Presentation on theme: "Information Retrieval and Data Mining (AT71. 07) Comp. Sc. and Inf"— Presentation transcript:
1Information Retrieval and Data Mining (AT71. 07) Comp. Sc. and Inf Information Retrieval and Data Mining (AT71.07) Comp. Sc. and Inf. Mgmt. Asian Institute of TechnologyInstructor: Dr. Sumanta Guha Slide Sources: Introduction to Information Retrieval book slides from Stanford University, adapted and supplemented Chapter 2: The term vocabulary and postings lists
2CS276: Information Retrieval and Web Search Christopher Manning and Prabhakar RaghavanLecture 2: The term vocabulary and postings lists
3Recap of the previous lecture Ch. 1Recap of the previous lectureBasic inverted indexes:Structure: Dictionary and PostingsKey step in construction: SortingBoolean query processingIntersection by linear time “merging”Simple optimizationsOverview of course topics
4Plan for this lecture Elaborate basic indexing Preprocessing to form the term vocabularyDocumentsTokenizationWhat terms do we put in the index?PostingsFaster merges: skip listsPositional postings and phrase queries
6Parsing a document What format is it in? What language is it in? Sec. 2.1Parsing a documentWhat format is it in?pdf/word/excel/html?What language is it in?What character set is in use?Each of these is a classification problem, which we will study later in the course.But these tasks are often done heuristically …
7Complications: Format/language Sec. 2.1Complications: Format/languageDocuments being indexed can include docs from many different languagesA single index may have to contain terms of several languages.Sometimes a document or its components can contain multiple languages/formatsFrench with a German pdf attachment.What is a unit document?A file?An ? (Perhaps one of many in an mbox.)An with 5 attachments?A group of files (PPT or LaTeX as HTML pages)Nontrivial issues. Requires some design decisions.
9DefinitionsWord – A delimited string of characters as it appears in the text.Term – A “normalized” word (case, morphology, spelling etc); an equivalence class of words.Token – An instance of a word or term occurring in a document.Type – The same as a term in most cases: an equivalence class of tokens.
10Tokenization Input: “Friends, Romans and Countrymen” Output: Tokens SecTokenizationInput: “Friends, Romans and Countrymen”Output: TokensFriendsRomansandCountrymenA token is an instance of a sequence of charactersEach such token is now a candidate for an index entry, after further processingDescribed belowBut what are valid tokens to emit?
11Tokenization Issues in tokenization: Finland’s capital SecTokenizationIssues in tokenization:Finland’s capital Finland? Finlands? Finland’s?Hewlett-Packard Hewlett and Packard as two tokens?state-of-the-art: break up hyphenated sequence.co-educationlowercase, lower-case, lower case ?It can be effective to get the user to put in possible hyphensSan Francisco: one token or two?How do you decide it is one token?
12SecNumbers3/20/91 Mar. 12, /3/9155 B.C.B-52My PGP key is 324a3df234cb23e(800)Often have embedded spacesOlder IR systems may not index numbersBut often very useful: think about things like looking up error codes/stacktraces on the web(One answer is using n-grams: Lecture 3)Will often index “meta-data” separatelyCreation date, format, etc.
13Tokenization: language issues SecTokenization: language issuesFrenchL'ensemble one token or two?L ? L’ ? Le ?Want l’ensemble to match with un ensembleUntil at least 2003, it didn’t on GoogleInternationalization!German noun compounds are not segmentedLebensversicherungsgesellschaftsangestellter‘life insurance company employee’German retrieval systems benefit greatly from a compound splitter moduleCan give a 15% performance boost for German
14Tokenization: language issues SecTokenization: language issuesChinese, Japanese and Thai have no spaces between words:莎拉波娃现在居住在美国东南部的佛罗里达。Not always guaranteed a unique tokenizationFurther complicated in Japanese, with multiple alphabets intermingledDates/amounts in multiple formatsフォーチュン500社は情報不足のため時間あた$500K(約6,000万円)KatakanaHiraganaKanjiRomajiEnd-user can express query entirely in hiragana!
