Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Keyword Search on Graph-Structured Data
4/26/2017 Keyword Search on Graph-Structured Data S. Sudarshan IIT Bombay Joint work with Soumen Chakrabarti, Gaurav Bhalotia, Charuta Nakhe, Rushi Desai, Hrishi K., Arvind Hulgeri, Bhavana Dalvi and Meghana Kshirsagar Jan 2009
2
Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models
4/26/2017 Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models Tree answer model Proximity queries Graph Search Algorithms Backward Expanding Search Bidirectional Search Search on external memory graphs Conclusion
3
Keyword Search on Semi-Structured Data
4/26/2017 Keyword Search on Semi-Structured Data Keyword search of documents on the Web has been enormously successful Much data is resident in databases Organizational, government, scientific, medical data Deep web Goal: querying of data from multiple data sources, with different data models Often with no schema or partially defined schema
4
Keyword Search on Structured/Semi-Structured Data
4/26/2017 Key differences from IR/Web Search: Normalization (implicit/explicit) splits related data across multiple tuples To answer a keyword query we need to find a (closely) connected set of entities that together match all given keywords soumen crawling or soumen byron Focused Crawling … Soumen C. Byron Dom writes author paper Sudarshan BANKS: Keyword search…
5
Graph Data Model Lowest common denominator across many data models
4/26/2017 Graph Data Model Lowest common denominator across many data models Relational node = tuple, edge = foreign key XML Node = element, edge = containment/idref/keyref HTML node = page, edge = hyperlink Documents node = document, edge = links inferred by data extraction Knowledge representation node = entity, edge = relationship Network data e.g. social networks, communication networks
6
Graph Data Model (Cont)
4/26/2017 Graph Data Model (Cont) Nodes can have labels E.g. relation name, or XML tag textual or structured (attribute-value) data Edges can have labels
7
Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models
4/26/2017 Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models Tree answer model Proximity queries Graph Search Algorithms Backward Expanding Search Bidirectional Search Search on external memory graphs Conclusion
8
Query/Answer Models Basic query model: Alternative answer models
4/26/2017 Query/Answer Models Basic query model: Keywords match node text/labels Can extend query model with attribute specification, path specifications e.g. paper(year < 2005, title:xquery), Alternative answer models tree connecting nodes matching query keywords nodes in proximity to (near) query keywords
9
4/26/2017 Tree Answer Model Answer: Rooted, directed tree connecting keyword nodes In general, a Steiner tree Multiple answers possible Answer relevance computed from answer edge score combined with answer node score paper Focused Crawling writes writes author author Soumen C. Byron Dom Eg. “Soumen Byron”
10
Answer Ranking Naïve model: answers ranked by number of edges Problem:
4/26/2017 Answer Ranking Naïve model: answers ranked by number of edges Problem: Some tuples are connected to many other tuples E.g. highly cited papers, popular web sites Highly connected tuples create misleading shortcuts six degrees of separation Solution: use directed edges with edge weights allow answer tree to have edge uv if original graph has vu, but at higher cost
11
Edge Weight Model-1 Forward edge weight (edge present in data)
4/26/2017 Edge Weight Model-1 Forward edge weight (edge present in data) Default to 1, can be based on schema Lower weight closer connection Create extra backward edges vu for each edge uv present in data Edge weight log(1+#edges pointing to v) Overall Answer-tree Edge Score EA = 1/ (S edge weights) Higher score better result “cites” link weights > “writes” link weights changed to “cites” link weight greater than “writes” link weight 3 1 1 1
12
Edge Weight Model -2 Probabilistic edge scoring model
4/26/2017 Edge Weight Model -2 Probabilistic edge scoring model Edge traversal probability (from a given node): Forward 1/out-degree Backward 1/in-degree Can be weighted by edge type Path weight = probability of following each edge in path Edge score = log(edge traversal probability) Answer-tree Edge Score EA = (harmonic) mean of path weights from root to each leaf Note: other edge weight models possible our search algorithms are independent of how edge weights are computed
