexity will arise
• Datasets acclimates with the new tasks
• Generic knowledge learning
• Tasks improvements by sharing parameters
• Multi-task learning simultaneously
• Client to server knowledge transferring
• It improves the target’s performance

The listed 6 above are the major learning algorithms that are utilized in natural language processing. On the other hand, these algorithms are applied in the numerous models of the NLP. We know that adding the list of models would impact better here. To make you more understand we have also mentioned the types of NLP models . Shall we jump into that? Let’s tune together!!!

Types of NLP Models

• Pre-Trained Model
• SC-GPT & GPT2
• Transfer-Transfo
• Supervised Learning
• BiRNN & HMM
• CRF & RNN-LSTM
• Semantic Reranking
• Dialog BABI
• Explicit Method
• Decouple & HTG
• LaRL & HDSA
• Multi-agent
• MADPL & Iterative
• Model-based
• Switch DDQ & D2Q
• PPO & ACR
• Reinforce & DQN

The preceding passage has covered the task-oriented dialogue systems models with their subsections. As this article is titled with the name of NLP research proposal, here we are going to envelop the upcoming passages with the same.

‘Research proposal writing is one of the important processes is to be done after the research completion’

Let’s have further explanations in the succeeding sections,

What is meant by Research Proposal?

• Determined researches’ brief and clear summarization is known as the proposal
• It covers the background of the research study & states significant technical improvements
• Ensures the chance to reveal one’s perspectives  & helps to deal with complexities

This is the simplest overview of the research proposal. We hope that this would be more helpful to you. We know that you are eagerly waiting for the writing procedure section of the NLP research proposal. In fact, we are here to educate you hence we have covered the immediate passage with the proposal writing procedure in NLP Thesis for your better understanding.

How to Write the Research Proposal in Detail?

• Title must be crisp and cover the overall research
• Consisted of clear statements of the issue addressing
• Highlights the proposed ideas and the performance obtained
• Highlights the research background with the current state of preliminaries
• Points out the main & sub-questions with answering techniques
• Clarifies in which analyses are done with their outcomes
• Methods neither in the form of surveys nor experiments
• Elucidates the utmost importance of the research
• Identification of pertinent areas according to the research subject

This is how a typical research proposal is to be written. If you are facing any challenges in framing a proposal, you can undoubtedly approach our technical team. While doing PhD, MPhil and MS you need to do work on the research proposals . Generally, it needs an expert’s assistance in the relevant areas. In fact, various students and scholars from all over the world are availing of our innovative ideas and thesis writing guidance from our technical team.

Our crew consisted of multi-talented resources. Additionally, they are capable of handling all the necessary technical and non-technical tasks. They are having enough knowledge in writing the NLP research proposals .

In the subsequent passage, we wanted to point out to you the current NLP research proposal topics for your reference. In fact, these are some of the projects dealt with by our expert teams. Shall we have that section? If yes, stay tuned with us.

Current Research Proposal Topics in NLP

• Acquisition of  Tweets from Server
• Identification of  Tweet Emotions
• Creation of  Word Frequency Counter
• Evaluation of  Sentence F1 Scores
• Text Summary of Data
• Cleaning of Text Data using NLTK
• Prototypes of BoW
• Classify by Naive Bayes Algorithm
• Exploration & Processing Data
• Training & Testing Datasets
• Classify by Random Forest & Support Vector Machine (SVM)

In the foregoing passage, we deliberately mentioned to you the NLP research proposal topics. The application of the tools in these areas will benefit us with the best results in the determined approaches. In fact, they are freely available in the market. We can deploy the various top-notch tools into the NLP processes. Yes, we are going to let you know the tools in the following passage.

Best Open Source NLP Tools

• R based Text Data Quantitative Analyzing Package
• Text Analysis Framework thorough API
• Based on Text Engineering Architecture
• Dplyr, Ggplot2, & Tidy Text Mining Tools
• Improved Information Retrieval Library
• Uses Machine Learning Toolbox
• Research Toolkit  of NLP- Apache 2.0
• State-of-the-art Framework
• Information Extraction-MIT
• State-of-the-art & Pre-trained Models Toolkit
• Python-based library
• Extensible Annotation Pipeline
• Datasets, Python Modules & Tutorials

These are the 14 best tools being used for content labeling, topic recognition, emotion analysis, and text preprocessing & so on. We hope that this section would be very useful to the ones who are excitedly awaited for these sections.  Apart from this, it is important to have knowledge of the best datasets used in the NLP projects/researches. Our technical team also enumerated the details of the datasets for your better understanding.

Best Datasets for NLP Projects

• Named Entity Recognition
• MA & Part of Speech Tagging
• Part of Speech Tagging
• Text Segmentation

POS stands for the Parts of Speech. In the end, we have discussed all the essential details regarding the NLP concepts. If you are exhilarated to know more information about the NLP research proposals then feel free to approach us Natural Language Processing Thesis . We will let you the entire techniques and facts comprised in the NLP technology. Your success is our main objective ever.

“Let’s begin your successful research voyages by holding our hands”

Why Work With Us ?

Senior research member, research experience, journal member, book publisher, research ethics, business ethics, valid references, explanations, paper publication, 9 big reasons to select us.

Our Editor-in-Chief has Website Ownership who control and deliver all aspects of PhD Direction to scholars and students and also keep the look to fully manage all our clients.

Our world-class certified experts have 18+years of experience in Research & Development programs (Industrial Research) who absolutely immersed as many scholars as possible in developing strong PhD research projects.

We associated with 200+reputed SCI and SCOPUS indexed journals (SJR ranking) for getting research work to be published in standard journals (Your first-choice journal).

PhDdirection.com is world’s largest book publishing platform that predominantly work subject-wise categories for scholars/students to assist their books writing and takes out into the University Library.

Our researchers provide required research ethics such as Confidentiality & Privacy, Novelty (valuable research), Plagiarism-Free, and Timely Delivery. Our customers have freedom to examine their current specific research activities.

Our organization take into consideration of customer satisfaction, online, offline support and professional works deliver since these are the actual inspiring business factors.

Solid works delivering by young qualified global research team. "References" is the key to evaluating works easier because we carefully assess scholars findings.

Detailed Videos, Readme files, Screenshots are provided for all research projects. We provide Teamviewer support and other online channels for project explanation.

Worthy journal publication is our main thing like IEEE, ACM, Springer, IET, Elsevier, etc. We substantially reduces scholars burden in publication side. We carry scholars from initial submission to final acceptance.

Related Pages

Our benefits, throughout reference, confidential agreement, research no way resale, plagiarism-free, publication guarantee, customize support, fair revisions, business professionalism, domains & tools, we generally use, wireless communication (4g lte, and 5g), ad hoc networks (vanet, manet, etc.), wireless sensor networks, software defined networks, network security, internet of things (mqtt, coap), internet of vehicles, cloud computing, fog computing, edge computing, mobile computing, mobile cloud computing, ubiquitous computing, digital image processing, medical image processing, pattern analysis and machine intelligence, geoscience and remote sensing, big data analytics, data mining, power electronics, web of things, digital forensics, natural language processing, automation systems, artificial intelligence, mininet 2.1.0, matlab (r2018b/r2019a), matlab and simulink, apache hadoop, apache spark mlib, apache mahout, apache flink, apache storm, apache cassandra, pig and hive, rapid miner, support 24/7, call us @ any time, +91 9444829042, [email protected].

Questions ?

Click here to chat with us

natural language processing Recently Published Documents

Total documents.

• Latest Documents
• Most Cited Documents
• Contributed Authors
• Related Sources
• Related Keywords

Towards Developing Uniform Lexicon Based Sorting Algorithm for Three Prominent Indo-Aryan Languages

Three different Indic/Indo-Aryan languages - Bengali, Hindi and Nepali have been explored here in character level to find out similarities and dissimilarities. Having shared the same root, the Sanskrit, Indic languages bear common characteristics. That is why computer and language scientists can take the opportunity to develop common Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques or algorithms. Bearing the concept in mind, we compare and analyze these three languages character by character. As an application of the hypothesis, we also developed a uniform sorting algorithm in two steps, first for the Bengali and Nepali languages only and then extended it for Hindi in the second step. Our thorough investigation with more than 30,000 words from each language suggests that, the algorithm maintains total accuracy as set by the local language authorities of the respective languages and good efficiency.

Efficient Channel Attention Based Encoder–Decoder Approach for Image Captioning in Hindi

Image captioning refers to the process of generating a textual description that describes objects and activities present in a given image. It connects two fields of artificial intelligence, computer vision, and natural language processing. Computer vision and natural language processing deal with image understanding and language modeling, respectively. In the existing literature, most of the works have been carried out for image captioning in the English language. This article presents a novel method for image captioning in the Hindi language using encoder–decoder based deep learning architecture with efficient channel attention. The key contribution of this work is the deployment of an efficient channel attention mechanism with bahdanau attention and a gated recurrent unit for developing an image captioning model in the Hindi language. Color images usually consist of three channels, namely red, green, and blue. The channel attention mechanism focuses on an image’s important channel while performing the convolution, which is basically to assign higher importance to specific channels over others. The channel attention mechanism has been shown to have great potential for improving the efficiency of deep convolution neural networks (CNNs). The proposed encoder–decoder architecture utilizes the recently introduced ECA-NET CNN to integrate the channel attention mechanism. Hindi is the fourth most spoken language globally, widely spoken in India and South Asia; it is India’s official language. By translating the well-known MSCOCO dataset from English to Hindi, a dataset for image captioning in Hindi is manually created. The efficiency of the proposed method is compared with other baselines in terms of Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) scores, and the results obtained illustrate that the method proposed outperforms other baselines. The proposed method has attained improvements of 0.59%, 2.51%, 4.38%, and 3.30% in terms of BLEU-1, BLEU-2, BLEU-3, and BLEU-4 scores, respectively, with respect to the state-of-the-art. Qualities of the generated captions are further assessed manually in terms of adequacy and fluency to illustrate the proposed method’s efficacy.

Model Transformation Development Using Automated Requirements Analysis, Metamodel Matching, and Transformation by Example

In this article, we address how the production of model transformations (MT) can be accelerated by automation of transformation synthesis from requirements, examples, and metamodels. We introduce a synthesis process based on metamodel matching, correspondence patterns between metamodels, and completeness and consistency analysis of matches. We describe how the limitations of metamodel matching can be addressed by combining matching with automated requirements analysis and model transformation by example (MTBE) techniques. We show that in practical examples a large percentage of required transformation functionality can usually be constructed automatically, thus potentially reducing development effort. We also evaluate the efficiency of synthesised transformations. Our novel contributions are: The concept of correspondence patterns between metamodels of a transformation. Requirements analysis of transformations using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). Symbolic MTBE using “predictive specification” to infer transformations from examples. Transformation generation in multiple MT languages and in Java, from an abstract intermediate language.

A Computational Look at Oral History Archives

Computational technologies have revolutionized the archival sciences field, prompting new approaches to process the extensive data in these collections. Automatic speech recognition and natural language processing create unique possibilities for analysis of oral history (OH) interviews, where otherwise the transcription and analysis of the full recording would be too time consuming. However, many oral historians note the loss of aural information when converting the speech into text, pointing out the relevance of subjective cues for a full understanding of the interviewee narrative. In this article, we explore various computational technologies for social signal processing and their potential application space in OH archives, as well as neighboring domains where qualitative studies is a frequently used method. We also highlight the latest developments in key technologies for multimedia archiving practices such as natural language processing and automatic speech recognition. We discuss the analysis of both visual (body language and facial expressions), and non-visual cues (paralinguistics, breathing, and heart rate), stating the specific challenges introduced by the characteristics of OH collections. We argue that applying social signal processing to OH archives will have a wider influence than solely OH practices, bringing benefits for various fields from humanities to computer sciences, as well as to archival sciences. Looking at human emotions and somatic reactions on extensive interview collections would give scholars from multiple fields the opportunity to focus on feelings, mood, culture, and subjective experiences expressed in these interviews on a larger scale.

Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and Natural Language Processing methods

Natural language processing for smart construction: current status and future directions, attention-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction and phrase graph for covid-19 medical literature retrieval.

Searching, reading, and finding information from the massive medical text collections are challenging. A typical biomedical search engine is not feasible to navigate each article to find critical information or keyphrases. Moreover, few tools provide a visualization of the relevant phrases to the query. However, there is a need to extract the keyphrases from each document for indexing and efficient search. The transformer-based neural networks—BERT has been used for various natural language processing tasks. The built-in self-attention mechanism can capture the associations between words and phrases in a sentence. This research investigates whether the self-attentions can be utilized to extract keyphrases from a document in an unsupervised manner and identify relevancy between phrases to construct a query relevancy phrase graph to visualize the search corpus phrases on their relevancy and importance. The comparison with six baseline methods shows that the self-attention-based unsupervised keyphrase extraction works well on a medical literature dataset. This unsupervised keyphrase extraction model can also be applied to other text data. The query relevancy graph model is applied to the COVID-19 literature dataset and to demonstrate that the attention-based phrase graph can successfully identify the medical phrases relevant to the query terms.

Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processing

Pretraining large neural language models, such as BERT, has led to impressive gains on many natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, most pretraining efforts focus on general domain corpora, such as newswire and Web. A prevailing assumption is that even domain-specific pretraining can benefit by starting from general-domain language models. In this article, we challenge this assumption by showing that for domains with abundant unlabeled text, such as biomedicine, pretraining language models from scratch results in substantial gains over continual pretraining of general-domain language models. To facilitate this investigation, we compile a comprehensive biomedical NLP benchmark from publicly available datasets. Our experiments show that domain-specific pretraining serves as a solid foundation for a wide range of biomedical NLP tasks, leading to new state-of-the-art results across the board. Further, in conducting a thorough evaluation of modeling choices, both for pretraining and task-specific fine-tuning, we discover that some common practices are unnecessary with BERT models, such as using complex tagging schemes in named entity recognition. To help accelerate research in biomedical NLP, we have released our state-of-the-art pretrained and task-specific models for the community, and created a leaderboard featuring our BLURB benchmark (short for Biomedical Language Understanding & Reasoning Benchmark) at https://aka.ms/BLURB .

An ensemble approach for healthcare application and diagnosis using natural language processing

Machine learning and natural language processing enable a data-oriented experimental design approach for producing biochar and hydrochar from biomass, export citation format, share document.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10083066

Research proposal content extraction using natural language processing and semi-supervised clustering: A demonstration and comparative analysis

Benjamin m. knisely.

Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, United States Army Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD 21702 USA

Holly H. Pavliscsak

Associated data.

Funding institutions often solicit text-based research proposals to evaluate potential recipients. Leveraging the information contained in these documents could help institutions understand the supply of research within their domain. In this work, an end-to-end methodology for semi-supervised document clustering is introduced to partially automate classification of research proposals based on thematic areas of interest. The methodology consists of three stages: (1) manual annotation of a document sample; (2) semi-supervised clustering of documents; (3) evaluation of cluster results using quantitative metrics and qualitative ratings (coherence, relevance, distinctiveness) by experts. The methodology is described in detail to encourage replication and is demonstrated on a real-world data set. This demonstration sought to categorize proposals submitted to the US Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) related to technological innovations in military medicine. A comparative analysis of method features was performed, including unsupervised vs. semi-supervised clustering, several document vectorization techniques, and several cluster result selection strategies. Outcomes suggest that pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) embeddings were better suited for the task than older text embedding techniques. When comparing expert ratings between algorithms, semi-supervised clustering produced coherence ratings ~ 25% better on average compared to standard unsupervised clustering with negligible differences in cluster distinctiveness. Last, it was shown that a cluster result selection strategy that balances internal and external validity produced ideal results. With further refinement, this methodological framework shows promise as a useful analytical tool for institutions to unlock hidden insights from untapped archives and similar administrative document repositories.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04689-3.

Introduction

The goal of funding scientific research is typically to benefit some societal want or need. In economic terms, scientific research provides the supply of knowledge to satisfy these wants and needs, and these societal wants and needs generate the demand for this knowledge (Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007 ). Funding institutions and policy-makers serve as the interface between these two elements by soliciting proposals for research when market forces have not “naturally” prompted private sector entities to address these research needs. Balancing the relationship between supply of research and demand by society through research solicitation is a significant challenge for policy-makers (Edler & Boon, 2018 ; McNie, 2007 ).

Millions of proposals are submitted to funding institutions every year across a plethora of fields. Many of these proposals are accepted, however, most of these proposals are rejected and archived in various universities and institutions (Boyack et al., 2018 ). The information contained in these proposals could be used to identify trends in research related to a specific domain. This data can also reveal gaps in the supply of research proposals and demand initiated by institutions in response to societal values and needs. Institutions could use this information to guide allocation of funds and the generation of calls for research, and researchers could use this information to channel their efforts.

Document clustering

Summarizing trends across collections of research documents requires intense manual review that can be time prohibitive and quite subjective. Clustering algorithms can relieve some of the burden of the review task and can eliminate some reviewer-induced bias. Clustering is an unsupervised machine learning technique that algorithmically partitions unlabeled data into groups, or clusters, based on some measure of similarity. Popular clustering algorithms include k -means clustering, hierarchical (or agglomerative) clustering, gaussian mixture-models, and density-based algorithms like DBscan.

Document clustering uses algorithms to partition collections of documents into groups with semantically similar information to make analysis of documents more manageable (Subakti et al., 2022 ). Document clustering has been applied to text in many contexts, for example social media (Curiskis et al., 2020 ), medicine (Sandhiya & Sundarambal, 2019 ), law (Bhattacharya et al., 2022 ; Dhanani et al., 2021 ), hospitality (Kaya et al., 2022 ), patents (Choi & Jun, 2014 ; Kim et al., 2020 ), regulatory data (Levine et al., 2022 ), and engineering documents (Arnarsson et al., 2021 ). There are many unique challenges associated with document clustering. Text data is often noisy and must be carefully preprocessed using natural language processing (NLP) techniques (Bird et al., 2009 ). Further, text must be translated to a numerical vector representation prior to clustering. Common approaches to convert text to vector representation include bag-of-words methods and TF-IDF (term frequency-inverse document frequency), word embedding models such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013 ) and Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe) (Pennington et al., 2014 ), and transformer models like Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) (Devlin et al., 2019 ). Summarizing and interpreting output document clusters can also be difficult due to the high-dimensionality of text-based data and is an active area of research (Afzali & Kumar, 2019 ; Penta & Pal, 2021 ).

Clustering research documents

Quantitative analysis of text-based scientific material for the purpose of text summarization, specifically clustering, has received much attention in the fields of information management and informetrics (Ebadi et al., 2020 ; Jiménez et al., 2021 ; Mishra et al., 2022 ; Zhang et al., 2018 ; Zhou et al., 2019 ). Much of this work has focused on analyzing scientific research documents, as opposed to proposal documents (Boyack et al., 2018 ). These two types of documents represent supply of research at two different stages of the supply chain and are both worthy of analysis for the purpose of modeling scientific evolution.

The authors were able to locate relatively few recent articles specifically addressing research proposal clustering (Freyman et al., 2016 ; Ma et al., 2012 ; Priya & Karthikeyan, 2014 ; Rajput & Kandoi, 2017 ; Saravanan & Babu, 2021 ; Wang et al., 2015 ). The most common motivation in these papers was to systematically streamline proposal assignment to reviewers based on discipline. Other recent research sought to cluster funded research proposals to map disciplines within research portfolios (Nichols, 2014 ; Talley et al., 2011 ). In both cases, cluster structures were optimized to maximize homogeneity of discipline-related content within clusters. Clusters generated for this purpose may not meet the analytical needs of an institutions trying to summarize historic proposal content for other analytical purposes. Institutions therefore require a method to cluster proposals where cluster generation is tailored to capture specific themes of interest. Semi-supervised clustering could enable this capability.

Semi-supervised clustering

In contrast to traditional unsupervised clustering, semi-supervised clustering uses prior knowledge regarding the structure of the data to enhance the performance of the clustering algorithm. Most semi-supervised clustering algorithms require a sample of the dataset to be class-labeled. These classes are then used to define “Must-Link” (ML) and “Cannot-Link” (CL) relationships, where datapoints in the same class can be defined as ML and datapoints not in same the class as CL. Other algorithms leverage information regarding outcome variables associated with suspected clusters in the data, for example by minimizing the prediction error associated with an outcome variable given generated clusters (Ghasemi et al., 2022 ). Semi-supervised document clustering is also a small but active area of research. Sadjadi et al. ( 2021 ) described and demonstrated a “concept-based” semi-supervised clustering process that leverages a cluster-purity system, where generated clusters that contain labeled data are segmented based on several rules. Mei ( 2019 ) proposed a new type of supervising information (“subset partitions”) and demonstrated the algorithm with a document clustering task. Hu et al. ( 2016 ) introduced the concept of feature supervision, where the analyst labels features (words) of documents that have discriminating power in addition to labeling the entire document for constraint- or seed-based semi-supervised learning.

Research objectives and contributions

There is currently a lack of methods and guidance to support research proposal clustering for targeted thematic analyses. There are two main objectives of this research. First, this work establishes an end-to-end methodology to partially automate categorization of proposal document archives based on thematic areas of interest using semi-supervised clustering. This method takes advantage of both structured insights from subject matter experts as well as machine learning to produce proposal categories. Results of this research include guidance and best-practices for reproduction by practitioners and a framework for continued validation by other researchers.

The second objective of this research was to provide a comparative analysis of methodological features to support optimal application. This includes:

• Evaluating the performance of the method using several state-of-the-art baseline approaches for document vectorization.
• Evaluating the performance of the method with semi-supervised clustering compared to unsupervised clustering.
• Evaluating several strategies for selection of cluster result candidates based on quantitative internal and external validation metrics.

A case study was devised to demonstrate the method and facilitate analysis. This objective was to cluster proposals submitted to the US Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) Advanced Medical Technology Initiative (AMTI). AMTI seeks to identify and demonstrate key emerging technologies related to military medicine and provides short-term funding opportunities that support this goal. AMTI was specifically interested in categorizing proposals based on the key problems the applicants proposed to address.

Methodology

This section describes a generalized methodology that can be applied to generate annotations for any proposal database using semi-supervised clustering. Figure  1 provides an overview of this method. In Sect. “ Demonstration of method ” the method is demonstrated on a specific application.

Overview of methodology

Manual document annotation

Semi-supervised clustering requires partially labeled datasets. At least two domain experts are suggested to manually annotate proposals to help establish reliability. How the documents are annotated depends on the goals of the analyst. Analysts should tailor their annotations corresponding to the insights they seek to gain. For example, one might be interested in identifying trends in the problems being addressed in proposals, or the technological solutions they propose. This annotation strategy will guide cluster boundary definition in next steps.

Qualitative coding is a systematic process for assigning labels to bodies of text (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018 ). The coding process used in this work is as follows: First, domain experts establish criteria and goals for labeling the proposals. Second, each expert should individually read the documents and inductively generate thematic codes (Kalpokaite & Radivojevic, 2019 ). Third, the experts should convene and compare codes. There should be open discussion to reconcile differences, and a final list of codes should be agreed upon. Fourth, each expert should return to the documents and manually apply the final list of codes. These codes can then be compared to identify disagreement. Percent agreement or inter-rater reliability can be measured at this stage to evaluate the reliability of the coding process (Bajpai et al., 2015 ). Last, differences in code application should be discussed and reconciled with a final rule by vote or mutual agreement.

There may be instances where a proposal does not fit well into a single category. There are three main ways to address this: (1) make a call—pick the category that is the most relevant to the proposal; (2) merge categories—if there is significant overlap between two or more categories, consider whether these need to be separate categories at all; (3) new category—if there is significant overlap between two or more categories, and it is preferred not to merge them, then create a new category at the intersection of those categories.

There is little existing guidance on how many documents should be annotated. While the exact proportion of documents that must be labeled is likely dataset specific, as little as 5%–10% of labeled data may enhance model performance (Zhong, 2006 ). More work is required to provide additional guidance on this topic. From a practical perspective, the number of annotated documents should correspond to the amount time and resources available.

Quantitative analysis

This section discusses the clustering and quantitative evaluation process.

Document embedding

Text data must be translated into a vector format, or an embedding, prior to use as input to clustering (Almeida & Xexéo, 2019 ). Vectorizing text allows algebraic operations to be performed on text-based data. Traditional means for deriving text embeddings were constructed on a document-level and were based on the frequency, importance, and co-occurrence of words. Popular implementations include bag-of-words methods and TF-IDF (term frequency-inverse document frequency). These methods often result in large, sparse matrices (# unique words/tokens * # documents) that can be burden memory. Further, these representations treat every word as a unique feature, and therefore do not capture semantic similarity between words.

Recent efforts in document clustering have taken advantage of pre-trained text embeddings, a form of transfer learning, which are dense vector representations of text on a word- or sentence-level derived using statistical models trained on massive corpuses of text (Curiskis et al., 2020 ; Y. Li et al., 2020 ; Mohammed et al., 2020 ). By training on massive corpuses of text, these embeddings are able to represent semantic meaning embedded in the text in a latent vector space (Khattak et al., 2019 ; Liu et al., 2020 ). Word and sentence embeddings can be subjected to algebraic operations such that semantic meaning is preserved, allowing similarity between bodies of text to be quantified. These embeddings fall into two categories, static and contextualized. Static word embeddings, such as word2vec (Mikolov et al., 2013 ) and GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014 ), produce a fixed vector for individual words regardless of context. Contextualized embeddings, such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019 ) produce vector embeddings that capture information regarding the word in isolation as well as the context of the word globally.

