Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Retrieval Models Probabilistic and Language Models.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Retrieval Models Probabilistic and Language Models."— Presentation transcript:

1 Retrieval Models Probabilistic and Language Models

2  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Basic Probabilistic Model D represented by binary vector d = (d 1, d 2, …d n ) where d i = 0/1 indicates absence/presence of the term d i –p i = P(d i =1|R) and 1-p i = P(d i =0|R) –q i = P(d i =1|NR) and 1- q i = P(d i =0|NR) Assume conditional independence: P(d|R) is the product of the probabilities for the components of d (i.e. product of probabilities of getting a particular vector of 1’s and 0’s) Likelihood estimate converted to linear discrimination func g(d) = log P(d|R)/P(d|NR) + log P(R)/P(NR)

3  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Basic Probabilistic Model Need to calculate –“relevant to query given term appears” and –“irrelevant to query given term appears” These values can be based upon known rel judgments –ratio of rel with term to relevant without term ratio of nonrel with term to nonrel without term Rarely have relevance information –Estimating probabilities is the same problem as determining weighting formulae in less formal models constant (Croft and Harper combination match) proportional to probability of occurrence in collection more accurately, proportional to log(probability of occurrence) –Greif, 1998

4  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle What is a Language Model? Probability distribution over strings of a text –How likely is a given string in a given “language”? –e.g. consider probability for the following strings –English: p1 > p2 > p3 > p4 … depends on what “language” we are modeling –In most of IR, assume that p1 == p2 –For some applications we will want p3 to be highly probable – p1 = P( “ a quick brown dog ” ) – p2 = P( “ dog quick a brown ” ) – p3 = P( “ бЬІсТрая brown dog ” ) – p4 = P( “ бЬІсТрая СОбаКа ” )

5  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Basic Probability Review Probabilities –P(s) = probability of event s occuring e.g. P(“moo”) –P(s|M) = probability of s occurring given M P(“moo”|”cow”) > P(“moo”|”cat”) –(Sum of P(s) over all s) = 1, P(not s) = 1- P(s) Independence –If events w1 and w2 are independent, then P(w1 AND w2) = P(w1) * P(w2), so … Bayes’ rule:

6  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Language Models (LMs) What are we modeling? –M: “language” we are trying to model –s: observation (string of tokens from vocabulary) –P(s|M): probability of observing “s” in M M can be thought of as a “source” or a generator –A mechanism that can create strings that are legal in M, –P(s|M) -> probability of getting “s” during random sampling from M

7  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle LMs in IR Task: given a query, retrieve relevant documents Use LMs to model the process of query generation Every document in a collection defines a language –Consider all possible sentences author could have written down –Some may be more likely to occur than others Depend upon subject, topic, writing style, language, etc –P(s|M) -> probability author would write down string “s” Like writing a billion variations of a doc and counting # times we see “s”

8  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle LMs in IR Now suppose “Q” is the user’s query –What is the probability that the author would write down “q”? Rank documents D in the collection by P(Q|M D ) –Probability of observing “Q” during random sampling from the language model of document D

9  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle LMs in IR Advantages: –Formal mathematical model (theoretical foundation) –Simple, well understood framework –Integrates both indexing and retrieval models –Natural use of collection statistics –Avoids tricky issues of “relevance”, “aboutness” Disadvantages: –Difficult to incorporate notions of “relevance”, user preferences –Relevance feedback/query expansion is not straightforward –Can’t accommodate phrases, passages, Boolean operators There are extensions of LM which overcome some issues

10  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Major Issues of applying LMs What kind of LM should we use? –Unigram –Higher-order model How can we estimate model parameters? –Can use smoothed relative frequency (counting) for estimation How can we use the model for ranking?

11  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Unigram LMs Words are “sampled” independently of each other –Metaphor: randomly pulling words from an urn “with replacement” –Joint probability decomposes into a product of marginals –Estimation of probabilities: simple counting

12  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Higher-order LMs Unigram model assumes word independence –Cannot capture surface form: P(“fat cat”) = P(“cat fat”) Higher-order models –N-gram: conditioning on preceding words –Cache: condition on a window –Grammar: condition on parse tree Are they useful? –No improvements from n-gram, grammar-based models –Some work on cache-like models –Parameter estimation is prohibitively expensive!