13
Node Weight Node prestige based on indegree
4/26/2017 Node Weight Node prestige based on indegree More incoming edges higher prestige PageRank style transfer of prestige Node weight computing using biased random walk model Node weight: function of node prestige, other optional criteria such as TF/IDF Answer-tree Node score NA = root node weight S leaf node weights
14
Overall Tree Answer Score
4/26/2017 Overall Tree Answer Score Overall score of answer tree A combine tree and node scores for details, and recall/precision metrics see BANKS papers in ICDE 2002 and VLDB 2005 Anecdotal results on DBLP Bibliography “Transaction”: Jim Gray’s classic paper and textbook at the top because of prestige (# of citations) “soumen sudarshan”: several coauthored papers, links via common co-authors “goldman shivakumar hector”: The VLDB 98 proximity search paper, followed by citation/co-author connections
15
4/26/2017 Answer Models Tree Answer Model Proximity (near query) model
16
Proximity Queries Node weight by proximity Example applications
4/26/2017 Proximity Queries Node weight by proximity author (near olap) (on DBLP) faculty (near earthquake) (on IITB thesis database) Node prestige > if close to multiple nodes matching near keywords Example applications Finding experts on a particular area OLAP over uncertain .. Widom Raghu Computing sparse cubes… Overview of OLAP… Allocation in OLAP …
17
Proximity via Spreading Activation
4/26/2017 Idea: Each “near” keyword has activation of 1 Divided among nodes matching keyword, proportional to their node prestige Each node keeps fraction 1-μ of its received activation and spreads fraction μ amongst its neighbors Combine activation ai received from neighbors a = 1 – Π(1-ai) (belief function) Graph may have cycles Iterate till convergence
18
Example Answers Anecdotal results on DBLP Bibliography
4/26/2017 Example Answers Anecdotal results on DBLP Bibliography author (near recovery): Dave Lomet, C. Mohan, etc sudarshan(near change): Sudarshan Chawate sudarshan(near query): S. Sudarshan Queries can combine proximity scores with tree scores hector sudarshan(near query) vs. hector sudarshan author(near transactions) data integration Insert answers to a buffer (heap) as are generated changed to Insert answers to a small buffer (heap) as are generated
19
Related Work Proximity Search
4/26/2017 Related Work Proximity Search Goldman, Shivakumar, Venkatasubramanian and Garcia-Molina [VLDB98] Considers only shortest path from each node, aggregates across nodes Our version aggregates evidence from alternative paths E.g. author (near “Surajit Chaudhuri”) Object Rank [VLDB04] Similar idea to ours, precomputed
20
Related Work Keyword querying on relational databases
4/26/2017 Related Work Keyword querying on relational databases DBExplorer (Microsoft, ICDE02) Discover (UCSD, VLDB02, VLDB03), Use SQL generation, not applicable to arbitrary graphs ranking based only on #nodes/edges Keyword querying on XML : Tree Model XRank (Cornell, SIGMOD03), proximity in XML (AT&T Research, VLDB03), Schema-Free XQuery (Michigan, VLDB04), Tree model is too limited Keyword querying on XML: Graph Model XKeyword (UCSD, ICDE03, VLDB03), SphereSearch (MaxPlanck, VLDB05)
21
Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models
4/26/2017 Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models Tree answer model Proximity queries Graph Search Algorithms Backward Expanding Search Bidirectional Search Search on external memory graphs Conclusion
22
4/26/2017 Finding Answer Trees Backward Expanding Search Algorithm (Bhalotia et al, ICDE02): Intuition: find vertices from which a forward path exists to at least one node from each Si. Run concurrent single source shortest path algorithm from each node matching a keyword Create an iterator for each node matching a keyword Traverse the graph edges in reverse direction Output next nearest node on each get-next() call Do best-first search across iterators Output an answer when its root has been reached from each keyword Answer heap to collect and output results in score order
23
Backward Expanding Search
4/26/2017 Backward Expanding Search Query: soumen byron paper Focused Crawling writes Soumen C. Byron Dom authors