Preprocessing text for embeddings

Appropriate preprocessing depends on the intended embedding technique. For bag-of-word-style embeddings and static word embeddings, the following process can be used. First, text is tokenized. This is a process where individual words or other text features are demarcated into distinct elements. Text should then be lower-cased such that identical words with different cases are recognized as identical. Next, it is common to remove punctuation and stop words. Stop words are common words that provide little information, such as “is”, “the”, “that”, “there”, “a”, and “are”. Last, tokens should be shortened to their base form. This is often accomplished with lemmatization. Lemmatizers are models that transforms words into their base morphological form. Examples transformations include changing “children” to “child”, or “running” to “run”. Many natural language processing packages, such as python’s natural language toolkit (NLTK), have prebuilt functions to perform these tasks (Bird et al., 2009 ).

In contrast, for transformer-based embeddings such as BERT, these preprocessing tasks may not be necessary at all. The BERT documentation ( https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/preprocessing ) suggests that for pretrained embeddings, documents only need to be tokenized and truncated to the maximum required length. BERT models have a maximum length of token sequences (e.g., 512) that they can handle and therefore must be truncated (Pappagari et al., 2019 ). Truncation strategies for transformer models are mixed and is an open area of research (Mutasodirin & Prasojo, 2021 ; Sun et al., 2019 ).

Dimensionality reduction and semi-supervised clustering algorithms

For high-dimensional data, it is common to apply dimensionality reduction techniques prior to clustering to manage the “curse of dimensionality” which can promote over-fittings and hinder algorithm performance (Mittal et al., 2019 ; Molchanov & Linsen, 2018 ). These techniques attempt to condense the information contained in the features of a dataset to a smaller number of latent dimensions. There are several popular dimensionality reduction techniques, such as principal component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) (Reddy et al., 2020 ). These are relatively simple algorithms that are easy to implement but are limited to linear transformations of the data, meaning non-linear relationships between features cannot be captured. Another more sophisticated and non-linear technique that can be used is called Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP). UMAP has recently been demonstrated as an effective pre-clustering dimensionality reduction technique (Allaoui et al., 2020 ; Asyaky & Mandala, 2021 ).

A recent review highlighted many different algorithms for semi-supervised clustering (Qin et al., 2019 ). Many of these are adaptations of the k-means clustering algorithm (Bair, 2013 ). Selecting an algorithm to use, however, will be limited based on the statistics/machine learning platform used and the statistics and coding skills of the analyst. Based on the authors observations, there very few off-the-shelf implementations of semi-supervised clustering available. The authors were only able to identify one readily available for the python programming language, for example (Babaki, 2017 ). Depending on the skill of the analyst, coding an algorithm from scratch may be an option.

Model fitting and hyperparameter optimization

Cluster validation is the act of verifying cluster goodness-of-fit to the “true” clusters in the data based on internal or external criteria (Rendón et al., 2011 ). Typically, cluster validity metrics are used to select the algorithm and tune algorithm hyperparameters, most important being the number of clusters.

Internal cluster validation seeks to evaluate cluster results based on preconceived notions of what makes a “good” cluster, typically measuring qualities such as cluster compactness, cluster separation, and connectedness between points (Rendón et al., 2011 ). There are a variety of internal cluster validation metrics, including silhouette index, the Calinski–Harabasz index, and the Dunn index. These metrics can be limited because they make assumptions about the shape of clusters, and therefore may be biased towards certain algorithms.

External cluster validation measures the difference between a newly generated cluster structure and a ground truth cluster structure (Wu et al., 2009 ). This can consist of manual evaluation of cluster contents by analysts, or with the use of quantitative metrics. Example metrics include the rand index, mutual information-based scores, F measures, and cluster purity. Selecting a clustering algorithm and parameters using external validity ensures that cluster solutions are optimized based on a ground truth preferred by the analyst, however, this requires labeled data.

Ideally, cluster results should be evaluated using a mix of internal and external validation, whether this is quantitative or by analyst review (Gajawada & Toshniwal, 2012 ). This can prevent overreliance on preconceptions about the organization of the data while taking advantage of prior subject matter expertise.

To generate cluster results to evaluate, hyperparameters should be systematically varied. Two of the most common approaches for hyperparameter optimization are grid-search and random-search. For grid-search, hyperparameters values are generated equally-spaced within their respective bounds, and a model is fit for each combination of these generated values. For random-search, each set of hyperparameters is generated within the given bounds using some random process. While grid-search approaches guarantee that all areas of the defined parameter-space are searched, random-search approaches are typically more efficient (Bergstra & Bengio, 2012 ).

Clustering evaluation and selection

Quantitative metrics alone are simple but may not result in the best solution. This work suggests a process for manual evaluation of a subset of cluster results to select a best solution. To manually evaluate document cluster results, the resulting clusters must be coherently summarized.

Automatic summarization and interpretation of document clusters is a significant and ongoing challenge due to the complex and high-dimensional nature of text-based data (El-Kassas et al., 2021 ). In this method, we suggest the following process that can be applied relatively easily using existing NLP-capable software. First, “top words” for each candidate cluster result are generated using TF-IDF. TF-IDF is an algorithm that represents each document in a corpus as a vector with each entry corresponding to each unique word or phrase in the corpus. The values in the vector correspond to the frequency of each word in the document weighted by the inverse frequency of the word throughout the entire corpus. Thus, words that appear frequently in a document are considered important to that document, but words found commonly throughout the corpus are weighted as less important. Equations  1 – 3 shows the scikit-learn default implementation of TF-IDF (Pedregosa et al., 2011 ).

where f t,d is the frequency of term t in document d. D is the set of all documents. Using TF-IDF, top words can be generated for clusters by creating TF-IDF vectors for each document in each cluster, and then computing mean or median values for each word. The highest value words associated with each cluster are considered important words for that cluster topic.

A rating system was devised to externally evaluate and select a final cluster result. The rating system criteria were inspired by the rating system used by Zhang et al. ( 2018 ). The criteria are term coherence, clustering distinctiveness, and relevancy. The guide for rating these criteria and corresponding values are as follows:

• 0. Incoherent—Words appear random with little relation to each other, are too general to discern a meaningful topic, or convey multiple, unrelated topics.
• 1. Average—Some words are related and meaningful in relation to the identified topic.
• 2. Good—Most words are related and meaningful in relation to the identified topic.
• 0. Indistinct—Cluster topic is redundant with one or more topics.
• 1. Partially Distinct—Cluster topic is partially related to one or more topics.
• 2. Distinct—Cluster topic is completely unique.

To utilize these criteria, several top words should be generated for each cluster using the TF-IDF approach above. For each cluster, the raters should generate a topic name or description conveyed by the words. If a name cannot be conceived, or multiple topics are conveyed for the same cluster, then the cluster can be labeled incoherent. Then, the rater should evaluate if the cluster is relevant to the goals of the analysis. Next, the rater should evaluate the coherence of the top words. Last, the rater should examine all cluster topics and rate them based on their distinctiveness.

Prior to rating the candidate cluster results, raters should evaluate a cluster result that is not a candidate for selection. The results of these ratings should then be compared using percent agreement or some other metric for inter-rater reliability (Gisev et al., 2013 ). If the results demonstrate agreement, then rating of the candidate solutions can commence. If they do not demonstrate agreement, then the raters should discuss the results of the rating and try to identify sources of disagreement and edge-cases such that raters can be calibrated to one another. A second calibration rating should then be performed.

The goal of evaluating clusters should be to select a cluster solution that maximizes coherence and distinctness for as much of the dataset as possible. A score for each metric that weights ratings based on the size of each cluster they are applied to can be calculated as follows:

where k is the number of clusters, r i is the rating associated with cluster i , n i is the number of documents associated with cluster i, N is the total number of documents, and R is the set of possible ratings for that criterion. This should be applied to each criterion individually.

All three criteria are important and should be used simultaneously when selecting a final clustering result. While this may not always be the preference, it is the opinion of the authors that the order of priority should be domain relevance, coherence, and distinctiveness. If a set of clusters are highly coherent and distinct, but do not answer the questions of the analyst, then they are not useful. Further, while indistinct (i.e., redundant) clusters are generally not ideal, they can still be useful, and even expected. Documents that humans understand as conceptually similar may still be separated in the embedding-space if the applied embedding does not capture the similarity between the words within each document. It may therefore be inevitable that some clusters are indistinct based on the limitations of existing language models. These clusters can easily be merged post-evaluation and selection. On the other hand, an incoherent cluster cannot be salvaged or made useful.

Demonstration of method

Description of dataset.

The U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command’s (USAMRDC) Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) manages the Advanced Medical Technology Initiative (AMTI), an intramural program that supports innovative ideas from military and government civilians assigned to military treatment facilities and provides them with small funding investments to explore military healthcare performance improvements and technology demonstrations. AMTI annually solicits research proposals from these parties to evaluate and select candidate funding recipients. Proposals are evaluated on the quality of the concept, the relevance to military healthcare, the rigor and validity of the proposed methods, and the potential return on investment.

The data used for this demonstration are AMTI preproposals from 2010 to 2022 ( n  = 825). Each pre-proposal includes the following mandatory free-text sections: Short Description, Deliverables, Alignment with Identified Gap, Problem to be Addressed, Military Relevance, Potential Impact on Military Health System (MHS), Transition Plan, Technology to be Demonstrated, Significance/Impact, Metrics to be Used, Personnel, and Partner Institutions. AMTI was specifically interested in categorizing proposals by the problems they sought to address, referred to as “problem-sets”, to track trending research topics. The focus of this analysis was therefore the “Problem to be Solved” section of the AMTI proposal template. The median, 5th, and 95th percentile word count for these sections were: 463 (93.6, 1112.6) words. By demonstrating this method on a real-world data set, we can show how our generalized framework can be molded to a specific application while providing guidance on challenges and pitfalls that we encountered that may be encountered by those seeking to replicate. While this data set does not represent every conceivable data set this method could be applied to, these results should generalize well to proposal data sets of similar length and composition.

Manual annotation of demonstration texts

Proposals from years 2021–2022 were sampled from the data set for manual annotation. This sample included 123 proposals, or ~ 15% of the data. As mentioned in Sect. “ Methodology ”, ideally documents should be randomly sampled throughout the data set to limit selection bias. In this case, the authors were required to manually label documents for the stated years for a competing project. Annotation of the documents was performed by two analysts corresponding to the paper authors. The process described in Sect. “ Manual document annotation ” was followed.

Preparation of text

Preparation of text for clustering includes pre-processing, transformation of text to fixed-length vectors, and dimensionality reduction. Pre-processing steps depended on the embedding technique used, as discussed in Chapter 2.2.1. Prior to translating text to vectors, the mandatory proposal sub-section “Problem to be Solved” was isolated. Three different text vectorization techniques were applied: TF-IDF, GloVE, and BERT.

A description of the TF-IDF algorithm was provided in Sect. “ Clustering evaluation and selection ”. The Scikit-learn (Pedregosa et al., 2011 ) implementation of TF-IDF was used to create document vectors for each proposal. The ngram range was set to 2. The algorithm was also set to filter terms that occurred in more than 50% of the documents. This is a common practice prior to clustering or topic modeling to eliminate words that provide little discriminatory power and to reduce noise (Pourrajabi et al., 2014 ).

GloVe uses a log-bilinear regression model to generate weight vectors for words based on the probability of word-word co-occurrence in massive corpuses of text. The resulting vectors, or word embeddings, demonstrate contextual information with relation to one another that allow algebraic operations to be performed that preserve linguistic meaning (Pennington et al., 2014 ). There are several pretrained GloVe embeddings available at: https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/ . In this work, the pretrained “Common Crawl” embedding is used. This embedding can represent 840B unique word tokens and results in vectors of 300 dimensions.

BERT is one of the most recent and powerful efforts to create pre-trained language models to aid natural language processing tasks (Devlin et al., 2019 ). One of BERT’s biggest strengths compared to other models is the ability to capture contextual information bidirectionally for a word within a sentence (Cohan et al., 2019 ). The specific implementation of BERT used in this work is called Sentence-BERT (SBERT), a modification of BERT specifically tailored to produce sentence-level embeddings (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019 ). Note that a “sentence” in this context refers to a sequence of words and may include multiple “linguistic” sentences, punctuation included. The python framework “sentence-transformers” was used to implement SBERT and the pretrained model used was “all-distilroberta-v1”. This pretrained model was selected because it ranked high in performance in the SBERT documentation. The max sequence length for this model is 512 and the resulting number of embedding dimensions is 768. To accommodate the max sequence length, the first and last 256 words were concatenated together for each document.

