Google Search API

Package firestore provides a client for reading and writing to a Cloud Firestore database. See https://cloud.google.com/firestore/docs for an introduction to Cloud Firestore and additional help on using the Firestore API. See https://godoc.org/cloud.google.com/go for authentication, timeouts, connection pooling and similar aspects of this package. Note: you can't use both Cloud Firestore and Cloud Datastore in the same project. To start working with this package, create a client with a project ID: In Firestore, documents are sets of key-value pairs, and collections are groups of documents. A Firestore database consists of a hierarchy of alternating collections and documents, referred to by slash-separated paths like "States/California/Cities/SanFrancisco". This client is built around references to collections and documents. CollectionRefs and DocumentRefs are lightweight values that refer to the corresponding database entities. Creating a ref does not involve any network traffic. Use DocumentRef.Get to read a document. The result is a DocumentSnapshot. Call its Data method to obtain the entire document contents as a map. You can also obtain a single field with DataAt, or extract the data into a struct with DataTo. With the type definition we can extract the document's data into a value of type State: Note that this client supports struct tags beginning with "firestore:" that work like the tags of the encoding/json package, letting you rename fields, ignore them, or omit their values when empty. To retrieve multiple documents from their references in a single call, use Client.GetAll. For writing individual documents, use the methods on DocumentReference. Create creates a new document. The first return value is a WriteResult, which contains the time at which the document was updated. Create fails if the document exists. Another method, Set, either replaces an existing document or creates a new one. To update some fields of an existing document, use Update. It takes a list of paths to update and their corresponding values. Use DocumentRef.Delete to delete a document. You can condition Deletes or Updates on when a document was last changed. Specify these preconditions as an option to a Delete or Update method. The check and the write happen atomically with a single RPC. Here we update a doc only if it hasn't changed since we read it. You could also do this with a transaction. To perform multiple writes at once, use a WriteBatch. Its methods chain for convenience. WriteBatch.Commit sends the collected writes to the server, where they happen atomically. You can use SQL to select documents from a collection. Begin with the collection, and build up a query using Select, Where and other methods of Query. Supported operators include '<', '<=', '>', '>=', '==', 'in', 'array-contains', and 'array-contains-any'. Call the Query's Documents method to get an iterator, and use it like the other Google Cloud Client iterators. To get all the documents in a collection, you can use the collection itself as a query. Firestore supports similarity search over embedding vectors. See Query.FindNearest for details. You can partition the documents of a Collection Group allowing for smaller subqueries. You can also Serialize/Deserialize queries making it possible to run/stream the queries elsewhere; another process or machine for instance. Use a transaction to execute reads and writes atomically. All reads must happen before any writes. Transaction creation, commit, rollback and retry are handled for you by the Client.RunTransaction method; just provide a function and use the read and write methods of the Transaction passed to it. This package supports the Cloud Firestore emulator, which is useful for testing and development. Environment variables are used to indicate that Firestore traffic should be directed to the emulator instead of the production Firestore service. To install and run the emulator and its environment variables, see the documentation at https://cloud.google.com/sdk/gcloud/reference/beta/emulators/firestore/. Once the emulator is running, set FIRESTORE_EMULATOR_HOST to the API endpoint.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some text is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing those languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector has been built from. The entries are sorted by their confidence value in descending order. Each value is a probability between 0.0 and 1.0. The probabilities of all languages will sum to 1.0. If the language is unambiguously identified by the rule engine, the value 1.0 will always be returned for this language. The other languages will receive a value of 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package gbsearch provides a way to search the Google books API.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some provided textual data is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. The bar and box plots (https://github.com/pemistahl/lingua-go/blob/main/ACCURACY_PLOTS.md) show the measured accuracy values for all three performed tasks: Single word detection, word pair detection and sentence detection. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Detailed statistics including mean, median and standard deviation values for each language and classifier are available in tabular form (https://github.com/pemistahl/lingua-go/blob/main/ACCURACY_TABLE.md) as well. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing all possible languages sorted by their confidence value in descending order. The values that this method computes are part of a relative confidence metric, not of an absolute one. Each value is a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The most likely language is always returned with value 1.0. All other languages get values assigned which are lower than 1.0, denoting how less likely those languages are in comparison to the most likely language. The slice returned by this method does not necessarily contain all languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector was built from. If the rule-based engine decides that a specific language is truly impossible, then it will not be part of the returned slice. Likewise, if no ngram probabilities can be found within the detector's languages for the given input text, the returned slice will be empty. The confidence value for each language not being part of the returned slice is assumed to be 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package main (doc.go) : This is a CLI tool to execute Google Apps Script (GAS) on a terminal. Will you want to develop GAS on your local PC? Generally, when we develop GAS, we have to login to Google using own browser and develop it on the Script Editor. Recently, I have wanted to have more convenient local-environment for developing GAS. So I created this "ggsrun". The main work is to execute GAS on local terminal and retrieve the results from Google. 