In boolean retrieval model query consist of terms which are combined together using different operators. Conjunction is most obvious choice at first glance, but when query length growth bad things happened. Recall dropped significantly when using conjunction and precision dropped when using disjunction (for example, stanford OR university).
As for now we use conjunction is our search system (and boolean retrieval model). And we have a problem if user enter some very rare word or long sequence of word. For example, if user enters toyota corolla 4wd automatic 1995, we probably doesn't have one. But if we delete at least one word from a query, we have such documents. As far as I understand in Vector Space Model this problem solved automatically. We does not filter documents on the fact of term presence, we rank documents using presence of terms.
So I'm interested in more advanced ways of combining terms in boolean retrieval model and methods of rare term elimination in boolean retrieval model.
It seems like the sky's the limit in terms of defining a ranking function here. You could define a vector where the wi are: 0 if the ith search term doesn't appear in the file, 1 if it does; the number of times search term i appears in the file; etc. Then, rank pages based on e.g. Manhattan distance, Euclidean distance, etc. and sort in descending order, possibly culling results with distance below a specified match tolerance.
If you want to handle more complex queries, you can put the query into CNF - e.g. (term1 or term2 or ... termn) AND (item1 or item2 or ... itemk) AND ... and then redefine the weights wi accordingly. You could list with each result the terms that failed to match in the file... so that the users would at least know how good a match it is.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that to really get an answer that works for you, you have to define exactly what you are willing to accept as a valid search result. Under the strict interpretation, a query that is looking for A1 and A2 and ... Am should fail if any of the terms is missing...
Related
I have couple of questions here.
I want to search a term jumps
With Fuzzy search, I can do jump~
With wild card search, I can do jump*
With stemmer I can do, jump
My understanding is that, fuzzy search gives pump. Wildcard search gives jumping as well. Stemmer gives "jumper" also.
I totally agree with the results.
What is the performance of thes three?
Wild card is not recommended if it is at the beginning of the term - my understanding as it has to match with all the tokens in the index - But in this case, it would be all the tokens which starts jump
Fuzzy search gives me unpredicted results - It has to do something kind of spellcheck I assume.
Stemmer suits only particular scenarios like it can;t match pumps.
How should I use these things which can give more relevant results?
I probably more confused about all these because of this section. Any suggestions please?
Question 1
Wildcard queries are (generally) not analysed (i.e. they're not tokenized or run through filters), meaning that anything that depend on filters doing their processing of the input/output tokens will give weird results (for example if the input string is broken into multiple strings).
The matching happens on the tokens, so what you've input is almost (lowercasing still works) matched directly against the prefix / postfix of the tokens in the index. Generally you'd want to avoid wildcard queries for general search queries, since they're rather limited for natural search and can give weird results (as shown).
Fuzzy search is based on "edit distance" - i.e. a number that tells Solr how many characters can be removed/inserted/changed to get to the resulting token. This will give your users OK-ish results, but might be hard to decipher in the sense of "why did this give me a hit" when the allowed distance is larger (Lucene/Solr supports up to 2 in edit distance which is also the default if no edit distance is given).
Stemming is usually the way to go, as it's the actual "formal" process of taking a term and reducing it down to its stem - the actual "meaning" (it doesn't really know anything about the meaning as in the natural language processing term, but it does it according to a set of static rules and exceptions for the language configured) of the word . It can be adjusted per language to rules suitable for that language, which neither of the two other options can.
For your downside regarding stemming ("Since it can't match pumps") - that might actually be a good thing. It'll be clearer to your users what the search results are based on, and instead of including pumps in your search result, include it as a spelling correction ("Did you mean pump / pumps instead?"). It'll give a far better experience for any user, where the search results will more closely match what they're searching for.
The requirements might differ based on what your actual use case is; i.e. if it's just for programmatic attempts to find terms that look similar.
Question 2
Present those results you deem more relevant as the first hits - if you're doing wildcard or fuzzy searches you can't do this through scoring alone, so you'll have to make several queries and then present them after each other. I usually suggest making that an explicit action by the user of the search when discussing this in projects.
Instead, as the main search, you can use an NGramFilter in a separate field and use a copyfield instruction to get the same content into both fields - and then score the ngramfilter far lower than hits in the more "exact" field. Usually you want three fields in that case - one for exact hits (non-stemmed), one for stemmed hits and one for ngram hits - and then score them appropriately with the qf parameter to edismax. It usually gives you the quickest and easiest results to a decent search results for your users, but make sure to give them decent ways of either filtering the result set (facets) or change their queries into something more meaningful (did you mean, also see xyz, etc.).
Guessing the user's intent is usually very hard unless you have invested a lot of time and resources into personalisation (think Google), so leave that for later - most users are happy as long as they have a clear and distinct way of solving their own problems, even if you don't get it perfect for the first result.