In this method, we use the COP- k -means algorithm (Wagstaff et al., 2001 ), an adaptation of the popular k -means algorithm that takes partially labelled data as input and tries to satisfy those labels while fitting clusters. COP- k -means requires ML and CL constraints be specified prior to fitting to augment the fitting process. In this work, we elected to only utilize the ML constraints, allowing for the possibility that manually annotated categories belong in the same cluster given the global context. This may be an advisable approach too if computational resources are limited. We observed that algorithm runtime was associated with the number of specified constraints. To allow for comparison with a baseline approach, we also applied the method using the traditional k -means clustering algorithm. Because traditional k -means is completely unsupervised, step 1 (Fig.  1 ) of the method was disregarded. All other steps were performed as stated.

Prior to clustering, the data was dimensionally reduced with the UMAP algorithm using the python module “umap-learn” (McInnes et al., 2020 ). This implementation of UMAP includes several parameters that can potentially influence cluster output, referred to as nearest neighbors (NN), minimum distance (MD), and the number of components (NC) (McInnes et al., 2020 ). Details for these parameters are available in the umap-learn documentation ( https://umap-learn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html ).

Hyperparameter search

A hybrid random-search-grid-search approach to parameter selection was used for UMAP and COP-k-means hyperparameters. 100 sets of UMAP parameters (NN, MD, NC) were randomly generated, and for each the number of clusters were varied sequentially from 20 to 100, resulting in 8100 different parameter combinations. Ranges for UMAP parameters were guided by umap-learn documentation and experimentation by the authors. A summary of the parameters used are shown in Table ​ Table1. 1 . For each combination of parameters, 5 × 5 k-folds cross validation was used to examine unbiased performance of cluster external validation metrics. K-folds cross-validation is a technique where the data is split into k “folds”, the model is trained on k-1 folds, and then tested on the remaining fold. This is repeated until each fold has been left out once. Cross-validation has been demonstrated as potentially viable for selecting semi-supervised cluster results (Pourrajabi et al., 2014 ).

Summary of model hyperparameters and ranges used for hybrid random-search-grid-search approach

Cluster validation metrics

This work examines the use of two commonly used metrics for external validation: adjusted rand index (ARI) (Rand, 1971 ) and adjusted mutual information (AMI) (Gates & Ahn, 2017 ). Both metrics quantify the agreement between expected (ground truth) cluster labels and new cluster labels. Both metrics are “adjusted” for chance such that a value of 1 indicates perfect dependence between newly generated and ground truth labels, and 0 indicates complete independence between newly generate and ground truth labels (generated labels appear random). There are many metrics that can be used for internal clusters evaluation, however, in this work we use the popular silhouette index (SIL) (Starczewski & Krzyżak, 2015 ). Silhouette index measures cluster compactness, a measure of intra-cluster variance, along with cluster separation, or the distance between clusters (Brock et al., 2008 ). A higher value indicates dense and well-separated clusters, with a maximum value of 1.

Hyperparameter search process and evaluation

Initial model fitting attempts revealed computation to be very time consuming (4.6–24.1 s/cluster run). With the 25 repeats per fitting (5 × 5 cross-validation) × 8100 hyperparameters × 3 embeddings, cross-validation for all hyperparameter values was consider infeasible. Instead, the following procedure was used.

First, the data was clustered for all 8100 different combinations of parameters for all three embedding techniques. AMI, ARI, and SIL were recorded for each clustering. It was observed that AMI and ARI were highly correlated ( R 2 : 0.986, SBERT; 0.969, GloVe; 0.968, TF-IDF) and therefore mostly redundant. The researchers opted to use AMI for remaining analyses. Second, for each embedding, the Pareto optimal cluster results were isolated. Pareto optimal, or Pareto efficient, refers to a solution that cannot be improved in one objective without worsening another. The set of solutions that are Pareto efficient is referred to as a Pareto front (M. Li et al., 2022 ). Pareto optimality was determined using maximum AMI and SIL, and minimum number of clusters. Third, each Pareto optimal combination of parameters are used to re-cluster the data, this time using 5 × fivefold cross-validation. AMI on each held-out fold was recorded, referred to as Testing AMI. AMI is also recorded for the retained data folds, referred to as Training AMI. Last, we select several candidate solutions amongst the Pareto efficient cluster results to move on to manual evaluation given several strategies. These strategies were: (1) highest AMI; (2) highest SIL; (3) highest test AMI (from cross-validation).

Cluster evaluation and selection

Cluster evaluation and selection followed the process in Sect. “ Clustering evaluation and selection ”. There were 9 candidate solutions corresponding to each combination of text embedding and selection strategy for COP- k -means, and 6 candidate solutions from standard k -means clustering (cross-validation not possible, therefore no testing AMI). Two experienced administrators and reviewers of grant proposals in military medicine served as raters. Raters were given thorough instruction for each rating criteria. Top words for each cluster were generated using the TF-IDF procedure described. Prior to rating candidate cluster results, the raters first independently reviewed and rated non-candidate cluster results until satisfactory agreement had been reached to attain calibration. Agreement was measured using Cohen’s weighted kappa statistic. A statistic of 0.61 was determined to be the cut-off value for completion for each criterion (coherence, relevance, distinctiveness). This was based off the traditional guidance stating that κ  > 0.61 indicates a “substantial” level of agreement, or “moderate” agreement by other authors (McHugh, 2012 ). When satisfactory agreement had been reached, a single rater rated the remaining candidate solutions.

Manual annotation

Both reviewers independently reviewed the 123 documents and generated a list of problem-set categories. The reviewers then convened, compared lists, and compiled a final list of 36 categories. The reviewers then independently applied the codes. Comparison of codes revealed a 64% rate of agreement. The reviewers discussed results, reconciled disagreements, and merged several categories. A final rule was made on disagreements, resulting in a final list of 23 categories (see Supplementary Material S1).

Quantitative cluster performance

Cluster performance summary.

Table ​ Table2 2 contains the mean and range for performance metrics.

Summary of clustering fitting performance (mean and range) for each embedding and performance metric

km k-means; AMI adjusted mutual information; SIL Silhouette index; GLOVE global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency

SBERT produced better values on average for AMI and SIL. Further, COP- k -means produced results with higher AMI but lower SIL on average compared to standard k -means. For both metrics, there was a notable relationship between the # of clusters and the resulting metrics. This relationship is visualized in Figs.  2 and ​ and3 3 .

Performance metrics plotted against the number of clusters fit for COP-k-means clustering results generated from hyperparameter optimization. GLOVE Global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency

Performance metrics plotted against the number of clusters fit for k-means clustering results generated from hyperparameter optimization. GLOVE global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF Term frequency-inverse document frequency

It can be clearly seen that there is an increasing trend between AMI and the number of clusters for the COP- k -means algorithm. Conversely, this trend reversed when using the traditional k -means algorithm.

To examine the relationship between hyperparameters and performance metrics, ordinary least squares regression was applied. Only results for COP- k -means were examined. Two models were fit with AMI and SIL as dependent variables and hyperparameters and embedding type as independent variables. Table ​ Table3 3 contains the results of the regression analysis for AMI. Independent variables were min–max scaled to facilitate interpretation. Standard assumptions were checked (linearity of residuals, normality of residuals, homoscedasticity of residuals, multicollinearity) visually, and no large violations were detected.

Regression analysis for AMI given embedding used and model hyperparameters

Independent variables were min–max scaled

AMI adjusted mutual information; GLOVE Global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency

Within the bounds of the independent variables, # of clusters was the most influential variable on average. Table 4 contains the results of the regression analysis for SIL. Visualization of the data prior to modeling indicated that there may be a quadratic relationship between both NN and the # of clusters with SIL. The model was fit both with and without squared terms for these variables, and both R 2 and AIC performed better for the squared-term model. Standard assumptions were checked visually, and no large violations were detected.

Regression analysis for SIL given embedding used and model hyperparameters

SIL Silhouette index; GLOVE Global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency

Pareto analysis and cross-validation

Figure  4 shows the Pareto front for each embedding (COP- k -means only), color coded by the median test AMI value for each Pareto optimal result.

Pareto optimal cluster results with the # of clusters indicated by point size and cluster cross-validation results indicated by color. AMI adjusted mutual information; GLOVE global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency. (Color figure online)

On average, test AMI was highest for SBERT. In general, a lower number of clusters corresponded to a higher test score.

Figure  5 shows the distribution of testing AMI for the top and bottom 10 performing combination of hyperparameters on the Pareto front when using SBERT. Top and bottom 10 performers were determined using the median test score. This plot shows that lower testing score corresponded with a relatively higher training score (which corresponded with a larger number of clusters). This trend was observed for the other embeddings as well.

Cross-validation training and testing AMI for the top and bottom 10 performers with SBERT embedding. AMI adjusted mutual information

Manual ratings

Rater reliability.

Raters 1 and 2 rated a non-candidate cluster result containing 61 clusters. The % agreement ( P a ), Cohen’s weighted kappa, and 95th confidence interval was calculated for each criterion. Coherence: P a  = 65.6%, κ  = 0.31 (0.05, 0.57), Relevance: P a  = 77.5, κ  = 0.13 (− 0.27, 0.53); Distinctiveness: P a  = 52.5, κ  = 0.28 (0.09, 0.47). This was determined to be unsatisfactory reliability, and the raters decided to repeat the process with another cluster result containing 28 clusters. Prior to rating, the raters identified and discussed discrepancies. Further, to assist in interpretability, each top word was colored coded on a red-yellow-green gradient based on the proportion of documents in the cluster that contained that word at least once. The results were—Coherence: P a  = 85.7%, κ  = 0.75 (0.51, 0.99), Relevance: P a  = 96.4%, κ  = 0.65 (0.02, 1.32); Distinctiveness: P a  = 82.1%, κ  = 0.77 (0.57, 0.97). While κ was below threshold for relevance, % agreement was very high, so the rating process proceeded.

The candidate cluster results selected for manual rating are summarized in Table ​ Table5 5 .

Candidate cluster results by selection strategy (columns) and embedding (rows)

SIL Silhouette index; AMI adjusted mutual information; KM k-means; GLOVE global vectors for word representation; SBERT sentence bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; TF-IDF term frequency-inverse document frequency

The ratings for the candidate cluster results are shown in Table ​ Table6 6 .

Ratings for candidate cluster results for each selection strategy (columns), rating criteria, and embedding (rows)

Max SIL with SBERT yielded the highest coherence rating. K-means produced results that were generally less coherent but more distinct, similar to Max Testing AMI results for COP-k-means.

The final clustering results are too numerous to show here. Instead, Table ​ Table7 7 summarizes 8 clusters taken from SBERT Max AMI cluster solution with a high coherence rating. This includes the top 10 terms associated with each cluster, the name ascribed to the cluster, and the number of documents associated with the cluster. This solution was selected because it presented a good balance between high coherence and distinctiveness. The other cluster summaries and example ratings for this result are shown in the supplemental material (Supplementary Material S2).

Example clusters for the SBERT MAX AMI cluster solution with high coherence ratings

nrfs non-rear foot strike; avlr average vertical loading rates; ahlta armed forces health longitudinal technology application; hie healthcare information exchange; ptsd post-traumatic stress disorder; sars severe acute respiratory syndrome, lbp lower-back pain, cpps chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Manual annotations

Initial document annotation following generation of categories yielded moderate levels of agreement, however, disagreements facilitated meaningful discussions that helped refine categories. One particularly impactful source of disagreement was categories that overlapped too much to be applied consistently given the available information. To manage this, several categories were merged. For example, “Database Development”, “Data Management”, and “Data Distribution” were initially separate categories, but were merged into a single “Data Management and Distribution” category. A second source of disagreement was passages of text that could reasonably belong to more than one distinct category. For example, “Musculoskeletal Injury” and “Physical Performance and Movement” were often applied to the same text. These terms describe often overlapping but distinct concepts. In these cases, the annotators made a final rule based on what they considered the dominant theme. There is no hard rule for determining this, and annotators should leverage their domain expertise to make this judgement.

Analysis of cluster validity metrics

In general, COP-k-means produced results with lower internal validity (SIL), but much higher external validity (AMI) compared to k-means. That COP- k -means produced higher values for external validity metrics is unsurprising given that its objective function uses this external information in the fitting process. Whether internal or external validity is more valuable at this stage is difficult to say and is up to the individual analyst to determine. This methodology sought to provide guidance regarding this by evaluating several selection policies using a qualitative rating system, discussed later.

Two linear models were fit with AMI and SIL as dependent variables for performance data associated with COP- k -means. In both cases, the models accounted for a large portion of the variability of observed performance values, however, not all was accounted for (~ 24% for AMI, ~ 21% for SIL). This could partially be attributed to some undetected interaction between independent variables. This variability may also be due to the potential for the k-means algorithm to converge to local optima spurred by random initialization (Bair, 2013 ).