24
Backward Exp. Search Limitations
4/26/2017 Backward Exp. Search Limitations Too many iterators (one per keyword node) Solution: single iterator per keyword (SI-Bkwd search) tracks shortest path from node to keyword Changes answer set slightly Different justifications for same root may be lost Not a big problem in practice Nodes explored for different keywords can vary greatly E.g. “mining” or “query” vs “knuth” High fan-out when traversing backwards from some nodes Connection with join ordering Similar to traversing backwards from all relations that have selections
25
Bidirectional Search: Motivation
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search: Motivation
26
Bidirectional Search: Intuition
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search: Intuition First cut solution: Don’t expand backward if keyword matches many nodes Instead explore forward from other keywords Problems Doesn’t deal with high fan-out during search What should cutoff for not expanding be? Better solution: [Kacholia et al, VLDB 2005] Perform forward search from all nodes reached Prioritize expansion of nodes based on path weight (as in backward expanding search) + spreading activation to penalize frequent keyword and bushy trees
27
Bidirectional Search: Example
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search: Example OLAP Divesh Harper Query: harper divesh olap
28
Bidirectional Search (1)
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search (1) Spreading activation to prioritize backward search (Different from spreading activation for near queries) Lower weight edges get higher share of activation Nodes prioritized by sum of activations Single forward iterator
29
Bidirectional Search (2)
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search (2) Forward search iterator Forward search from all nodes reached by backward search Track best forward path to each keyword Initially infinite cost Whenever this changes, propagate cost change to all affected ancestors 2,∞ 2,2 ∞,∞ ∞,2 k1 k2
30
Bidirectional Search (3)
4/26/2017 Bidirectional Search (3) On each path length update (due to backward or forward search) Check if node can reach all keywords If so, add it to output heap When to output nodes from heap For each keyword Ki, track Mi Mi: minimum path length to Ki among all yet-to-be-explored nodes in backward search tree Edge score bounds: What is the best possible edge score of a future answer? Bounds similar to NRA algorithm (Fagin) Cheaper bounds (e.g. 1/Max(Mi)) or heuristics (e.g. 1/Sum(Mi)) can be used Output answer if its score is > overall score upper bound for future answers
31
Performance Worst case complexity: polynomial in size of graph
But for typical (average) case, even linear is too expensive Intuition: typical query should access only small part of graph Studied experimentally Datasets: DBLP, IMDB, US Patent Queries: manually created Typical cases < 1 second to generate answer 10K-100K nodes explored
32
Performance Results Two versions of backward search:
4/26/2017 Performance Results Two versions of backward search: Iterator per node (MI-Bkwd) vs Iterator per keyword (SI-Bkwd) Origin size: number of nodes matching keywords Time ratio MI/SI Very minor loss in recall
33
Performance Results SI-Bkwd versus Bidirectional search
4/26/2017 Performance Results SI-Bkwd versus Bidirectional search Bidirectional search gain increases with origin size, # keywords
34
Related Work (1) Publish as document approach
4/26/2017 Related Work (1) Publish as document approach Gather related data into a (virtual) document and index the document (Su/Widom, IDEAS05) Positives Avoids run-time graph search Works well for a class of applications E.g. Bibliographic data DBLP page per author Negatives Not all connections can be captured Duplication of data across multiple documents High index space overhead
35
Related Work (2) DPBF (Ding et al., ICDE07)
4/26/2017 Related Work (2) DPBF (Ding et al., ICDE07) dynamic programming technique exact for top-1 answer, heuristic for top-k BLINKS (He et al.,SIGMOD07) Round-robin expansion across iterators Optimal within a factor of m, with m keywords Forward index: node to keyword distance Used instead of searching forward single level index: impractically large space bi-level index: > main memory IO efficiency?