1. Develops GAS using your terminal and text editor which got accustomed to using. 2. Executes GAS by giving values to your script. 3. Executes GAS made of CoffeeScript. 4. Downloads spreadsheet, document and presentation, while executes GAS, simultaneously. 5. Downloads files from Google Drive and Uploads files to Google Drive. 6. Downloads standalone script and bound script. 7. Downloads all files and folders in a specific folder. 8. Upload script files and create project as standalone script and container-bound script. 9. Update project. 10. Retrieve revision files of Google Docs and retrieve versions of projects. 11. Rearranges scripts in project. 12. Modifies Manifests in project. 13. Seach files in Google Drive using search query and regex. 14. Manage Permissions of files. 15. Get Drive Information. 16. ggsrun got to be able to be used by not only OAuth2, but also Service Account from v1.7.0. You can see the release page https://github.com/tanaikech/ggsrun/releases ggsrun uses Execution API, Web Apps and Drive API on Google. About how to install ggsrun, please check my github repository. https://github.com/tanaikech/ggsrun/ You can read the detail information there. --------------------------------------------------------------- # How to Execute Google Apps Script Using ggsrun When you have the configure file `ggsrun.cfg`, you can execute GAS. If you cannot find it, please download `client_secret.json` and run $ ggsrun auth In the case of using Execution API, $ ggsrun e1 -s sample.gs If you want to execute a function except for `main()` of default, you can use an option like `-f foo`. This command `exe1` can be used to execute a function on project. $ ggsrun e1 -f foo $ ggsrun e2 -s sample.gs At `e2`, you cannot select the executing function except for `main()` of default. `e1`, `e2` and `-s` mean using Execution API and GAS script file name, respectively. Sample codes which are shown here will be used Execution API. At this time, the executing function is `main()`, which is a default, in the script. In the case of using Web Apps, $ ggsrun w -s sample.gs -p password -u [ WebApps URL ] `w` and `-p` mean using Web Apps and password you set at the server side, respectively. Using `-u` it imports Web Apps URL like `-u https://script.google.com/macros/s/#####/exec`. --------------------------------------------------------------- Package main (ggsrun.go) : This file is included all commands and options. Package main (handler.go) : Handler for ggsrun Package main (init.go) : These methods are for reading and writing configuration file (ggsrun.cfg). Package main (materials.go) : Materials for ggsrun. Package main (oauth.go) : Get accesstoken using refreshtoken, and confirm condition of accesstoken. Package main (projectupdater.go) : These methods are for updating project. Package main (scriptrearrange.go) : These methods are for rearranging scripts in a project. Package main (sender.go) : These methods are for sending GAS scripts to Google Drive.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some provided textual data is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. The bar and box plots (https://github.com/pemistahl/lingua-go/blob/main/ACCURACY_PLOTS.md) show the measured accuracy values for all three performed tasks: Single word detection, word pair detection and sentence detection. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Detailed statistics including mean, median and standard deviation values for each language and classifier are available in tabular form (https://github.com/pemistahl/lingua-go/blob/main/ACCURACY_TABLE.md) as well. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing all possible languages sorted by their confidence value in descending order. The values that this method computes are part of a relative confidence metric, not of an absolute one. Each value is a number between 0.0 and 1.0. The most likely language is always returned with value 1.0. All other languages get values assigned which are lower than 1.0, denoting how less likely those languages are in comparison to the most likely language. The slice returned by this method does not necessarily contain all languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector was built from. If the rule-based engine decides that a specific language is truly impossible, then it will not be part of the returned slice. Likewise, if no ngram probabilities can be found within the detector's languages for the given input text, the returned slice will be empty. The confidence value for each language not being part of the returned slice is assumed to be 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some text is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing those languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector has been built from. The entries are sorted by their confidence value in descending order. Each value is a probability between 0.0 and 1.0. The probabilities of all languages will sum to 1.0. If the language is unambiguously identified by the rule engine, the value 1.0 will always be returned for this language. The other languages will receive a value of 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some text is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing those languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector has been built from. The entries are sorted by their confidence value in descending order. Each value is a probability between 0.0 and 1.0. The probabilities of all languages will sum to 1.0. If the language is unambiguously identified by the rule engine, the value 1.0 will always be returned for this language. The other languages will receive a value of 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some text is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing those languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector has been built from. The entries are sorted by their confidence value in descending order. Each value is a probability between 0.0 and 1.0. The probabilities of all languages will sum to 1.0. If the language is unambiguously identified by the rule engine, the value 1.0 will always be returned for this language. The other languages will receive a value of 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.