13  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Predominant Model is multinomial –Fundamental event: what is the identity of the i’th query token? –Observation is a sequence of events, one for each query token Original model is multiple-Bernouli –Fundamental event: does the word w occur in the query? –Observation is vector of binary events, 1 for each possible word

14  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Multinomial or multiple Bernouli? Two models are fundamentally different –entirely different event spaces (random variables involved) –both assume word independence (though it has different meanings) –both use smoothed relative-frequency (counting) for estimation Multinomial –can account for multiple word occurrences in the query –well understood: lots of research in related fields (and now in IR) –possibility for integration with ASR/MT/NLP (same event space) Multiple-Bernoulli –arguably better suited to IR (directly checks presence of query terms) –provisions for explicit negation of query terms (“A but not B”) –no issues with observation length Binary events, either occur or do not occur

15  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Ranking with Language Models Standard approach: query-likelihood –Estimate an LM, M D for every document D in the collection –Rank docs by the probability of “generating” the query from the document P(q1 … qk| M D ) =  P(qi| M D) Drawbacks: –no notion of relevance: everything is random sampling –user feedback / query expansion not part of the model examples of relevant documents cannot help us improve the LM M D the only option is augmenting the original query Q with extra terms however, we could make use of sample queries for which D is relevant –does not directly allow weighted or structured queries

16  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Ranking: Document-likelihood Flip the direction of the query-likelihood approach –estimate a language model M Q for the query Q –rank docs D by the likelihood of being a random sample from M Q –M Q expected to “predict” a typical relevant document Problems: –different doc lengths, probabilities not comparable –favors documents that contain frequent (low content) words –consider “ideal” (highest-ranked) document for a given query

17  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Ranking: Model Comparison Combine advantages of 2 ranking methods –estimate a model of both the query M Q and the document M D –directly compare similarity of the two models –natural measure of similarity is cross-entropy (others exist): Cross-entropy is not symmetric: use H(M Q ||M D ) –Reverse works consistently worse, favors different doc –Use reverse if ranking multiple queries wrt one document

18  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Summary of LM Use Unigram models –No consistent benefit from using higher order models –Estimation is much more complex (bi-gram, etc) Use multinomial models –Well-studied, consistent with other fields –Extend multiple-Bernoulli model to non-binary events? Use Model comparison for ranking –Allows feedback, expansion, etc Evaluation of is a crucial step –very significant impact on performance (more than other choices) –key to cross-language, cross-media and other applications

19  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Estimation Want to estimate M Q and/or M D from Q and/or D General problem: –given a string of text S (= Q or D), estimate its language model M S –S is commonly assumed to be an i.i.d. random sample from M S Independent and identically distributed Basic Language Models: –maximum-likelihood estimator and the zero frequency problem –discounting techniques: Laplace correction, Lindstone correction, absolute discounting, leave one-out discounting, Good-Turing method –interpolation/back-off techniques: Jelinek-Mercer smoothing, Dirichlet smoothing, Witten-Bell smoothing, Zhai-Lafferty two-stage smoothing, interpolation vs. back-off techniques –Bayesian estimation

20  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Maximum Likelihood Count relative frequencies of words in S –P ml (w| M S ) = #(w,S)/|S| maximum-likelihood property: –assigns highest possible likelihood to the observation unbiased estimator: –if we repeat estimation an infinite number of times with different starting points S, we will get correct probabilities (on average) –this is not very useful…

21  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle The Zero-frequency problem Suppose some event not in our observation S –Model will assign zero probability to that event –And to any set of events involving the unseen event Happens very frequently with language It is incorrect to infer zero probabilities –especially when creating a model from short samples

22  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Discounting Methods Laplace correction: –add 1 to every count, normalize –problematic for large vocabularies Lindstone correction: –add a small constant ε to every count, re-normalize Absolute Discounting –subtract a constant ε, re-distribute the probability mass

23  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Discounting Methods Smoothing: Two possible approaches Interpolation –Adjust probabilities for all events, both seen and unseen “interpolate” ML estimates with General English expectations (computed as relative frequency of a word in a large collection) reflects expected frequency of events Back-off: –Adjust probabilities only for unseen events –Leave non-zero probabilities as they are –Rescale everything to sum to one: rescales “seen” probabilities by a constant Interpolation tends to work better –And has a cleaner probabilistic interpretation

24  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Types of Evaluation Might evaluate several aspects Evaluation generally comparative –System A vs. B –System A vs A´ Most common evaluation - retrieval effectiveness – Assistance in formulating queries – Speed of retrieval – Resources required – Presentation of documents – Ability to find relevant documents

25  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle The Concept of Relevance Relevance of a document D to a query Q is subjective –Different users will have different judgments –Same users may judge differently at different times –Degree of relevance of different documents may vary