For AMI, SBERT produced the highest values on average. It can also be seen that the number of clusters was, by far, the most influential predictor of performance. Within the parameter space explored, “minimum distance” and the “number of components” had only marginal effects while the “nearest neighbors” parameter was estimated to have a maximum average influence of ~ 0.03 AMI, representing about 10% of the observed range of values.

For SIL, SBERT again provided the highest values on average. Again, “minimum distance” and “number of components” had relatively little influence on performance. It seems, therefore, that these two parameters may be de-prioritized in hyperparameter optimization. This is beneficial from a resource perspective, as the number of components had a significant impact on model convergence time. There was an interesting relationship between SIL and the number of clusters and nearest neighbors where, as they increased, SIL decreased, though with diminishing effect as values increased. The “nearest neighbors” parameter had the largest effect on SIL on average. Given this and the prior insights, it seems that this parameter and the number of clusters should be prioritized in hyperparameter selection.

Figures  2 and ​ and3 3 visualizes the distribution of AMI and SIL observed during model training. These results demonstrate that with a thorough search, there was not a strong trade-off between internal and external cluster validation for both algorithms. Regardless, a Pareto analysis of the data allows one to navigate trade-offs that do exist amongst the best performing results when simultaneously considering both metrics and is a suggested practice.

Isolating the Pareto optimal data points for each embedding resulted in many candidate cluster results. To obtain further data to inform selection of a result, cross-validation was performed on each Pareto optimal combination of hyperparameters. These results are visualized in Figs.  4 and ​ and5. 5 . Figure  4 shows that amongst the Pareto front, high testing AMI data points tended to result from lower numbers of clusters, and generally coincided with lower training AMI. Figure  5 further demonstrates this, where data with the highest testing performance tended to coincide with lower training performance. Training performance tended to be more representative of testing performance in these cases. This may indicate that optimizing purely based on AMI without hold-out may lead to overfitting, particularly as the number of clusters increases.

Candidate cluster ratings

Initial cluster ratings yielded relatively low reliability, however, this was improved significantly on the second round of rating following discussion and improvement of the cluster results presentation. Relevance was particularly problematic during both rounds due to the unbalanced distribution of ratings. The large discrepancy between P a and κ for relevance in the second round of ratings is due to the prevalence of ratings = 1 (27 and 26, respectively) compared to ratings = 0 (1 and 2, respectively) by both raters. This is known as prevalence and is measured with the prevalence index (Sim & Wright, 2005 ). In this case, despite the low κ, there was only one cluster that was disagreed on by the raters. This is because Cohen’s kappa controls for chance agreement, and when the “ true” prevalence of a class is very low, then chance agreement becomes very high, as was the case here.

While differences in ratings between embedding and strategy cannot be verified as statistically significant due to the low sample size, there were some general trends that emerged. SBERT, as expected, produced clusters with the highest coherence. Further, the highest coherence was observed for the Pareto optimal cluster result with the highest SIL. For relevance and distinctiveness, SBERT and TF-IDF generally contained results that were higher than GloVe. It is unclear why GloVe underperformed the other embeddings in terms of ratings. Referring to Sect. “ Cluster performance summary ”, GloVe also underperformed on average in terms of SIL. Silhouette score rewards cluster compactness and cluster separation, so perhaps the poor distinctiveness ratings are due to relatively poorer cluster separation.

With respect to selection strategy, again speaking generally, Max SIL produced the highest coherence ratings, followed by Max AMI, followed by Max Testing (cross-validated) AMI. For distinctiveness, the opposite was true. Further, Max SIL resulted in cluster results with large numbers of clusters (avg. 65) relative to Max Testing AMI (avg. 24.3) and standard k-means clustering (31.2). Fewer clusters led to more distinct but less cohesive clusters. This seems to suggest that conceptually similar clusters exist separately in the document embedding space, and that not fitting enough clusters will blend coherent micro-clusters into larger, less coherent clusters. This separation of conceptually similar documents is likely due to the limitations of current language models that cannot yet capture the entire variability of language used to describe similar topics in all domains. This could also be a testament to the variability of writing styles present in a collection of proposal documents. Additional uniformity in proposal requirements that promotes more uniform writing may result in coherent document clusters that are easier to extract. In this case, it seems that using the maximum testing AMI to select results prevented overfitting from a quantitative perspective but underfits the data with respect to expert domain knowledge. Therefore, one may opt for higher-cluster solutions, with the expectation of merging clusters that are conceptually similar but separated in embedding space.

Implications

Practical implications.

In this manuscript we described a methodology for partial automation of research document categorization in enough detail to support replication by practitioners. The method is first described in general, such that it can be easily replicated beyond the specific domain in the demonstration. Guidance and best-practices are also provided alongside each step. Many features of the method were tested and compared during the demonstration (semi-supervised vs. unsupervised cluster, document embedding technique, cluster result selection strategy) to provide practical guidance for replication and to contribute to the general body of knowledge regarding application of these techniques. Based on the results we observed, we suggest practitioners replicate this method using SBERT embeddings, and select a cluster solution by performing a Pareto analysis of the cluster metrics and taking the maximum SIL. Further, if time is available, practitioners should opt for higher-cluster solutions with the expectation of merging conceptually similar clusters post-analysis.

Theoretical implications

This is the first research to describe a step-by-step framework that merges semi-supervised clustering, subject matter expertise input, and internal and external validity to achieve semi-automated research proposal categorization. This framework can serve as a point of reference for researchers wishing to improve this method or propose their own methods for similar objectives.

Limitations and future work

One limitation of this work with respect to the overall objective is that it does not guarantee perfect categorization. Clustering minimizes manual human effort, but it potentially sacrifices the accuracy of categorization. This method sought to provide a rigorous step-by-step process to create document clusters that optimizes this trade-off, but there will no doubt be misclassifications, as with any other existing approach. Another significant limitation of this work was the lack of available annotators and raters. Additional annotators and raters could have provided additional methodological validity. Another limitation was the non-random sample of proposals for annotation, despite the recommendations in Sect. “ Manual document annotation ”. This was unavoidable, as discussed in Sect. “ Manual annotation of demonstration texts ”. A final limitation was that this method was only demonstrated on a single dataset. The generalizability of the findings in this paper needs to be verified on other data.

There is significant room for improvement to the methodology and additional validation of its constructs. Methods for improving the interpretability of text-based clusters are needed, particularly in cases where clusters are numerous and cluster summaries must be succinct but representative to facilitate efficient review. Average TF-IDF values to identify top-words worked reasonably well to represent the contents of proposals belonging to the same cluster, however, it was occasionally susceptible to over-weighting terms that occurred frequently relative to the entire corpus but only occurred in a minority subset of cluster proposals. The median value may have been a better choice to ensure at least 50% of the cluster documents contained the highly weighted term. Color-coding terms based on their distribution across all proposals in the cluster helped identify outliers.

An interesting addition to this methodology would be an approach to compare the distribution of proposal content within a portfolio to the corresponding body of published manuscripts. Unfunded research proposals and published manuscripts represent two different stages of the research supply chain. Comparing distributions of content between these two could reveal discrepancies in demand for research as determined by funding agencies and publishing bodies (published manuscripts) and supply at the point of the researcher (proposals).

In this work, a multi-stage, semi-supervised method to cluster and extract insights from legacy proposal documents was proposed and demonstrated. The output of this methodology are thematically similar proposal document clusters. A comparative analysis was performed, and several key insights were attained. First, it was demonstrated that cutting-edge text-embedding techniques can outperform legacy techniques, and they require similar or even less effort to apply. Further, several strategies for cluster result selection were demonstrated. It was observed that a mixed prioritization of internal and external cluster validity can lead to good results. Last, it was shown that semi-supervised clustering can produce qualitatively more coherent clusters with little trade-off in cluster distinctness compared to unsupervised clustering. Archives of administrative documents kept by various funding institutions could contain valuable insights to help optimize administrative operations. Researchers must continue to develop automated processes and tools to unlock the insights currently hidden away in these archives.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Declarations

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Disclaimer: The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense and should not be construed as an official DoD/Army position, policy or decision unless so designated by other documentation. No official endorsement should be made. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government.