Package lingua accurately detects the natural language of written text, be it long or short. Its task is simple: It tells you which language some text is written in. This is very useful as a preprocessing step for linguistic data in natural language processing applications such as text classification and spell checking. Other use cases, for instance, might include routing e-mails to the right geographically located customer service department, based on the e-mails' languages. Language detection is often done as part of large machine learning frameworks or natural language processing applications. In cases where you don't need the full-fledged functionality of those systems or don't want to learn the ropes of those, a small flexible library comes in handy. So far, the only other comprehensive open source library in the Go ecosystem for this task is Whatlanggo (https://github.com/abadojack/whatlanggo). Unfortunately, it has two major drawbacks: 1. Detection only works with quite lengthy text fragments. For very short text snippets such as Twitter messages, it does not provide adequate results. 2. The more languages take part in the decision process, the less accurate are the detection results. Lingua aims at eliminating these problems. It nearly does not need any configuration and yields pretty accurate results on both long and short text, even on single words and phrases. It draws on both rule-based and statistical methods but does not use any dictionaries of words. It does not need a connection to any external API or service either. Once the library has been downloaded, it can be used completely offline. Compared to other language detection libraries, Lingua's focus is on quality over quantity, that is, getting detection right for a small set of languages first before adding new ones. Currently, 75 languages are supported. They are listed as variants of type Language. Lingua is able to report accuracy statistics for some bundled test data available for each supported language. The test data for each language is split into three parts: 1. a list of single words with a minimum length of 5 characters 2. a list of word pairs with a minimum length of 10 characters 3. a list of complete grammatical sentences of various lengths Both the language models and the test data have been created from separate documents of the Wortschatz corpora (https://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de) offered by Leipzig University, Germany. Data crawled from various news websites have been used for training, each corpus comprising one million sentences. For testing, corpora made of arbitrarily chosen websites have been used, each comprising ten thousand sentences. From each test corpus, a random unsorted subset of 1000 single words, 1000 word pairs and 1000 sentences has been extracted, respectively. Given the generated test data, I have compared the detection results of Lingua, and Whatlanggo running over the data of Lingua's supported 75 languages. Additionally, I have added Google's CLD3 (https://github.com/google/cld3/) to the comparison with the help of the gocld3 bindings (https://github.com/jmhodges/gocld3). Languages that are not supported by CLD3 or Whatlanggo are simply ignored during the detection process. Lingua clearly outperforms its contenders. Every language detector uses a probabilistic n-gram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram) model trained on the character distribution in some training corpus. Most libraries only use n-grams of size 3 (trigrams) which is satisfactory for detecting the language of longer text fragments consisting of multiple sentences. For short phrases or single words, however, trigrams are not enough. The shorter the input text is, the less n-grams are available. The probabilities estimated from such few n-grams are not reliable. This is why Lingua makes use of n-grams of sizes 1 up to 5 which results in much more accurate prediction of the correct language. A second important difference is that Lingua does not only use such a statistical model, but also a rule-based engine. This engine first determines the alphabet of the input text and searches for characters which are unique in one or more languages. If exactly one language can be reliably chosen this way, the statistical model is not necessary anymore. In any case, the rule-based engine filters out languages that do not satisfy the conditions of the input text. Only then, in a second step, the probabilistic n-gram model is taken into consideration. This makes sense because loading less language models means less memory consumption and better runtime performance. In general, it is always a good idea to restrict the set of languages to be considered in the classification process using the respective api methods. If you know beforehand that certain languages are never to occur in an input text, do not let those take part in the classifcation process. The filtering mechanism of the rule-based engine is quite good, however, filtering based on your own knowledge of the input text is always preferable. There might be classification tasks where you know beforehand that your language data is definitely not written in Latin, for instance. The detection accuracy can become better in such cases if you exclude certain languages from the decision process or just explicitly include relevant languages. Knowing about the most likely language is nice but how reliable is the computed likelihood? And how less likely are the other examined languages in comparison to the most likely one? In the example below, a slice of ConfidenceValue is returned containing those languages which the calling instance of LanguageDetector has been built from. The entries are sorted by their confidence value in descending order. Each value is a probability between 0.0 and 1.0. The probabilities of all languages will sum to 1.0. If the language is unambiguously identified by the rule engine, the value 1.0 will always be returned for this language. The other languages will receive a value of 0.0. By default, Lingua uses lazy-loading to load only those language models on demand which are considered relevant by the rule-based filter engine. For web services, for instance, it is rather beneficial to preload all language models into memory to avoid unexpected latency while waiting for the service response. If you want to enable the eager-loading mode, you can do it as seen below. Multiple instances of LanguageDetector share the same language models in memory which are accessed asynchronously by the instances. By default, Lingua returns the most likely language for a given input text. However, there are certain words that are spelled the same in more than one language. The word `prologue`, for instance, is both a valid English and French word. Lingua would output either English or French which might be wrong in the given context. For cases like that, it is possible to specify a minimum relative distance that the logarithmized and summed up probabilities for each possible language have to satisfy. It can be stated as seen below. Be aware that the distance between the language probabilities is dependent on the length of the input text. The longer the input text, the larger the distance between the languages. So if you want to classify very short text phrases, do not set the minimum relative distance too high. Otherwise Unknown will be returned most of the time as in the example below. This is the return value for cases where language detection is not reliably possible.