26  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle The Concept of Relevance In evaluating IR systems it is assumed that: –A subset of the documents of the database (DB) are relevant –A document is either relevant or not

27  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Relevance In a small collection - the relevance of each document can be checked With real collections, never know full set of relevant documents Any retrieval model includes an implicit definition of relevance –Satisfiability of a FOL expression –Distance –P(Relevance|query,document)

28  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Evaluation Set of queries Collection of documents (corpus) Relevance judgements: Which documents are correct and incorrect for each query Potato farming and nutritional value of potatoes. Mr. Potato Head … nutritional info for spuds potato blight … growing potatoes … x  x   x If small collection, can review all documents Not practical for large collections Any ideas about how we might approach collecting relevance judgments for very large collections?

29  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Finding Relevant Documents Pooling –Retrieve documents using several auto techniques –Judge top n documents for each technique –Relevant set is union –Subset of true relevant set Possible to estimate size of relevant set by sampling When testing: –How should unjudged documents be treated? –How might this affect results?

30  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Test Collections To compare the performance of two techniques: –each technique used to evaluate same queries –results (set or ranked list) compared using metric –most common measures - precision and recall Usually use multiple measures to get different views of performance Usually test with multiple collections – –performance is collection dependent

31  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Evaluation Retrieved documents Relevant documents Rel&Ret documents Ability to return ALL relevant items. Retrieved Ability to return ONLY relevant items. Let retrieved = 100, relevant = 25, rel & ret = 10 Recall = 10/25 =.40 Precision = 10/100 =.10

32  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Precision and Recall Precision and recall well-defined for sets For ranked retrieval –Compute value at fixed recall points (e.g. precision at 20% recall) –Compute a P/R point for each relevant document, interpolate –Compute value at fixed rank cutoffs (e.g. precision at rank 20)

33  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle 1. d 123 (*)6. d 9 (*)11. d d d d d 56 (*)8. d d d 6 9. d d d d 25 (*)15. d 3 (*) Let, R q = {d 3, d 5, d 9, d 25, d 39, d 44, d 56, d 71, d 89, d 123 } |R q | = 10, no. of relevant docs for q Ranking of retreived docs in the answer set of q: 10 % Recall=>.1 * 10 rel docs = 1 rel doc retrieved One doc retrieved to get 1 rel doc: precision = 1/1 = 100% Precision at Fixed Recall: 1 Qry Find precision given total number of docs retrieved at given recall value.

34  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle 1. d 123 (*)6. d 9 (*)11. d d d d d 56 (*)8. d d d 6 9. d d d d 25 (*)15. d 3 (*) Let, R q = {d 3, d 5, d 9, d 25, d 39, d 44, d 56, d 71, d 89, d 123 } |R q | = 10, no. of relevant docs for q Ranking of retreived docs in the answer set of q: 10 % Recall=>.1 * 10 rel docs = 1 rel doc retrieved One doc retrieved to get 1 rel doc: precision = 1/1 = 100% Precision at Fixed Recall: 1 Qry 20% Recall:.2 * 10 rel docs = 2 rel docs retrieved 3 docs retrieved to get 2 rel docs: precision = 2/3 = Find precision given total number of docs retrieved at given recall value.

35  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle 1. d 123 (*)6. d 9 (*)11. d d d d d 56 (*)8. d d d 6 9. d d d d 25 (*)15. d 3 (*) Let, R q = {d 3, d 5, d 9, d 25, d 39, d 44, d 56, d 71, d 89, d 123 } |R q | = 10, no. of relevant docs for q Ranking of retreived docs in the answer set of q: 10 % Recall=>.1 * 10 rel docs = 1 rel doc retrieved One doc retrieved to get 1 rel doc: precision = 1/1 = 100% Precision at Fixed Recall: 1 Qry What is precision at recall values from %? 20% Recall:.2 * 10 rel docs = 2 rel docs retrieved 3 docs retrieved to get 2 rel docs: precision = 2/3 = % Recall:.3 * 10 rel docs = 3 rel docs retrieved 6 docs retrieved to get 3 rel docs: precision = 3/6 = 0.5

36  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle |R q | = 10, no. of relevant docs for q Ranking of retreived docs in the answer set of q: Recall/ Precision Curve Precision Recall 1. d 123 (*)5. d 8 9. d d d d 9 (*)10. d 25 (*)14. d d 56 (*)7. d d d 3 (*) 4. d 6 8. d d 48 RecallPrecision 0.11/1 = 100% 0.22/3 = 0.67% 0.33/6 = 0.5% 0.44/10 = 0.4% 0.55/15 = 0.33% 0.60%… 1.00%

