We Keep Coding

Algorithm to identify similarity between text messages

I'm looking for an algorithm than can compare two text messages (let's say forum posts) and identify the similarity in percentage.
What would be the most efficient solution for this purpose?
The idea is to use this algorithm to identify users on a forum who have more than two nicknames, pretending to be different people.
I'm going to build a program that will read all their posts and compare each post from the first account to posts of the second account to find whether they are genuinely two different persons or just two registrations of a single user.

The first thing that came to my mind was the Levenshtein Distance, but it is more focused on words similarities.
You could use tf-idf, but it will probably work better if your corpus contains more than only two documents.
An alternative could be representing the documents (posts) using a vector space model, like:
(w_0, w_1, ..., w_k)
where
k is the total of terms (words) in your document
w_i is the i-th term.
and then compute the Hamming Distance, which basically compares two vectors (arrays) and count the positions where they are different. You can discard stop-words first (i.e. words like prepositions, etc.)
Take in count that the user might change some words, use synonyms, etc. There are lots of models for representing documents, computing similarity between them. Some of them take in count words dependency, which gives more semantic to the process, and others don't.

google-diff-match-patch will be a good choice for you. you can look the demo for testing.

String similar to a set of strings

I need to compare a set of strings to another set of strings and find which strings are similar (fuzzy-string matching).
For example:
{ "A.B. Mann Incorporated", "Mr. Enrique Bellini", "Park Management Systems" }
and
{ "Park", "AB Mann Inc.", "E. Bellini" }
Assuming a zero-based index, the matches would be 0-1, 1-2, 2-0. Obviously, no algorithm can be perfect at this type of thing.
I have a working implementation of the Levenshtein-distance algorithm, but using it to find similar strings from each set necessitates looping through both sets of strings to do the comparison, resulting in an O(n^2) algorithm. This runs unacceptably slow even with modestly sized sets.
I've also tried a clustering algorithm that uses shingling and the Jaccard coefficient. Unfortunately, this too runs in O(n^2), which ends up being too slow, even with bit-level optimizations.
Does anyone know of a more efficient algorithm (faster than O(n^2)), or better yet, a library already written in C#, for accomplishing this?

Not a direct answer to the O(N^2) but a comment on the N1 algorithm.
That is sample data but it is all clean. That is not data that I would use Levenstien on. Incriminate would have closer distance to Incorporated than Inc. E. would not match well to Enrique.
Levenshtein-distance is good at catching key entry errors.
It is also good for matching OCR.
If you have clean data I would go with stemming and other custom rules.
Porter stemmer is available for C# and if you have clean data
E.G.
remove . and other punctuation
remove stop words (the)
stem
parse each list once and assign an int value for each unique stem
do the match on int
still N^2 but now N1 is faster
you might add in a single cap the matches a word that start with cap gets a partial score
also need to account for number of words
two groups of 5 that match of 3 should score higher then two groups of 10 that match on 4
I would create Int hashsets for each phrase and then intersect and count.
Not sure you can get out of N^2.
But I am suggesting you look at N1.
Lucene is a library with phrase matching but it is not really set up for batches.
Create the index with the intent it is used many time so index search speed is optimized over index creation time.

In the given examples at least one word is always matching. A possible approach could use a multimap (a dictionary being able to store multiple entries per key) or a Dictionary<TKey,List<TVlaue>>. Each string from the first set would be splitted into single words. These words would be used as key in the multimap and the whole string would be stored as value.
Now you can split strings from the second set into single words and do an O(1) lookup for each word, i.e. an O(N) lookup for all the words. This yields a first raw result, where each match contains at least one matching word. Finally you would have to refine this raw result by applying other rules (like searching for initials or abbreviated words).

This problem, called "string similarity join," has been studied a lot recently in the research community. We released a source code package in C++ called Flamingo that implements such an algorithm http://flamingo.ics.uci.edu/releases/4.1/src/partenum/. We also have a Hadoop-based implementation at http://asterix.ics.uci.edu/fuzzyjoin/ if your data set is too large for a single machine.

Custom Collation Ordering

Is there a way in .NET/C# to sort a List<string> according to a custom alphabetical order?
I have a list of words:
{ "badum", "śiram", "ðaur", "hor", "áltar", "aun" }
that I wish to sort in the following order:
{ "áltar", "aun", "badum", "śiram", "hor", "ðaur" }
By custom alphabetical order, I mean that I'm working on a constructed language with an alphabet that looks like this: ABZTMIGJLNKSOŚPRFUHDVEÐÞY. A C# implementation of the RuleBasedCollator found in Java would be perfect! If no such thing exists, a few pointers on writing a custom algorithm would be appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

I would definitely start with creating a RuleBasedCollator. Figuring out the rules that you want is one of the harder tasks.
There is a project that provides .net bindings over icu which may suit you.
If that doesn't meet your requirements, and you decide to write your own, the Unicode Collation Algorithm is a good resource. Keep in mind that natural language sorting conceptually (although many optimizations are possible) involves separate passes with increasing specificity. The first pass will look for so-called primary distinctions (usually ignoring differences of case and certain diacritics and punctuation) if there are no differences and the number of primary units in both strings is the same, then you can make the second pass, this time taking into account diacritic differences, if any. Next you process the case distinctions and finally punctuation distinctions.