For question 2 you can go strict to permissive.
Option one: Only give strict search result. If no result found give stemmer results. Continue with fuzzy or wildcard search if no result found previously.
Option two: Give all results but rank them by level (ie. first exact match, then stemmer result, ...)
I'm using Apache Solr for conducting search queries on some of my computer's internal documents (stored in a database). I'm getting really bizarre results for search queries ordered by descending relevancy. For example, I have 5 words in my search query. The most relevant of 4 results, is a document containing only 2 of those words multiple times. The only document containing all the words is dead last. If I change the words around in just the right way, then I see a better ranking order with the right article as the most relevant. How do I go about fixing this? In my view, the document containing all 5 of the words, should rank higher than a document that has only two of those words (stated more frequently).
What Solr did is a correct algorithm called TF-IDF.
So, in your case, order could be explained by this formula.
One of the possible solutions is to ignore TF-IDF score and count one hit in the document as one, than simply document with 5 matches will get score 5, 4 matches will get 4, etc. Constant Score query could do the trick:
Constant score queries are created with ^=, which
sets the entire clause to the specified score for any documents
matching that clause. This is desirable when you only care about
matches for a particular clause and don't want other relevancy factors
such as term frequency (the number of times the term appears in the
field) or inverse document frequency (a measure across the whole index
for how rare a term is in a field).
Possible example of the query:
text:Julian^=1 text:Cribb^=1 text:EPA^=1 text:peak^=1 text:oil^=1
Another solution which will require some scripting will be something like this, at first you need a query where you will ask everything contains exactly 5 elements, e.g. +Julian +Cribb +EPA +peak +oil, then you will do the same for combination of 4 elements out of 5, if I'm not mistaken it will require additional 5 queries and back forth, until you check everything till 1 mandatory clause. Then you will have full results, and you only need to normalise results or just concatenate them, if you decided that 5-matched docs always better than 4-matched docs. Cons of this solution - a lot of queries, need to run them programmatically, some script would help, normalisation isn't obvious. Pros - you will keep both TF-IDF and the idea of matched terms.
For a specific facet field of our Solr documents, it would make way more sense to be able to sort facets by their relative "interesting-ness" i.e. their tf-idf score, rather than by popularity. This would make it easy to automatically get rid of unwanted common English words, as both their TF and DF would be high.
When a query is made, TF should be calculated, using all the documents that participate in teh results list.
I assume that the only problem with this approach would be when no query is made, resp., when one searches for ":". Then, no term will prevail over the others in terms of interestingness. Please, correct me if I am wrong here.
Anyway,is this possible? What other relative measurements of "interesting-ness" would you suggest?
facet.sort
This param determines the ordering of the facet field constraints.
count - sort the constraints by count (highest count first) index - to
return the constraints sorted in their index order (lexicographic by
indexed term). For terms in the ascii range, this will be
alphabetically sorted. The default is count if facet.limit is greater
than 0, index otherwise.
Prior to Solr1.4, one needed to use true instead of count and false
instead of index.
This parameter can be specified on a per field basis.
It looks like you couldn't do it out of the box without some serious changes on client side or in Solr.
This is a very interesting idea and I have been searching around for some time to find a solution. Anything new in this area?
I assume that for facets with a limited number of possible values, an interestingness-score can be computed on the client side: For a given result set based on a filter, we can exclude this filter for the facet using the local params-syntax (!tag & !ex) Local Params - On the client side, we can than compute relative compared to the complete index (or another subpart of a filter). This would probably not work for result sets build by a query-parameter.
However, for an indexed text-field with many potential values, such as a fulltext-field, one would have to retrieve df-counts for all terms. I imagine this could be done efficiently using the terms component and probably should be cached on the client-side / in memory to increase efficiency. This appears to be a cumbersome method, however, and doesn't give the flexibility to exclude only certain filters.
For these cases, it would probably be better to implement this within solr as a new option for facet.sort, because the information needed is easily available at the time facet counts are computed.
There has been a discussion about this way back in 2009.
Currently, with the larger flexibility of facet.json, e.g. sorting on stats-facets (e.g. avg(price)) of another field, I guess this could be implemented as an additional sort-option. At least for facets of type term, the result-count (df for current result-set) only needs to be divided by the df of that term for the index (docfreq). If the current result-set is the complete index, facets should be sorted by count.
I will probably implement a workaround in the client for fields with a fixed and rather small vocabulary, e.g. based on a second, cashed query on the complete index. However, for term-fields and similar this might not scale.
I need a way of storing sets of arbitrary size for fast query later on.
I'll be needing to query the resulting data structure for subsets or sets that are already stored.
===
Later edit: To clarify, an accepted answer to this question would be a link to a study that proposes a solution to this problem. I'm not expecting for people to develop the algorithm themselves.