37  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Averaging Hard to compare individual P/R graphs or tables microaverage - each rel doc is a point in the avg –done with respect to a parameter e.g. coordination level matching (# of shared query terms) –average across the total number of relevant documents across each match level Let L = relevant docs, T = retrieved docs, = coordination level = total # relevant docs for all queries = total # retrieved docs at or above for all queries

38  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Averaging Let 100 & 80 be the # of relevant docs for queries 1 &2, respectively –calculate actual recall and precision values for both queries |T 1 | |L 1  T 1 | |T 2 | |L 2  T 2 | R P QueryRecall10/100= 0.120/100=0.240/100=0.460/100=0.680/100=0.8 1Prec10/10=1.020/25=0.840/66=0.660/150=0.480/255=0.3 QueryRecall8/80 = 0.124/80 = 0.340/80=0.556/80=0.772/80=0.9 2Prec8/10=0.824/40=0.640/80=0.556/140=0.472/180=0.4 Hard to compare individual Prec/Recall tables, so take averages: 10+8/180 = /10+10 = /180 = 0.24 There are = 180 relevant docs for all queries 20+24/25+40 = /180 = /180= /180= /66+80 = /290 = /446 = 0.34

39  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Averaging and Interpolation macroaverage - each query is a point in the avg –can be independent of any parameter –average of precision values across several queries at standard recall levels e.g.) assume 3 relevant docs retrieved at ranks 4, 9, 20 –their actual recall points are:.33,.67, and 1.0 (why?) –their precision is.25,.22, and.15 (why?) Average over all relevant docs –rewards systems that retrieve relevant docs at the top ( )/3= 0.21

40  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Averaging and Interpolation Interpolation –actual recall levels of individual queries are seldom equal to standard levels –interpolation estimates the best possible performance value between two known values –e.g.) assume 3 relevant docs retrieved at ranks 4, 9, 20 –their precision at actual recall is.25,.22, and.15

41  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Averaging and Interpolation Actual recall levels of individual queries are seldom equal to standard levels Interpolated precision at the ith recall level, R i, is the maximum precision at all points p such that R i  p  R i+1 –assume only 3 relevant docs retrieved at ranks 4, 9, 20 –their actual recall points are:.33,.67, and 1.0 –their precision is.25,.22, and.15 –what is interpolated precision at standard recall points? Recall levelInterpolated Precision 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, , 0.5, , 0.8, 0.9,

42  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Recall-Precision Tables & Graphs

43  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Document Level Averages Precision after a given number of docs retrieved –e.g.) 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 100, 200, 500, & 1000 documents Reflects the actual system performance as a user might see it Each precision avg is computed by summing precisions at the specified doc cut-off and dividing by the number of queries –e.g. average precision for all queries at the point where n docs have been retrieved

44  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle R-Precision Precision after R documents are retrieved –R = number of relevant docs for the query Average R-Precision –mean of the R-Precisions across all queries e.g.) Assume 2 qrys having 50 & 10 relevant docs; system retrieves 17 and 7 relevant docs in the top 50 and 10 documents retrieved, respectively

45  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Evaluation Recall-Precision value pairs may co-vary in ways that are hard to understand Would like to find composite measures –A single number measure of effectiveness primarily ad hoc and not theoretically justifiable Some attempt to invent measures that combine parts of the contingency table into a single number measure

46  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Contingency Table

47  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Symmetric Difference A is the retrieved set of documents B is the relevant set of documents A  B (the symmetric difference) is the shaded area

48  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle E measure (van Rijsbergen) used to emphasize precision or recall –like a weighted average of precision and recall large  increases importance of precision –can transform by  = 1/(  2 +1),  = P/R –when  = 1/2,  = 1; precision and recall are equally important E= normalized symmetric difference of retrieved and relevant sets E b=1 = |A  B|/(|A| + |B|) F =1- E is typical (good results mean larger values of F)

49  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Other Single-Valued Measures Breakeven point –point at which precision = recall Expected search length –save users from having to look thru non-relevant docs Swets model –use statistical decision theory to express recall, precision, and fallout in terms of conditional probabilities Utility measures –assign costs to each cell in the contingency table –sum (or average) costs for all queries Many others...


Download ppt "Retrieval Models Probabilistic and Language Models."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google