You can pass custom sorter to the List.Sort() method:
List<string> foo = new List<string>();
foo.Sort((a, b) => a.CompareTo(b));
This will sort the list in place depending on which criteria you want to use (above obviously does just a regular string comparison).

Creating a "spell check" that checks against a database with a reasonable runtime

I'm not asking about implementing the spell check algorithm itself. I have a database that contains hundreds of thousands of records. What I am looking to do is checking a user input against a certain column in a table for all these records and return any matches with a certain hamming distance (again, this question's not about determining hamming distance, etc.). The purpose, of course, is to create a "did you mean" feature, where a user searches a name, and if no direct matches are found in the database, a list of possible matches are returned.
I'm trying to come up with a way to do all of these checks in the most reasonable runtime possible. How can I check a user's input against all of these records in the most efficient way possible?
The feature is currently implemented, but the runtime is exceedingly slow. The way it works now is it loads all records from a user-specified table (or tables) into memory and then performs the check.
For what it's worth, I'm using NHibernate for data access.
I would appreciate any feedback on how I can do this or what my options are.

Calculating Levenshtein distance doesn't have to be as costly as you might think. The code in the Norvig article can be thought of as psuedocode to help the reader understand the algorithm. A much more efficient implementation (in my case, approx 300 times faster on a 20,000 term data set) is to walk a trie. The performance difference is mostly attributed to removing the need to allocate millions of strings in order to do dictionary lookups, spending much less time in the GC, and you also get better locality of reference so have fewer CPU cache misses. With this approach I am able to do lookups in around 2ms on my web server. An added bonus is the ability to return all results that start with the provided string easily.
The downside is that creating the trie is slow (can take a second or so), so if the source data changes regularly then you need to decide whether to rebuild the whole thing or apply deltas. At any rate, you want to reuse the structure as much as possible once it's built.

As Darcara said, a BK-Tree is a good first take. They are very easy to implement. There are several free implementations easily found via Google, but a better introduction to the algorithm can be found here: http://blog.notdot.net/2007/4/Damn-Cool-Algorithms-Part-1-BK-Trees.
Unfortunately, calculating the Levenshtein distance is pretty costly, and you'll be doing it a lot if you're using a BK-Tree with a large dictionary. For better performance, you might consider Levenshtein Automata. A bit harder to implement, but also more efficient, and they can be used to solve your problem. The same awesome blogger has the details: http://blog.notdot.net/2010/07/Damn-Cool-Algorithms-Levenshtein-Automata. This paper might also be interesting: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.16.652.

I guess the Levenshtein distance is more useful here than the Hamming distance.
Let's take an example: We take the word example and restrict ourselves to a Levenshtein distance of 1. Then we can enumerate all possible misspellings that exist:
1 insertion (208)
aexample
bexample
cexample
...
examplex
exampley
examplez
1 deletion (7)
xample
eample
exmple
...
exampl
1 substitution (182)
axample
bxample
cxample
...
examplz
You could store each misspelling in the database, and link that to the correct spelling, example. That works and would be quite fast, but creates a huge database.
Notice how most misspellings occur by doing the same operation with a different character:
1 insertion (8)
?example
e?xample
ex?ample
exa?mple
exam?ple
examp?le
exampl?e
example?
1 deletion (7)
xample
eample
exmple
exaple
examle
exampe
exampl
1 substitution (7)
?xample
e?ample
ex?mple
exa?ple
exam?le
examp?e
exampl?
That looks quite manageable. You could generate all these "hints" for each word and store them in the database. When the user enters a word, generate all "hints" from that and query the database.
Example: User enters exaple (notice missing m).
SELECT DISTINCT word
FROM dictionary
WHERE hint = '?exaple'
OR hint = 'e?xaple'
OR hint = 'ex?aple'
OR hint = 'exa?ple'
OR hint = 'exap?le'
OR hint = 'exapl?e'
OR hint = 'exaple?'
OR hint = 'xaple'
OR hint = 'eaple'
OR hint = 'exple'
OR hint = 'exale'
OR hint = 'exape'
OR hint = 'exapl'
OR hint = '?xaple'
OR hint = 'e?aple'
OR hint = 'ex?ple'
OR hint = 'exa?le'
OR hint = 'exap?e'
OR hint = 'exapl?'
exaple with 1 insertion == exa?ple == example with 1 substitution
See also: How does the Google “Did you mean?” Algorithm work?

it loads all records from a user-specified table (or tables) into memory and then performs the check
don't do that
Either
Do the match match on the back end
and only return the results you need.
or
Cache the records into memory early
on a take the working set hit and do
the check when you need it.