15Tokenization: language issues SecTokenization: language issuesArabic (or Hebrew) is basically written right to left, but with certain items like numbers written left to rightWords are separated, but letter forms within a word form complex ligatures← → ← → ← start‘Algeria achieved its independence in 1962 after 132 years of French occupation.’With Unicode, the surface presentation is complex, but the stored form is straightforward
16SecStop wordsWith a stop list, you exclude from the dictionary entirely the commonest words. Intuition:They have little semantic content: the, a, and, to, beThere are a lot of them: ~30% of postings for top 30 wordsBut the trend is away from doing this:Good compression techniques (lecture 5) means the space for including stopwords in a system is very smallGood query optimization techniques (lecture 7) mean you pay little at query time for including stop words.You need them for:Phrase queries: “King of Denmark”Various song titles, etc.: “Let it be”, “To be or not to be”“Relational” queries: “flights to London”Nevertheless: “Google ignores common words and characters such as where, the, how, and other digits and letters which slow down your search without improving the results.” (Though you can explicitly ask for them to remain.)
17Normalization to terms SecNormalization to termsWe need to “normalize” words in indexed text as well as query words into the same formWe want to match U.S.A. and USAResult is terms: a term is a (normalized) word type, which is an entry in our IR system dictionaryWe most commonly implicitly define equivalence classes of terms by, e.g.,deleting periods to form a termU.S.A., USA USAdeleting hyphens to form a termanti-discriminatory, antidiscriminatory antidiscriminatory
18Normalization: other languages SecNormalization: other languagesAccents: e.g., French résumé vs. resume.Umlauts: e.g., German: Tuebingen vs. TübingenShould be equivalentMost important criterion:How are your users like to write their queries for these words?Even in languages that standardly have accents, users often may not type themOften best to normalize to a de-accented termTuebingen, Tübingen, Tubingen Tubingen
19Normalization: other languages SecNormalization: other languagesNormalization of things like date forms7月30日 vs. 7/30Japanese use of kana vs. Chinese charactersTokenization and normalization may depend on the language and so is intertwined with language detectionCrucial: Need to “normalize” indexed text as well as query terms into the same formIs thisGerman “mit”?Morgen will ich in MIT …
20Case folding Reduce all letters to lower case Google example: SecCase foldingReduce all letters to lower caseexception: upper case in mid-sentence?e.g., General MotorsFed vs. fedSAIL vs. sailOften best to lower case everything, since users will use lowercase regardless of ‘correct’ capitalization…Google example:Query C.A.T.#1 result is for “cat” (well, Lolcats) not Caterpillar Inc.
21Normalization to terms SecNormalization to termsAn alternative to equivalence classing is to do asymmetric query expansionAn example of where this may be usefulEnter: window Search: window, windowsEnter: windows Search: Windows, windows, windowEnter: Windows Search: WindowsPotentially more powerful, but less efficientWhy not the reverse?
22Thesauri and soundex Do we handle synonyms and homonyms? E.g., by hand-constructed equivalence classescar = automobile color = colourWe can rewrite to form equivalence-class termsWhen the document contains automobile, index it under car-automobile (and vice-versa)Or we can expand a queryWhen the query contains automobile, look under car as wellWhat about spelling mistakes?One approach is soundex, which forms equivalence classes of words based on phonetic heuristics (Muller = Mueller, color = colour)More in lectures 3 and 9
23Lemmatization Reduce inflectional/variant forms to base form E.g., SecLemmatizationReduce inflectional/variant forms to base formE.g.,am, are, is becar, cars, car's, cars' carthe boy's cars are different colors the boy car be different colorLemmatization implies doing “proper” reduction to dictionary headword form
24Stemming Reduce terms to their “roots” before indexing SecStemmingReduce terms to their “roots” before indexing“Stemming” suggest crude affix choppinglanguage dependente.g., automate(s), automatic, automation all reduced to automat.for exampl compress andcompress ar both acceptas equival to compressfor example compressedand compression are bothaccepted as equivalent tocompress.
25Porter’s algorithm Commonest algorithm for stemming English SecPorter’s algorithmCommonest algorithm for stemming EnglishResults suggest it’s at least as good as other stemming optionsConventions + 5 phases of reductionsphases applied sequentiallyeach phase consists of a set of commandssample convention: Of the rules in a compound command, select the one that applies to the longest suffix.
26Typical rules in Porter SecTypical rules in Portersses ssies iational atetional tionWeight of word sensitive rules(m>1) EMENT →replacement → replaccement → cement
27Other stemmers Other stemmers exist, e.g., Lovins stemmer SecOther stemmersOther stemmers exist, e.g., Lovins stemmerSingle-pass, longest suffix removal (about 250 rules)Full morphological analysis – at most modest benefits for retrievalDo stemming and other normalizations help?English: very mixed results. Helps recall for some queries but harms precision on othersE.g., operative (dentistry) ⇒ operDefinitely useful for Spanish, German, Finnish, …30% performance gains for Finnish!