• Afzali, M., & Kumar, S. (2019). Text Document Clustering Issues: and Challenges. International Conference on Machine Learning, Big Data, Cloud and Parallel Computing (COMITCon) , 1 , 263–268 10.1109/COMITCon.2019.8862247
• Allaoui M, Kherfi ML, Cheriet A. Considerably Improving Clustering Algorithms Using UMAP Dimensionality Reduction Technique: A Comparative Study. In: El Moataz A, Mammass D, Mansouri A, Nouboud F, editors. Image and Signal Processing. Springer International Publishing; 2020. pp. 317–325. [ Google Scholar ]
• Almeida, F., & Xexéo, G. (2019). Word Embeddings: A Survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09069
• Arnarsson IO, Frost O, Gustavsson E, Jirstrand M, Malmqvist J. Natural language processing methods for knowledge management-applying document clustering for fast search and grouping of engineering documents. Concurrent Engineering. 2021; 29 (2):142–152. doi: 10.1177/1063293X20982973. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asyaky, M. S., & Mandala, R. (2021). Improving the Performance of HDBSCAN on Short Text Clustering by Using Word Embedding and UMAP. 2021 8th International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA), 1–6. 10.1109/ICAICTA53211.2021.9640285
• Babaki, B. (2017). COP-Kmeans version 1.5. 10.5281/zenodo.831850
• Bair E. Semi-supervised clustering methods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Computational Statistics. 2013; 5 (5):349–361. doi: 10.1002/wics.1270. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bajpai S, Bajpai R, Chaturvedi H. Evaluation of inter-rater agreement and inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview of concepts and methods. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. 2015; 41 :20–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergstra J, Bengio Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2012; 13 (10):281–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharya P, Ghosh K, Pal A, Ghosh S. Legal case document similarity: You need both network and text. Information Processing & Management. 2022; 59 (6):103069. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103069. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bird S, Klein E, Loper E. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. 1. O’Reilly Media; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyack KW, Smith C, Klavans R. Toward predicting research proposal success. Scientometrics. 2018; 114 (2):449–461. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2609-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brock G, Pihur V, Datta S, Datta S. clValid: An R package for cluster validation. Journal of Statistical Software. 2008 doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i04. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castleberry A, Nolen A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2018; 10 (6):807–815. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi S, Jun S. Vacant technology forecasting using new Bayesian patent clustering. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2014; 26 (3):241–251. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2013.850477. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohan, A., Beltagy, I., King, D., Dalvi, B., & Weld, D. S. (2019). Pretrained Language Models for Sequential Sentence Classification. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 3691–3697. 10.18653/v1/D19-1383
• Curiskis SA, Drake B, Osborn TR, Kennedy PJ. An evaluation of document clustering and topic modelling in two online social networks: Twitter and Reddit. Information Processing & Management. 2020; 57 (2):102034. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.04.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 1 , 4171–4186 10.18653/v1/N19-1423
• Dhanani J, Mehta R, Rana D. Legal document recommendation system: A cluster based pairwise similarity computation. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems. 2021; 41 (5):5497–5509. doi: 10.3233/JIFS-189871. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ebadi A, Tremblay S, Goutte C, Schiffauerova A. Application of machine learning techniques to assess the trends and alignment of the funded research output. Journal of Informetrics. 2020; 14 (2):101018. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edler J, Boon WP. ‘The next generation of innovation policy: Directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments’—Introduction to the special section. Science and Public Policy. 2018; 45 (4):433–434. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• El-Kassas WS, Salama CR, Rafea AA, Mohamed HK. Automatic text summarization: A comprehensive survey. Expert Systems with Applications. 2021; 165 :113679. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113679. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freyman CA, Byrnes JJ, Alexander J. Machine-learning-based classification of research grant award records. Research Evaluation. 2016; 25 (4):442–450. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvw016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gajawada S, Toshniwal D. Hybrid Cluster Validation Techniques. In: Wyld DC, Zizka J, Nagamalai D, editors. Advances in Computer Science, Engineering & Applications. Springer; 2012. pp. 267–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates AJ, Ahn Y-Y. The impact of random models on clustering similarity. The Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2017; 18 (1):3049–3076. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghasemi Z, Khorshidi HA, Aickelin U. Multi-objective Semi-supervised clustering for finding predictive clusters. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022; 195 :116551. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116551. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gisev N, Bell JS, Chen TF. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2013; 9 (3):330–338. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu Y, Milios EE, Blustein J. Document clustering with dual supervision through feature reweighting. Computational Intelligence. 2016; 32 (3):480–513. doi: 10.1111/coin.12064. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez P, Roldán JC, Corchuelo R. A clustering approach to extract data from HTML tables. Information Processing & Management. 2021; 58 (6):102683. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102683. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalpokaite N, Radivojevic I. Demystifying qualitative data analysis for novice qualitative researchers. The Qualitative Report. 2019 doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2019.4120. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaya K, Yılmaz Y, Yaslan Y, Öğüdücü ŞG, Çıngı F. Demand forecasting model using hotel clustering findings for hospitality industry. Information Processing & Management. 2022; 59 (1):102816. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102816. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Khattak FK, Jeblee S, Pou-Prom C, Abdalla M, Meaney C, Rudzicz F. A survey of word embeddings for clinical text. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2019; 100 :100057. doi: 10.1016/j.yjbinx.2019.100057. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J, Yoon J, Park E, Choi S. Patent document clustering with deep embeddings. Scientometrics. 2020; 123 (2):563–577. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03396-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levine, C. S., Knisely, B., Johnson, D., & Vaughn-Cooke, M. (2022). A structured method to achieve cognitive depth for medical device use error topic modeling. Human Factors in Healthcare, 2 , 100016. 10.1016/j.hfh.2022.100016 [ CrossRef ]
• Li Y, Cai J, Wang J. A Text document clustering method based on weighted BERT Model. IEEE 4th Information Technology, Networking Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC) 2020; 1 :1426–1430. doi: 10.1109/ITNEC48623.2020.9085059. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li M, Chen T, Yao X. How to Evaluate solutions in Pareto-based Search-based software engineering? A critical review and methodological guidance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2022; 48 (5):1771–1799. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2020.3036108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, Q., Kusner, M. J., & Blunsom, P. (2020). A Survey on Contextual Embeddings. http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07278
• Ma J, Xu W, Sun Y, Turban E, Wang S, Liu O. An ontology-based text-mining method to cluster proposals for research project selection. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part a: Systems and Humans. 2012; 42 (3):784–790. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2011.2172205. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica. 2012; 22 (3):276–282. doi: 10.11613/BM.2012.031. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. (2020). UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426
• McNie EC. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy. 2007; 10 (1):17–38. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mei J-P. Semisupervised fuzzy clustering with partition information of subsets. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 2019; 27 (9):1726–1737. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2889010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Burges CJ, Bottou L, Welling M, Ghahramani Z, Weinberger KQ, editors. Advances in neural information processing systems. Curran Associates Inc; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra SK, Saini N, Saha S, Bhattacharyya P. Scientific document summarization in multi-objective clustering framework. Applied Intelligence. 2022; 52 (2):1520–1543. doi: 10.1007/s10489-021-02376-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittal M, Goyal LM, Hemanth DJ, Sethi JK. Clustering approaches for high-dimensional databases: A review. Wires Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 2019; 9 (3):e1300. doi: 10.1002/widm.1300. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammed SM, Jacksi K, Zeebaree SRM. Glove word embedding and DBSCAN algorithms for Semantic document clustering. International Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE) 2020 doi: 10.1109/ICOASE51841.2020.9436540. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molchanov, V., & Linsen, L. (2018). Overcoming the Curse of Dimensionality When Clustering Multivariate Volume Data. Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications, (pp. 29–39) 10.5220/0006541900290039
• Mutasodirin MA, Prasojo RE. Investigating text shortening strategy in BERT: Truncation vs summarization. International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS) 2021; 2021 :1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICACSIS53237.2021.9631364. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nichols LG. A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation. Scientometrics. 2014; 100 (3):741–754. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1319-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pappagari R, Zelasko P, Villalba J, Carmiel Y, Dehak N. Hierarchical transformers for long document classification. IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU) 2019; 2019 :838–844. doi: 10.1109/ASRU46091.2019.9003958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay É. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011; 12 (85):2825–2830. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), (pp. 1532–1543) 10.3115/v1/D14-1162
• Penta A, Pal A. What is this cluster about? Explaining textual clusters by extracting relevant keywords. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2021; 229 :107342. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pourrajabi M, Moulavi D, Campello RJGB, Zimek A, Sander J, Goebel R. Model selection for semi-supervised clustering. 17th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT) 2014 doi: 10.5441/002/edbt.2014.31. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Priya DS, Karthikeyan M. An efficient EM based ontology text-mining to cluster proposals for research project selection. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 2014 doi: 10.19026/rjaset.8.1118. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Qin Y, Ding S, Wang L, Wang Y. Research progress on semi-supervised clustering. Cognitive Computation. 2019; 11 (5):599–612. doi: 10.1007/s12559-019-09664-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajput K, Kandoi N. An ontology-based text-mining method to develop intelligent information system using cluster based approach. International Conference on Inventive Systems and Control (ICISC) 2017; 2017 :1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICISC.2017.8068581. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rand WM. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1971; 66 (336):846–850. doi: 10.2307/2284239. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reddy GT, Reddy MPK, Lakshmanna K, Kaluri R, Rajput DS, Srivastava G, Baker T. Analysis of dimensionality reduction techniques on big data. IEEE Access. 2020; 8 :54776–54788. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2980942. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, (pp.671–688). http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084
• Rendón E, Abundez I, Arizmendi A, Quiroz EM. Internal versus external cluster validation indexes. International Journal of Computers and Communications. 2011; 5 (1):27–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadjadi SM, Mashayekhi H, Hassanpour H. A two-level semi-supervised clustering technique for news articles. International Journal of Engineering. 2021; 34 (12):2648–2657. doi: 10.5829/ije.2021.34.12C.10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandhiya R, Sundarambal M. Clustering of biomedical documents using ontology-based TF-IGM enriched semantic smoothing model for telemedicine applications. Cluster Computing. 2019; 22 (2):3213–3230. doi: 10.1007/s10586-018-2023-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saravanan RA, Babu MR. Information retrieval from multi-domain specific research proposal using hierarchical-based neural network clustering algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms. 2021; 19 (3–4):422–437. doi: 10.1504/IJAIP.2021.116369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarewitz D, Pielke RA. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy. 2007; 10 (1):5–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sim J, Wright CC. The Kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy. 2005; 85 (3):257–268. doi: 10.1093/ptj/85.3.257. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Starczewski A, Krzyżak A. Performance evaluation of the Silhouette index. In: Rutkowski L, Korytkowski M, Scherer R, Tadeusiewicz R, Zadeh LA, Zurada JM, editors. Artificial intelligence and soft computing. Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 49–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Subakti A, Murfi H, Hariadi N. The performance of BERT as data representation of text clustering. Journal of Big Data. 2022; 9 (1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40537-022-00564-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun C, Qiu X, Xu Y, Huang X. How to Fine-Tune BERT for Text Classification. In: Sun M, Huang X, Ji H, Liu Z, Liu Y, editors. Chinese Computational Linguistics. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 194–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Talley EM, Newman D, Mimno D, Herr BW, Wallach HM, Burns GAPC, Leenders AGM, McCallum A. Database of NIH grants using machine-learned categories and graphical clustering. Nature Methods. 2011; 8 (6):443–444. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1619. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagstaff, K., Cardie, C., Rogers, S., & Schrödl, S. (2001). Constrained K-means Clustering with Background Knowledge. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, 577–584.
• Wang Y, Xu W, Jiang H. Using text mining and clustering to group research proposals for research project selection. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2015 doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J, Chen J, Xiong H, Xie M. External validation measures for K-means clustering: A data distribution perspective. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009; 36 (3, Part 2):6050–6061. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Y, Lu J, Liu F, Liu Q, Porter A, Chen H, Zhang G. Does deep learning help topic extraction? A kernel k-means clustering method with word embedding. Journal of Informetrics. 2018; 12 (4):1099–1117. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhong S. Semi-supervised model-based document clustering: A comparative study. Machine Learning. 2006; 65 (1):3–29. doi: 10.1007/s10994-006-6540-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou Y, Lin H, Liu Y, Ding W. A novel method to identify emerging technologies using a semi-supervised topic clustering model: A case of 3D printing industry. Scientometrics. 2019; 120 (1):167–185. doi: 10.1007/s11192-019-03126-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Department of Computer Science and Technology

Sign in with Raven

• People overview
• Research staff
• PhD students
• Professional services staff
• Affiliated lecturers
• Overview of Professional Services Staff
• Seminars overview
• Weekly timetable
• Wednesday seminars
• Wednesday seminar recordings ➥
• Wheeler lectures
• Computer Laboratory 75th anniversary ➥
• women@CL 10th anniversary ➥
• Job vacancies ➥
• Library resources ➥
• How to get here
• William Gates Building layout
• Contact information
• Department calendar ➥
• Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery overview
• Data Trusts Initiative overview
• Pilot Funding FAQs
• Research Funding FAQs
• Cambridge Ring overview
• Ring Events
• Hall of Fame
• Hall of Fame Awards
• Hall of Fame - Nominations
• The Supporters' Club overview
• Industrial Collaboration
• Annual Recruitment Fair overview
• Graduate Opportunities
• Summer internships
• Technical Talks
• Supporter Events and Competitions
• How to join
• Collaborate with Us
• Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C)
• Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN
• E&D Committee
• Support and Development
• Targeted funding
• LGBTQ+@CL overview
• Links and resources
• Queer Library
• women@CL overview
• About Us overview
• Friends of women@CL overview
• Twentieth Anniversary of Women@CL
• Tech Events
• Students' experiences
• Contact overview
• Mailing lists
• Scholarships
• Initiatives
• Dignity Policy
• Outreach overview
• Women in Computer Science Programme
• Google DeepMind Research Ready programme overview
• Accommodation and Pay
• Application
• Eligibility
• Raspberry Pi Tutorials ➥
• Wiseman prize
• Research overview
• Application areas
• Research themes
• Algorithms and Complexity
• Computer Architecture overview
• Creating a new Computer Architecture Research Centre
• Graphics, Vision and Imaging Science
• Human-Centred Computing
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
• Mobile Systems, Robotics and Automation
• Natural Language Processing
• Programming Languages, Semantics and Verification
• Systems and Networking
• Research groups overview
• Energy and Environment Group overview
• Declaration
• Publications
• Past seminars
• Learning and Human Intelligence Group overview
• Technical Reports
• Admissions information
• Undergraduate admissions overview
• Open days and events
• Undergraduate course overview overview
• Making your application
• Admissions FAQs
• Super curricular activities
• MPhil in Advanced Computer Science overview
• Applications
• Course structure
• Funding competitions
• Prerequisites
• PhD in Computer Science overview
• Application forms
• Research Proposal
• Funding competitions and grants
• Part-time PhD Degree
• Premium Research Studentship
• Current students overview
• Part IB overview
• Part IB group projects overview
• Important dates
• Design briefs
• Moodle course ➥
• Learning objectives and assessment
• Technical considerations
• After the project
• Part II overview
• Part II projects overview
• Project suggestions
• Project Checker groups
• Project proposal
• Advice on running the project
• Progress report and presentation
• The dissertation
• Supervisor briefing notes
• Project Checker briefing notes
• Past overseer groups ➥
• Part II Supervision sign-up
• Part II Modules
• Part II Supervisions overview
• Continuing to Part III overview
• Continuing to Part III: 2023 guidance
• Part III of the Computer Science Tripos
• Overview overview
• Information for current Masters students overview
• Special topics
• Part III and ACS projects overview
• Submission of project reports
• ACS projects overview
• Guidance for ACS projects
• Part III projects overview
• Guidance for Part III projects
• Preparation
• Registration
• Induction - Masters students
• PhD resources overview
• Deadlines for PhD applications
• Protocol for Graduate Advisers for PhD students
• Guidelines for PhD supervisors
• Induction information overview
• Important Dates
• Who is here to help
• Exemption from University Composition Fees
• Being a research student
• Researcher Development
• Research skills programme
• First Year Report: the PhD Proposal
• Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
• Third Year Report: Progress Statement
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion overview
• PhD thesis formatting
• Writing up and word count
• Submitting your dissertation
• Papers and conferences
• Leave to work away, holidays, and intermission
• List of PhD students ➥
• PAT, recycling, and Building Services
• Freshers overview
• Cambridge University Freshers' Events
• Undergraduate teaching information and important dates
• Course material 2022/23 ➥
• Course material 2023/24 ➥
• Exams overview
• Examination dates
• Examination results ➥
• Examiners' reports ➥
• Part III Assessment
• MPhil Assessment
• Past exam papers ➥
• Examinations Guidance 2022-23
• Marking Scheme and Classing Convention
• Guidance on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
• Purchase of calculators
• Examinations Data Retention Policy
• Guidance on deadlines and extensions
• Mark Check procedure and Examination Review
• Lecture timetables overview
• Understanding the concise timetable
• Supervisions overview
• Part II supervisions overview ➥
• Part II supervision sign-up ➥
• Supervising in Computer Science
• Supervisor support
• Directors of Studies list
• Academic exchanges
• Advice for visiting students taking Part IB CST
• Summer internship: Optimisation of DNN Accelerators using Bayesian Optimisation
• UROP internships
• Resources for students overview
• Student SSH server
• Online services
• Managed Cluster Service (MCS)
• Microsoft Software for personal use
• Installing Linux
• Part III and MPhil Machines
• Transferable skills
• Course feedback and where to find help overview
• Providing lecture feedback
• Fast feedback hotline
• Staff-Student Consultative Forum
• Breaking the silence ➥
• Student Administration Offices
• Intranet overview
• New starters and visitors
• Forms and templates
• Building information
• Health and safety
• Teaching information
• Research admin
• Computer Architecture
• Research groups
• The department
• Current students

The aim of Natural Language Processing is to develop computational models for analysing and generating human language.  Research in the Department encompasses many areas of NLP, ranging from fundamental theory to real-world applications. 