36
Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models
4/26/2017 Outline Motivation and Graph Data Model Query/Answer models Tree answer model Proximity queries Graph Search Algorithms Backward Expanding Search Bidirectional Search Search on external memory graphs Conclusion
37
External Memory Graph Search
4/26/2017 External Memory Graph Search Graph representation quite efficient Requires of < 20 bytes per node/edge Problem: what if graph size > memory? Alternative 1: Virtual Memory thrashing Alternative 2 (for relational data): SQL not good for top-K answer generation across multiple SQL queries Alternative 3: use compressed graph representation to reduce IO [Dalvi et al, VLDB 2008]
38
Supernodes and Superedges
4/26/2017 Supernodes and Superedges
39
Multi-granular Graph Dumb algorithm
4/26/2017 Multi-granular Graph Dumb algorithm search on supernode graph get k*F answers, expand their supernodes into memory, search on resultant graph no guarantees on answers Better idea: use multi-granular graph Supernode graph in memory Some nodes expanded Expanded nodes are part of cache Algorithms on multi-granular graph (coming up)
40
4/26/2017 Multi-granular Graph
41
4/26/2017 Expanding Nodes Key idea: Edge score of answer containing a supernode is lower bound on actual edge score of any corresponding real answer
42
Iterative Search Iterative search on multi-granular graph
4/26/2017 Iterative Search Iterative search on multi-granular graph Repeat search on current multi-granular graph using any search algorithm, to find top results expand super nodes in top results Until top K answers are all pure Guarantees finding top-K answers Very good IO efficiency But high CPU cost due to repeated work Details: nodes expanded above never evicted from “virtual memory” cache
43
4/26/2017 Incremental Search Idea: when node expanded, incrementally update state of search algorithm to reflect change in multi-granular graph Run search algorithm until top K answers are all pure Currently implemented for backward search Modifies the state of the Dijkstra shortest path algorithm used by backward search One shortest path search iterator per keyword SPI tree: shortest path iterator tree
44
4/26/2017 Incremental Search (1) SPI tree for k1
45
4/26/2017 Incremental Search (2)
46
4/26/2017 Incremental Search (3)
47
External Memory Search: Performance
4/26/2017 External Memory Search: Performance Queries
48
External Memory Search: Performance
4/26/2017 External Memory Search: Performance Supernode graph very effective at minimizing IO Cache misses with incremental often < # nodes matching keywords Iterative has high CPU cost VM (backward search with cache as virtual memory) has high IO cost Incremental combines low IO cost with low CPU cost
49
Conclusions Keyword search on graphs continues to grow in importance
4/26/2017 Conclusions Keyword search on graphs continues to grow in importance E.g. graph representation of extracted knowledge in YAGO/NAGA (Max Planck) Ranking is critical Edge and node weights, spreading activation Efficient graph search is important In-memory and external-memory
50
Ongoing/Future Work External memory graph search
4/26/2017 Ongoing/Future Work External memory graph search Compression ratios for supernode graph for DBLP/IMDB: factor of 5 to 10 Ongoing work on graph clustering shows good results Graph search in a parallel cluster Goal: search integrated WWW/Wikipedia graph New search algorithms Integration with existing applications To provide more natural display of results, hiding schema details Authorization
51
BANKS References Keyword Searching and Browsing in databases using BANKS, Gaurav Bhalotia, Arvind Hulgeri, Charuta Nakhe, Soumen Chakrabarti, S. Sudarshan ICDE 2002 User Interaction in the BANKS System, Demo paper, B. Aditya, Soumen Chakrabarti, Rushi Desai, Arvind Hulgeri, Hrishikesh Karambelkar, Rupesh Nasre, Parag, S. Sudarshan ICDE 2003 Bidirectional Expansion For Keyword Search on Graph Databases, Varun Kacholia, Shashank Pandit, Soumen Chakrabarti, S Sudarshan, Rushi Desai and Hrishikesh Karambelkar, VLDB 2005 Keyword Search on External Memory Data Graphs Bhavana Dalvi, Meghana Kshirsagar and S. Sudarshan, VLDB 2008
52
4/26/2017 Thanks!
53
Time and Nodes Explored
Bidir Nodes BiDir Time
54
Screenshots (1) author (near recovery)
55
Near Queries with Multiple Keywords
4/26/2017 Spread activation from each keyword separately Then combine the activations from different keywords OR: use addition or belief combination AND: take product of activations Gives better results
56
The BANKS System Database User BANKS
HTTP JDBC Database User BANKS Web Server + Servlets Available on the web, with DBLP, IMDB and IITB ETD data No programming needed for customization Minimal preprocessing to create indices and give weights to links Provides keyword search coupled with extensive browsing features Schema browsing + data browsing Hyperlinks are automatically added to all displayed results Browsing data by grouping and creating crosstabs Graphical display of data: bar charts, pie charts, etc
57
BANKS Architecture Data resident on disk
Graph structure of data resident in memory Nodes and edges with their types/counts 16x|V|+8x|E| bytes Search done in memory Why Allows us to use interesting graph traversal based algorithms without being constrained by SQL and related performance issues With current memory sizes, database graphs for most applications will fit in memory
58
Probabilistic Edge Score Model (2)
Paths from root to leaves are considered separately, even if they share edges More efficient search algorithms with this models (He et al., SIGMOD07) 0.5 0.167 1
Similar presentations