28Language-specificity SecLanguage-specificityMany of the above features embody transformations that areLanguage-specific andOften, application-specificThese are “plug-in” addenda to the indexing processBoth open source and commercial plug-ins are available for handling these
29Dictionary entries – first cut Sec. 2.2Dictionary entries – first cutensemble.french時間.japaneseMIT.englishmit.germanguaranteed.englishentries.englishsometimes.englishtokenization.englishThese may be grouped by language (or not…).More on this in ranking/query processing.
30Stemming and Lemmatization Sec. 1.3Exercise 2.1: Are the following statements true or false:In a Boolean retrieval system, stemming never lowers precision.In a Boolean retrieval system, stemming never lowers recall.Stemming increases the size of the vocabulary.Stemming should be invoked at index time, but not while processing a query.Exercise 2.2: Suggest what normalized form should be used for these words (including the word itself as a possibility):‘CosShi’itecont’dHawai’iO’Rourke
31Stemming and Lemmatization Sec. 1.3Stemming and LemmatizationExercise 2.3: The following pairs of words are stemmed to the same form by the Porter stemmer. Which pairs, would you argue, should not be conflated? Give your reasoning.abandon/abandonmentabsorbency/absorbentmarketing/marketsuniversity/universevolume/volumes
32Stemming and Lemmatization Sec. 1.3Porter’s stemming algorithm, phase 1 rules (select rule which applies to longest suffix)Rule ExampleSSES → SS caresses → caressIES → I ponies → poniSS → SS caress → caressS → cats → catExercise 2.4: For the Porter stemmer rule group shown above:What is the purpose of including an identity rule SS → SSApplying just this rule group, what will the following words be stemmed to?circus canaries bossWhat rule should be added to correctly stem pony?The stemming for ponies and pony might seem strange. Does it have a deleterious effect on retrieval? Why or why not?
34Sec. 2.3Recall basic mergeWalk through the two postings simultaneously, in time linear in the total number of postings entries248414864128Brutus28123811172131CaesarIf the list lengths are m and n, the merge takes O(m+n)operations.Can we do better?Yes (if index isn’t changing too fast).
35Augment postings with skip pointers (at indexing time) Sec. 2.3Augment postings with skip pointers (at indexing time)411281282484148641131123811172131Why?To skip postings that will not figure in the search results.How?Where do we place skip pointers?
36Query processing with skip pointers Sec. 2.3Query processing with skip pointers411282484148641281131But the skip successor of 11 on the lower list is 31, sowe can skip ahead past the intervening postings.123811172131Suppose we’ve stepped through the lists until we process 8 on each list. We match it and advance.We then have 41 and 11 on the lower. 11 is smaller.
37IntersectWithSkips(p1, p2) 1 answer ← <>2 while p1 ≠ NIL and p2 ≠ NIL3 do if docID(p1) = docID(p2)4 then ADD(answer, docID(p1))5 p1 ← next(p1)6 p2 ← next(p2)7 else if docID(p1) < docID(p2)8 then if hasSkip(p1) and (docID(skip(p1)) ≤ docID(p2))then while hasSkip(p1) and (docID(skip(p1)) ≤ docID(p2))do p1 ← skip(p1)else p1 ← next(p1)12 else if hasSkip(p2) and (docID(skip(p2)) ≤ docID(p1))then while hasSkip(p2) and (docID(skip(p2)) ≤ docID(p1))do p2 ← skip(p2)else p2 ← next(p2)16 return answer
38Where do we place skips? Tradeoff: Sec. 2.3Where do we place skips?Tradeoff:More skips shorter skip spans more likely to skip. But lots of comparisons to skip pointers.Fewer skips few pointer comparison, but then long skip spans few successful skips.
39Sec. 2.3Placing skipsSimple heuristic: for postings of length L, use L evenly-spaced skip pointers.This ignores the distribution of query terms.Easy if the index is relatively static; harder if L keeps changing because of updates.This definitely used to help; with modern hardware it may not (Bahle et al. 2002) unless you’re memory-basedThe I/O cost of loading a bigger postings list can outweigh the gains from quicker in memory merging!