The models we develop are mainly based on modern machine learning techniques.  On the theoretical side, we seek to understand the structure needed to represent language, how language is learned and processed by people, and how language varies between people and over time.  On the application side, the ALTA institute develops technology to support second language teaching and assessment.  Other researchers work on automated fact checking, dialogue systems, document summarisation and scientific text processing, as well as interdisciplinary work in various domains such as healthcare and cybercrime.  Collaborations with other departments are supported by Cambridge Language Sciences .

Related Links

• Research Projects . Information about projects.
• Natural Language Processing Seminars . Upcoming seminars.
• Postgraduate Opportunities . The opportunities available to MPhil, Part III and PhD students.
• Cambridge Language Sciences . The Cambridge Language Sciences Interdisciplinary Research Centre.

Research Staff and Fellows

PhD Students

Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge William Gates Building 15 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD

Information provided by [email protected]

Privacy policy

Social media

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• [email protected]
• +91-97 91 62 64 69

PHD Topics in Natural Language Processing

Natural language processing usually represents a complicated computer science-based problem as a result of the complexities associated with human languages. Though humans find it easy to handle any language and multiple languages simultaneously, it is the ambiguity and imprecise nature of these languages that leave computers with a difficult path to interpret and comprehend them .  This article is an overview of PhD topics in natural language processing . Let us first start with an outline on natural language processing,  

Outline of Natural Language Processing

• Languages can be considered to be multidimensional because there are two or more words with same meanings or same word with two or more meanings in different contexts
• The hierarchical arrangement of a language starts with a letter which is built to form a word which further forms sentences and thus a complete document
• The context words of choice and order are extremely important to convey the correct meaning since a small change can lead to a big difference.

Therefore, here are the complexities that arise with system training and interpretation for different languages . For example, considering search over web, auto-complete and autocorrect aspects complete the predictions of what your type with few initial characters that you enter. In this way, the machine has to be trained to project itself correctly regarding any language.

As we are in the field of research in advance to PhD topics in natural language processing for the past 10 years, we have gained huge expertise and knowledge about the system and its functioning. You shall reach out to our experts for in-depth research guidance and ultimate project support in natural language processing . Let us now look into NLU, NLG, and NLP in detail

Difference between NLP, NLU, and NLG

• NLP refers to the computer’s ability to read a language.
• It is also referred to as the process which converts a raw text into a structured data form
• The NLP reading aspects are covered using NLU
• Profanity filters, detecting entities and sentiment, classification of topics are its features
• NLG is associated with computer language writing
• Structured data is turned into text using NLG

For technical support along with advanced project assistance in data collection,  algorithm writing, conducting surveys, making analysis, in-depth research, real-time code implementation, simulation, paper publication , thesis writing , natural language processing journal list and many more in NLP projects you can get in touch with our experts who have got huge experience and world-class reputation among researchers all around the world. Let us now talk about the merits of NLP,   

Benefits of Natural Language Processing

• Huge unstructured data sources can be structured using NLP
• Reliable and trustworthy customers and their associated profits can be identified and understood
• The generalists can also reach out to solutions for their questions
• Customer complaints reduction by proactive trend identifications in establishing communication with customers
• The root cause of many important issues can be instantly identified
• Multiple languages, their slang, and jargon can be understood
• Fraudulent user behavior can be recognized and classified efficiently

Due to all these reasons, natural language processing has become one of the significant topics of research and real-life application. Engineers at PhD topics in natural language processing have acknowledged and standardized many of the concepts and methodologies based on NLP. So you can reach out to us for all kinds of support with respect to your NLP projects . Let us not talk about NLP concepts  

Important Concepts in Natural Language Processing

• Conversion of commands in voice to text and text to voice using NLP
• Structured data extraction out of text sources
• Summarizing documents based on languages by indexing, searching, detecting duplicates, and alerting about contents
• Mood and sentiment identification from large texts thus obtaining subjective opinions (opinion mining and average sentiment analysis)
• Optimizing, predicting, and analyzing texts by accurately capturing the themes and meanings

There are multiple testing tools, new algorithms, validation processes, and techniques associated with these concepts. To get detailed technical explanations and proper notes on these aspects of NLP concepts and methods you can check out our website or contact our experts at any time. We function 24/7 to assist you. Let us now look into the constraints associated with NLP

What are the main challenges of natural language processing?

• Ambiguity of the languages is the major cause of difficulty in NLP machines
• The usage of a particular word as a noun, verb, and adjective is ambiguous
• At times the meaning to be interpreted from a sentence also poses a certain degree of ambiguity
• The languages used in social media like chat groups or out of standard which is also a reason for NLP being very hard
• The issues of segmenting a word is also the cause of concern

Despite the usefulness of NLP, these are the variety of problems associated with it. Since our experts have delivered several successful PhD topics in natural language processing, we are certainly able to solve all these problems. We will now explain to you the ways of approaching the NLP problem  

How do you approach problems in NLP?

• The first step is data collection followed by Data cleansing
• A proper method has to be used in representing data after which classification and inspection are performed
• Vocabulary structure has to be accounted for in the next step after which the semantics is leveraged
• End-to-end approaches are used in leveraging syntax

For coding algorithms and programming languages used in various steps involved in obtaining a solution to an NLP problem as stated above, you can contact our technical support team. Let us now see more about the NLP algorithms.  

Effective algorithms for NLP

The following are the important NLP algorithms used in data classification

• RNN (LSTM, Recursive NN, Gated Recurrent Network) and GAN
• CNN (AlexNet, Unet, VGG, GoogLeNet and ResNet) and TDSN
• Unsupervised  (DBN, DTN, DeepInfoMax, and Autoencoders)
• Ensemble – multiple base model integration
• Embedded – classification and dimension reduction joint optimization
• Hybrid – output of the convolution layer is parsed as input to the other architecture based on deep learning
• Joint AB based DL – a combination of two different types of pooling (max and attentive pooling) for optimal feature extraction
• Transfer learning – a trained model for a particular type of problem over the other similar one
• Integrated – CNN output is passed as input (to other DL architecture)

You can get a better description and explanation of NLP datasets and the excellent computer languages for Natural Language Processing projects from us. By providing a proper comparative analysis, we help you do the best NLP project work. Let us now discuss the benchmark NLP datasets below,  

Benchmark datasets for natural language processing

All the NLP benchmark data sets can be classified into the following three categories,

• Data obtained from different kinds of real-world circumstances and experiments from this dataset
• This data is generated artificially by mimicking the real-world patterns
• It can be used in place of real-world data
• These datasets are usually preferred in the Healthcare sector where privacy matters and in cases where a huge amount of data is needed
• This dataset is used for the purposes of demonstrating and visualizing
• This dataset is generated artificially and real-world data pattern representation is not needed

Talk to our experts or visit our website for more details on these datasets. The following are the common data associated with different tasks of natural language processing

• CNN, DM, and DUC
• SQuAD, ARC and CliCR
• CNN, and NewsQA
• RACE, Quasar and SearchQA
• NarrativeQA and story cloze test
• IMDB reviews and SST
• Yelp reviews and subjectivity dataset
• Preposition bank and OneNote
• SNLI Corpus
• 20 NewsGroup and DBpedia
• WikiSQL and ATIS
• AMR parsing

You can get an advanced description of these datasets, their use cases, merits, and demerits associated with them, once you get in touch with us. By providing proper practical descriptions and easy-to-understand explanations we are here to help you out in using all kinds of datasets. In this regard let us now discuss dataset preparation below.  

How do we prepare for datasets?

• The problem to be solved, type of data needed, and its amount are the prerequisites for creating a dataset
• Creation of appropriate portions for training and verification is the next step
• Next, trained datasets are utilized in model training to establish a connection between input and output
• The intelligence of the machine is assessed using a test dataset to determine the operation of the trained model over new test samples
• Data is then prepared where the format of data is made understandable and simple

These are the important steps involved in preparing NLP datasets . Our analysts are highly trained and qualified in handling multiple cases related to dataset preparation so we can conduct deep analysis over them. Let us now look into the important NLP open-source frameworks,  

Open Source Frameworks for NLP

• Pre-trained word vectors
• CBOW and Skip – Gram
• Framework – PyTorch
• PTMs – XLNet, RoBERTa, BERT, and GPT – 2
• PTMs – ELMo, GPT, XLNet, BERT, and RoBERTa
• PTMs – English LM, RoBERTs, and German LM
• PTMs – GPT, RoBERTa
• PTMs – ELMo, GPT, BERT
• PTMs – unitLM V1 and V2, MiniLM and layout LM
• PTMs – RoBERTa and BERT
• Framework – TF
• PTMs – BERT and BERT – wwm

In order to get the perspective of world-class research experts and experienced analysts , you shall contact us at any time. Let us now have a look into the recent natural language processing research topics below,  

Trending PhD topics in Natural Language Processing

• Making named entities and answer selection
• Expanding queries, data retrieval, and classification of the type of questions and answers
• Machine learning sentiment analysis and medical natural language processing
• Sentiment analysis based on nature-inspired optimization algorithms and smart approaches for the generation of text

Out of all these PhD topics in natural language processing, we are very much concerned with the NLP in the medical text which has the following aspects

• Tweets, free text, and pathology reports
• Advanced medical event and WebMD patient reviews
• Biomedical text
• Electronic medical records
• Discovery and recognition of attributes and de-identification
• Extracting the relationship between different attributes and segmentation
• Establishing temporal indexing and relation
• Annotation and detecting ADR and AME
• GloVe, Lemmas, and Domain-specific
• Word2Vec and contextual WE (ELMo and Flair)
• Unified medical language system
• Difficulties in extracting medical entity
• Medical text mining (hard)
• Key annotation constraints in medical texts
• Medical corporation – identification lacking

These are the important areas of research in NLP. What programming language does NLP use? To get expert answers to such frequently asked questions you can check out our website on PhD topics in natural language processing or instantly contact us. We are here to provide you with all kinds of support for your NLP research projects.

Opening Hours

• Mon-Sat 09.00 am – 6.30 pm
• Lunch Time 12.30 pm – 01.30 pm
• Break Time 04.00 pm – 04.30 pm
• 18 years service excellence
• 40+ country reach
• 36+ university mou
• 194+ college mou
• 6000+ happy customers
• 100+ employees
• 240+ writers
• 60+ developers
• 45+ researchers
• 540+ Journal tieup

Payment Options

Our Clients

Social Links

• Terms of Use

Opening Time

Closing Time

• We follow Indian time zone

• Our Promise
• Our Achievements
• Our Mission
• Proposal Writing
• System Development
• Paper Writing
• Paper Publish
• Synopsis Writing
• Thesis Writing
• Assignments
• Survey Paper
• Conference Paper
• Journal Paper
• Empirical Paper
• Journal Support

PhD Projects in NLP

At first, gain some facts on NLP- “ NLP is the combination of Computer Science, Information Engineering, and AI fields .” Of course, it is the  apt domain  for all PhD candidates.

PhD projects in NLP  are the practical stage for all coming up scholars. As of now, we have completed “ 5000+ projects”  with high-quality. In that, we update every single move in the research world.

All in all, have a Trust On Our Service and Get All Your Desires…

Enthralling Research Areas

• Dialog and interactive systems
• Discourse and pragmatics
• Information extraction
• Information retrieval and document analysis
• Lexical semantics
• Linguistic theories, cognitive modeling, and psycholinguistics
• Machine learning for NLP
• Machine translation and multilingualism
• Opinion mining
• Social data analytics
• Data Mining
• Ontology generation for NLP
• Top-k ranking based IR
• Sentimental analysis
• Named entity recognition
• Semantic and syntactic analysis

To be sure, our NLP experts will uplift your work to the next level . That is to say, “get top-notch results” for your PhD projects in NLP .