You will need to structure your data differently than a database can. Build a custom search tree, with all dictionary data needed, on the client. Although memory might become a problem if the dictionary is extremely big, the search itself will be very fast. O(nlogn) if I recall correctly.
Have a look at BK-Trees
Also, instead of using the Hamming distance, consider the Levenshtein distance

The answer you marked as correct..
Note: when i say dictionary.. in this post, i mean hash map .. map..
basically i mean a python dictionary
Another way you can improve its performance by creating an inverted index of words.
So rather than calculating the edit distance against whole db, you create 26 dictionary.. each has a key an alphabet. so english language has 26 alphabets.. so keys are "a","b".. "z"
So assume you have word in your db "apple"
So in the "a" dictionary : you add the word "apple"
in the "p" dictionary: you add the word "apple"
in the "l" dictionary: you add the word "apple"
in the "e" dictionary : you add the word "apple"
So, do this for all the words in the dictionary..
Now when the misspelled word is entered..
lets say aplse
you start with "a" and retreive all the words in "a"
then you start with "p" and find the intersection of words between "a" and "p"
then you start with "l" and find the intersection of words between "a", "p" and "l"
and you do this for all the alphabetss.
in the end you will have just the bunch of words which are made of alphabets "a","p","l","s","e"
In the next step, you calculate the edit distance between the input word and the bunch of words returned by the above steps.. thus drastically reducing your run time..
now there might be a case when nothing might be returned..
so something like "aklse".. there is a good chance that there is no word which is made of just these alphabets..
In this case, you will have to start reversing the above step to a stage where you have finite numbers of word left.
So somethng like start with *klse (intersection between words k, l,s,e) num(wordsreturned) =k1
then a*lse( intersection between words a,l,s,e)... numwords = k2
and so on..
choose the one which have higher number of words returned.. in this case, there is really no one answer.. as a lot of words might have same edit distance.. you can just say that if editdistance is greater than "k" then there is no good match...
There are many sophisticated algorithms built on top of this..
like after these many steps, use statistical inferences (probability the word is "apple" when the input is "aplse".. and so on) Then you go machine learning way :)

How do I determine if two similar band names represent the same band?

I'm currently working on a project that requires me to match our database of Bands and venues with a number of external services.
Basically I'm looking for some direction on the best method for determining if two names are the same. For Example:
Our database venue name - "The Pig and Whistle"
service 1 - "Pig and Whistle"
service 2 - "The Pig & Whistle"
etc etc
I think the main differences are going to be things like missing "the" or using "&" instead of "and" but there could also be things like slightly different spelling and words in different orders.
What algorithms/techniques are commonly used in this situation, do I need to filter noise words or do some sort of spell check type match?
Have you seen any examples of something simlar in c#?
UPDATE: In case anyone is interested in a c# example there is a heap you can access by doing a google code search for Levenshtein distance

The canonical (and probably the easiest) way to do this is to measure the Levenshtein distance between the two strings. If the distance is small relative to the size of the string, it's probably the same string. Note that if you have to compare a lot of very small strings it'll be harder to tell whether they're the same or not. It works better with longer strings.
A smarter approach might be to compare the Levenshtein distance between the two strings but to assign a distance of zero to the more obvious transformations, like "and"/"&", "Snoop Doggy Dogg"/"Snoop", etc.

I did something like this a while ago, I used the the Discogs database (which is public domain), which also tracks artist aliases;
You can either:
Use an API call (namevariations field).
Download the monthly data dumps (*_artists.xml.gz) & import it in your database. This contains the same data, but is obviously a lot faster.
One advantage of this over the Levenshtein distance) solution is that you'll get a lot less false matches.
For example, Ryan Adams and Bryan Adams have a score of 2, which is quite good (lower is better matches, Pig and Whistle and Pig & Whistle has a score of 3), yet they're obviously different people.
While you could make a smarter algorithm (which also looks at string length, for example), using the alias DB is a lot simpler & less error-phone; after implementing this, I could completely remove the solution that was suggested in the other answer & had better matches.

soundex may also be useful

In bioinformatics we use this to compare DNA- or protein sequences all the time.
There are plenty of algorithms, you probably want to look at global alignments.
In this respect the Needleman-Wunsch algorithm is probably what you seek.
If you have particularly long recurring strings to compare you might also want to consider heuristic searches like BLAST.