40SkipsExercise 2.5: Why are skip pointers not useful for queries of the form x OR y?Exercise 2.6: We have a two-word query. For one term the postings list consists of the 16 entries[4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 32, 47, 81, 120, 122, 157, 180]and for the other it consists of only 1 entryWork out how many comparisons would be done to intersect the two postings lists with the following strategies.a. Using standard postings lists.b. Using postings lists with skip pointers, with the suggested skip length of √P.
41SkipsExercise 2.7: Consider a postings intersection between this postings list with skip pointers:and the following intermediate result posting list (which hence has no skip pointers):Trace through the postings intersection algorithm.a. How often is a skip pointer followed (i.e., p1 advanced to skip(p1))?b. How many postings comparisons will be made by this algorithm while intersecting the two lists?c. How many comparisons would be made if the postings lists are intersected without the use of skip pointers?
43Sec. 2.4Phrase queriesWant to be able to answer queries such as “stanford university” – as a phraseThus the sentence “I went to university at Stanford” is not a match.The sentence “The inventor Stanford Ovshinsky never went to university” is not a match.The concept of phrase queries has proven easily understood by users; one of the few “advanced search” ideas that worksMany more queries are implicit phrase queriesFor this, it no longer suffices to store only<term : docs> entries
44A first attempt: Biword indexes SecA first attempt: Biword indexesIndex every consecutive pair of terms in the text as a phraseFor example the text “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” would generate the biwordsfriends romansromans countrymenEach of these biwords is now a dictionary termTwo-word phrase query-processing is now immediate.
45Can have false positives! SecLonger phrase queriesLonger phrases are processed as we did with wild-cards:stanford university palo alto can be broken into the Boolean query on biwords:stanford university AND university palo AND palo altoWithout the docs, we cannot verify that the docs matching the above Boolean query do contain the phrase.Can have false positives!
46SecExtended biwordsParse the indexed text and perform part-of-speech-tagging (POST).Bucket the terms into (say) Nouns (N) and articles/prepositions (X).Call any string of terms of the form NX*N an extended biword.Each such extended biword is now made a term in the dictionary.Example: catcher in the ryeN X X NQuery processing: parse it into N’s and X’sSegment query into enhanced biwordsLook up in index: catcher rye
47Issues for biword indexes SecIssues for biword indexesFalse positives, as noted beforeIndex blowup due to bigger dictionaryInfeasible for more than biwords, big even for themBiword indexes are not the standard solution (for all biwords) but can be part of a compound strategy
48Solution 2: Positional indexes SecSolution 2: Positional indexesIn the postings, store, for each term the position(s) in which tokens of it appear:<term, number of docs containing term;doc1: frequency of the term; position1, position2 … ;doc2: frequency of the term; position1, position2 … ;etc.>
49Positional index example SecPositional index example<be: ;1: 6; 7, 18, 33, 72, 86, 231;2: 2; 3, 149;4: 5; 17, 191, 291, 430, 434;5: 11; 363, 367, …>Which of docs 1,2,4,5could contain “to beor not to be”?For phrase queries, we use a merge algorithm recursively at the document levelBut we now need to deal with more than just equality
50Processing a phrase query SecProcessing a phrase queryExtract inverted index entries for each distinct term: to, be, or, not.Merge their doc:position lists to enumerate all positions with “to be or not to be”.to:2: 5; 1,17,74,222,551; 4: 5; 8,16,190,429,433; 7: 3; 13,23,191; ...be:1: 2;17,19; 4: 5;17,191,291,430,434; 5: 3; 14,19,101; ...Same general method for proximity searches
51Proximity queries LIMIT! /3 STATUTE /3 FEDERAL /2 TORT SecProximity queriesLIMIT! /3 STATUTE /3 FEDERAL /2 TORTAgain, here, /k means “within k words of”.Clearly, positional indexes can be used for such queries; biword indexes cannot.Exercise: Adapt the linear merge of postings to handle proximity queries. Can you make it work for any value of k?This is a little tricky to do correctly and efficientlySee Figure 2.12 of IIRThere’s likely to be a problem on it!