Hopefully, being with us is the easiest way for your success…

Significant Tools for PhD projects in NLP

• PyTorach-NLP

Certainly, our fruitful help will give 100% of the precise results for you. Besides, we have even more techies with the knowledge of “ Java and Python”  for your NLP projects.

In short, drop all of your fears on the research since we are here to take every risk for your successful PhD career!!!!

Go through top 20 project concepts listed by PhD projects in NLP,

An innovative mechanism for Preliminary research based on Fundamental Thai NLP Tasks for User-generated Web Content

An effective natural language processing function based on Modeling for Robot-Driven Prototype Automation scheme

A new-fangled mechanisms for Keyphrase Extraction such as Topic Identification By Term Frequency and Synonymous Term Grouping system

An inventive methodology function for Machine Learning Methods for Assessing Freshness in Hydroponic Produce

A new mechanism for Model resource of Handwritten Recognition Based on Artificial Intelligence

An innovative mechanism for NLP based on Secure Complaint bot using Onion Routing Algorithm Concealing identities to increase effectiveness of complain bot

On the use of effective function based Natural Language Processing on Extract Health-Related Causality from Twitter Messages

A fresh mechanism function for Evaluation of Rough Sets Data Preprocessing based on NLP Context-Driven Semantic Analysis with RNN

An original mechanism for Crowd-Source Based NLP Corpus based  on Bangla into English Translation scheme

A new source for Portable Phenotyping System based on Portable Machine-Learning Approach into i2b2 Obesity Challenge scheme

An innovative performance for AI Based Chat-Bot Using NLP for Azure Cognitive Services

An inventive process for Babelfy-Based on Extraction of Collocations from Turkish Hotel Reviews

An efficient mechanism function for ASR And Natural Language Processing  scheme

A novel method for Pragmatic Markers in Russian Spoken Speech based  Experience of Systematization and Annotation for Improvement of NLP Tasks

An effective source for Text Summarization intended for Tamil Online Sports News used By NLP scheme

An inventive process for NLP and Machine Learning Techniques for Detecting Insulting Comments based on Social Networking Platforms

The new process for Sentiment Analysis based on Interview Transcripts  of NLP for Quantitative Analysis

A novel method for Inflectional Review of Deep Learning based on Natural Language Processing

The new-fangled mechanism for Search-Based on Algorithm With Scatter Search Strategy aimed at Automated Test Case Generation of NLP Toolkit

An inventive performance for  Simple NLP-Based Approach to Support Onboarding and Retention in Open Source Communities

MILESTONE 1: Research Proposal

Finalize journal (indexing).

Before sit down to research proposal writing, we need to decide exact journals. For e.g. SCI, SCI-E, ISI, SCOPUS.

Research Subject Selection

As a doctoral student, subject selection is a big problem. Phdservices.org has the team of world class experts who experience in assisting all subjects. When you decide to work in networking, we assign our experts in your specific area for assistance.

Research Topic Selection

We helping you with right and perfect topic selection, which sound interesting to the other fellows of your committee. For e.g. if your interest in networking, the research topic is VANET / MANET / any other

Literature Survey Writing

To ensure the novelty of research, we find research gaps in 50+ latest benchmark papers (IEEE, Springer, Elsevier, MDPI, Hindawi, etc.)

Case Study Writing

After literature survey, we get the main issue/problem that your research topic will aim to resolve and elegant writing support to identify relevance of the issue.

Problem Statement

Based on the research gaps finding and importance of your research, we conclude the appropriate and specific problem statement.

Writing Research Proposal

Writing a good research proposal has need of lot of time. We only span a few to cover all major aspects (reference papers collection, deficiency finding, drawing system architecture, highlights novelty)

MILESTONE 2: System Development

Fix implementation plan.

We prepare a clear project implementation plan that narrates your proposal in step-by step and it contains Software and OS specification. We recommend you very suitable tools/software that fit for your concept.

Tools/Plan Approval

We get the approval for implementation tool, software, programing language and finally implementation plan to start development process.

Pseudocode Description

Our source code is original since we write the code after pseudocodes, algorithm writing and mathematical equation derivations.

Develop Proposal Idea

We implement our novel idea in step-by-step process that given in implementation plan. We can help scholars in implementation.

Comparison/Experiments

We perform the comparison between proposed and existing schemes in both quantitative and qualitative manner since it is most crucial part of any journal paper.

Graphs, Results, Analysis Table

We evaluate and analyze the project results by plotting graphs, numerical results computation, and broader discussion of quantitative results in table.

Project Deliverables

For every project order, we deliver the following: reference papers, source codes screenshots, project video, installation and running procedures.

MILESTONE 3: Paper Writing

Choosing right format.

We intend to write a paper in customized layout. If you are interesting in any specific journal, we ready to support you. Otherwise we prepare in IEEE transaction level.

Collecting Reliable Resources

Before paper writing, we collect reliable resources such as 50+ journal papers, magazines, news, encyclopedia (books), benchmark datasets, and online resources.

Writing Rough Draft

We create an outline of a paper at first and then writing under each heading and sub-headings. It consists of novel idea and resources

Proofreading & Formatting

We must proofread and formatting a paper to fix typesetting errors, and avoiding misspelled words, misplaced punctuation marks, and so on

Native English Writing

We check the communication of a paper by rewriting with native English writers who accomplish their English literature in University of Oxford.

Scrutinizing Paper Quality

We examine the paper quality by top-experts who can easily fix the issues in journal paper writing and also confirm the level of journal paper (SCI, Scopus or Normal).

Plagiarism Checking

We at phdservices.org is 100% guarantee for original journal paper writing. We never use previously published works.

MILESTONE 4: Paper Publication

Finding apt journal.

We play crucial role in this step since this is very important for scholar’s future. Our experts will help you in choosing high Impact Factor (SJR) journals for publishing.

Lay Paper to Submit

We organize your paper for journal submission, which covers the preparation of Authors Biography, Cover Letter, Highlights of Novelty, and Suggested Reviewers.

Paper Submission

We upload paper with submit all prerequisites that are required in journal. We completely remove frustration in paper publishing.

Paper Status Tracking

We track your paper status and answering the questions raise before review process and also we giving you frequent updates for your paper received from journal.

Revising Paper Precisely

When we receive decision for revising paper, we get ready to prepare the point-point response to address all reviewers query and resubmit it to catch final acceptance.

Get Accept & e-Proofing

We receive final mail for acceptance confirmation letter and editors send e-proofing and licensing to ensure the originality.

Publishing Paper

Paper published in online and we inform you with paper title, authors information, journal name volume, issue number, page number, and DOI link

MILESTONE 5: Thesis Writing

Identifying university format.

We pay special attention for your thesis writing and our 100+ thesis writers are proficient and clear in writing thesis for all university formats.

Gathering Adequate Resources

We collect primary and adequate resources for writing well-structured thesis using published research articles, 150+ reputed reference papers, writing plan, and so on.

Writing Thesis (Preliminary)

We write thesis in chapter-by-chapter without any empirical mistakes and we completely provide plagiarism-free thesis.

Skimming & Reading

Skimming involve reading the thesis and looking abstract, conclusions, sections, & sub-sections, paragraphs, sentences & words and writing thesis chorological order of papers.

Fixing Crosscutting Issues

This step is tricky when write thesis by amateurs. Proofreading and formatting is made by our world class thesis writers who avoid verbose, and brainstorming for significant writing.

Organize Thesis Chapters

We organize thesis chapters by completing the following: elaborate chapter, structuring chapters, flow of writing, citations correction, etc.

Writing Thesis (Final Version)

We attention to details of importance of thesis contribution, well-illustrated literature review, sharp and broad results and discussion and relevant applications study.

How PhDservices.org deal with significant issues ?

1. novel ideas.

Novelty is essential for a PhD degree. Our experts are bringing quality of being novel ideas in the particular research area. It can be only determined by after thorough literature search (state-of-the-art works published in IEEE, Springer, Elsevier, ACM, ScienceDirect, Inderscience, and so on). SCI and SCOPUS journals reviewers and editors will always demand “Novelty” for each publishing work. Our experts have in-depth knowledge in all major and sub-research fields to introduce New Methods and Ideas. MAKING NOVEL IDEAS IS THE ONLY WAY OF WINNING PHD.

2. Plagiarism-Free

To improve the quality and originality of works, we are strictly avoiding plagiarism since plagiarism is not allowed and acceptable for any type journals (SCI, SCI-E, or Scopus) in editorial and reviewer point of view. We have software named as “Anti-Plagiarism Software” that examines the similarity score for documents with good accuracy. We consist of various plagiarism tools like Viper, Turnitin, Students and scholars can get your work in Zero Tolerance to Plagiarism. DONT WORRY ABOUT PHD, WE WILL TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING.

3. Confidential Info

We intended to keep your personal and technical information in secret and it is a basic worry for all scholars.

• Technical Info: We never share your technical details to any other scholar since we know the importance of time and resources that are giving us by scholars.
• Personal Info: We restricted to access scholars personal details by our experts. Our organization leading team will have your basic and necessary info for scholars.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY OF INFORMATION HELD IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE AT PHDSERVICES.ORG. WE HONEST FOR ALL CUSTOMERS.

4. Publication

Most of the PhD consultancy services will end their services in Paper Writing, but our PhDservices.org is different from others by giving guarantee for both paper writing and publication in reputed journals. With our 18+ year of experience in delivering PhD services, we meet all requirements of journals (reviewers, editors, and editor-in-chief) for rapid publications. From the beginning of paper writing, we lay our smart works. PUBLICATION IS A ROOT FOR PHD DEGREE. WE LIKE A FRUIT FOR GIVING SWEET FEELING FOR ALL SCHOLARS.

5. No Duplication

After completion of your work, it does not available in our library i.e. we erased after completion of your PhD work so we avoid of giving duplicate contents for scholars. This step makes our experts to bringing new ideas, applications, methodologies and algorithms. Our work is more standard, quality and universal. Everything we make it as a new for all scholars. INNOVATION IS THE ABILITY TO SEE THE ORIGINALITY. EXPLORATION IS OUR ENGINE THAT DRIVES INNOVATION SO LET’S ALL GO EXPLORING.

Client Reviews

I ordered a research proposal in the research area of Wireless Communications and it was as very good as I can catch it.

I had wishes to complete implementation using latest software/tools and I had no idea of where to order it. My friend suggested this place and it delivers what I expect.

It really good platform to get all PhD services and I have used it many times because of reasonable price, best customer services, and high quality.

My colleague recommended this service to me and I’m delighted their services. They guide me a lot and given worthy contents for my research paper.

I’m never disappointed at any kind of service. Till I’m work with professional writers and getting lot of opportunities.

- Christopher

Once I am entered this organization I was just felt relax because lots of my colleagues and family relations were suggested to use this service and I received best thesis writing.

I recommend phdservices.org. They have professional writers for all type of writing (proposal, paper, thesis, assignment) support at affordable price.

You guys did a great job saved more money and time. I will keep working with you and I recommend to others also.

These experts are fast, knowledgeable, and dedicated to work under a short deadline. I had get good conference paper in short span.

Guys! You are the great and real experts for paper writing since it exactly matches with my demand. I will approach again.

I am fully satisfied with thesis writing. Thank you for your faultless service and soon I come back again.

Trusted customer service that you offer for me. I don’t have any cons to say.

I was at the edge of my doctorate graduation since my thesis is totally unconnected chapters. You people did a magic and I get my complete thesis!!!

- Abdul Mohammed

Good family environment with collaboration, and lot of hardworking team who actually share their knowledge by offering PhD Services.

I enjoyed huge when working with PhD services. I was asked several questions about my system development and I had wondered of smooth, dedication and caring.

I had not provided any specific requirements for my proposal work, but you guys are very awesome because I’m received proper proposal. Thank you!

- Bhanuprasad

I was read my entire research proposal and I liked concept suits for my research issues. Thank you so much for your efforts.

- Ghulam Nabi

I am extremely happy with your project development support and source codes are easily understanding and executed.

Hi!!! You guys supported me a lot. Thank you and I am 100% satisfied with publication service.

- Abhimanyu

I had found this as a wonderful platform for scholars so I highly recommend this service to all. I ordered thesis proposal and they covered everything. Thank you so much!!!

Related Pages

Phd Projects In Audio Speech And Language Processing

Guidelines For Phd Projects

Phd Projects In Computer Science Engineering

Phd Projects In It

Phd Projects In Learning Technologies

Phd Projects In Digital Forensics

Phd Projects In Web Technology

Guidelines For Phd Paper Writing

Phd Projects In Cryptography

Phd Projects In Audio Speech Language Processing

Phd Projects In Computer Graphics

Phd Projects In Cse

Phd Projects In Cybersecurity

Phd Projects In Java

Phd Projects In Natural Language Processing