52PositionalIntersect(p1, p2, k) 1 answer ← <>2 while p1 ≠ nil and p2 ≠ nil3 do if docID(p1) = docID(p2)4 then l ← <>5 pp1 ← positions(p1)6 pp2 ← positions(p2)7 while pp1 ≠ nil8 do while pp2 ≠ nil9 do if |pos(pp1) – pos(pp2)| ≤ kthen ADD(l , pos(pp2))11 else if pos(pp2) > pos(pp1)then breakpp2 ←next(pp2)14 while l ≠ <> and |l – pos(pp1)| > k15 do DELETE(l)16 for each ps ∈ l17 do ADD(answer, <docID(p1), pos(pp1), ps>)18 pp1 ← next(pp1)19 p1 ← next(p1)20 p2 ← next(p2)21 else if docID(p1) < docID(p2)22 then p1 ← next(p1)else p2 ← next(p2)24 return answerl is a moving window of positionsof the second word in the currentdoc which are within k of thecurrent position of the first word.For each successive position of thefirst word: moves the “head” of thewindow l up till at most k away fromthe new position of the first word;deletes “tail” of the window till withink of the first word.
53SecPositional index sizeYou can compress position values/offsets: we’ll talk about that in lecture 5Nevertheless, a positional index expands postings storage substantiallyNevertheless, a positional index is now standardly used because of the power and usefulness of phrase and proximity queries … whether used explicitly or implicitly in a ranking retrieval system.
54SecPositional index sizeNeed an entry for each occurrence, not just once per documentIndex size depends on average document sizeAverage web page has <1000 termsSEC filings, books, even some epic poems … easily 100,000 termsConsider a term with frequency 0.1%Why?1001100,0001000Positional postingsPostingsDocument size
55SecRules of thumbA positional index is 2–4 as large as a non-positional indexPositional index size 35–50% of volume of original textCaveat: all of this holds for “English-like” languages
56Combination schemes These two approaches can be profitably combined SecCombination schemesThese two approaches can be profitably combinedFor particular phrases (“Michael Jackson”, “Britney Spears”) it is inefficient to keep on merging positional postings listsEven more so for phrases like “The Who”Williams et al. (2004) evaluate a more sophisticated mixed indexing schemeA typical web query mixture was executed in ¼ of the time of using just a positional indexIt required 26% more space than having a positional index alone
57Positional Postings and Phrase Queries Exercise 2.8: Assume a biword index. Give an example of a document that will be returned for a query ofNew York University but is actually a false positive.
58Positional Postings and Phrase Queries Exercise 2.9: Shown below is a portion of a positional index:angels: 2: <36, 174, 252, 651>; 4: <12, 22, 102, 432>; 7: <17>;fools: 2: <1, 17, 74, 222>; 4: <8, 78, 108, 458>; 7: <3, 13, 23, 193>;fear: 2: <87, 704, 722, 901>; 4: <13, 43, 113, 433>; 7: <18, 328, 528>;in: 2: <3, 37, 76, 444, 851>; 4: <10, 20, 110, 470, 500>; 7: <5, 15, 25, 195>;rush: 2: <2, 66, 194, 321, 702>; 4: <9, 69, 149, 429, 569>; 7: <4, 14, 404>;to: 2: <47, 86, 234, 999>; 4: <14, 24, 774, 944>; 7: <199, 319, 599, 709>;tread: 2: <57, 94, 333>; 4: <15, 35, 155>; 7: <20, 320>;where: 2: <67, 124, 393, 1001>; 4: <11, 41, 101, 421, 431>; 7: <16, 36, 736>;Which docs if any match each of the following queries where expressions within quotes are phrase queries?“fools rush in”“fools rush in” AND “angels fear to tread”
59Positional Postings and Phrase Queries Exercise 2.10: Consider the following fragment of a positional index:Gates : 1: <3>; 2: <6>; 3: <2, 17>; 4: <1>;IBM : 4: <3>; 7: <14>;Microsoft : 1: <1>; 2: <1, 21>; 3: <3>; 5: <16, 22, 51>;a. Describe the set of documents that satisfy the query Gates /2 Microsoft.b. Describe each set of values for k for which the query Gates /k Microsoft returns a different set of documents as the answer.
60Resources for today’s lecture IIR 2MG 3.6, 4.3; MIR 7.2Porter’s stemmer:Skip Lists theory: Pugh (1990)Multilevel skip lists give same O(log n) efficiency as treesH.E. Williams, J. Zobel, and D. Bahle “Fast Phrase Querying with Combined Indexes”, ACM Transactions on Information Systems.D. Bahle, H. Williams, and J. Zobel. Efficient phrase querying with an auxiliary index. SIGIR 2002, pp