I've been looking over the tuple clustering algorithm found here, but it's not exactly what I want since from what I understand it 'clusters' the tuples into more simple, discrete/aproximate forms and loses the original tuples.
Now, an even simpler example:
[alpha, beta, gamma, delta] [alpha, epsilon, delta] [gamma, niu, omega] [omega, beta]
Query:
[alpha, delta]
Result:
[alpha, beta, gama, delta] [alpha, epsilon, delta]
So the set elements are just that, unique, unrelated elements. Forget about types and values. The elements can be tested among them for equality and that's it. I'm looking for an established algorithm (which probably has a name and a scientific paper on it) more than just creating one now, on the spot.
==
Original examples:
For example, say the database contains these sets
[A1, B1, C1, D1], [A2, B2, C1], [A3, D3], [A1, D3, C1]
If I use [A1, C1] as a query, these two sets should be returned as a result:
[A1, B1, C1, D1], [A1, D3, C1]
Example 2:
Database:
[Gasoline amount: 5L, Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: red]
[Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: blue, number of car seats: 2]
[number of car seats: 2, Gasoline amount: 2L]
Query:
[Distance to berlin: 240km]
Result
[Gasoline amount: 5L, Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: red]
[Distance to Berlin: 240km, car paint: blue, number of car seats: 2]
There can be an unlimited number of 'fields' such as Gasoline amount. A solution would probably involve the database grouping and linking sets having common states (such as Gasoline amount: 240) in such a way that the query is as efficient as possible.
What algorithms are there for such needs?
I am hoping there is already an established solution to this problem instead of just trying to find my own on the spot, which might not be as efficient as one tested and improved upon by other people over time.
Clarifications:
If it helps answer the question, I'm intending on using them for storing states:
Simple example:
[Has milk, Doesn't have eggs, Has Sugar]
I'm thinking such a requirement might require graphs or multidimensional arrays, but I'm not sure
Conclusion
I've implemented the two algorithms proposed in the answers, that is Set-Trie and Inverted Index and did some rudimentary profiling on them. Illustrated below is the duration of a query for a given set for each algorithm. Both algorithms worked on the same randomly generated data set consisting of sets of integers. The algorithms seem equivalent (or almost) performance wise:
I'm confident that I can now contribute to the solution. One possible quite efficient way is a:
Trie invented by Frankling Mark Liang
Such a special tree is used for example in spell checking or autocompletion and that actually comes close to your desired behavior, especially allowing to search for subsets quite conveniently.
The difference in your case is that you're not interested in the order of your attributes/features. For your case a Set-Trie was invented by Iztok Savnik.
What is a Set-Tree? A tree where each node except the root contains a single attribute value (number) and a marker (bool) if at this node there is a data entry. Each subtree contains only attributes whose values are larger than the attribute value of the parent node. The root of the Set-Tree is empty. The search key is the path from the root to a certain node of the tree. The search result is the set of paths from the root to all nodes containing a marker that you reach when you go down the tree and up the search key simultaneously (see below).
But first a drawing by me:
The attributes are {1,2,3,4,5} which can be anything really but we just enumerate them and therefore naturally obtain an order. The data is {{1,2,4}, {1,3}, {1,4}, {2,3,5}, {2,4}} which in the picture is the set of paths from the root to any circle. The circles are the markers for the data in the picture.
Please note that the right subtree from root does not contain attribute 1 at all. That's the clue.
Searching including subsets Say you want to search for attributes 4 and 1. First you order them, the search key is {1,4}. Now startin from root you go simultaneously up the search key and down the tree. This means you take the first attribute in the key (1) and go through all child nodes whose attribute is smaller or equal to 1. There is only one, namely 1. Inside you take the next attribute in the key (4) and visit all child nodes whose attribute value is smaller than 4, that are all. You continue until there is nothing left to do and collect all circles (data entries) that have the attribute value exactly 4 (or the last attribute in the key). These are {1,2,4} and {1,4} but not {1,3} (no 4) or {2,4} (no 1).
Insertion Is very easy. Go down the tree and store a data entry at the appropriate position. For example data entry {2.5} would be stored as child of {2}.
Add attributes dynamically Is naturally ready, you could immediately insert {1,4,6}. It would come below {1,4} of course.
I hope you understand what I want to say about Set-Tries. In the paper by Iztok Savnik it's explained in much more detail. They probably are very efficient.
I don't know if you still want to store the data in a database. I think this would complicate things further and I don't know what is the best to do then.
How about having an inverse index built of hashes?
Suppose you have your values int A, char B, bool C of different types. With std::hash (or any other hash function) you can create numeric hash values size_t Ah, Bh, Ch.
Then you define a map that maps an index to a vector of pointers to the tuples
std::map<size_t,std::vector<TupleStruct*> > mymap;
or, if you can use global indices, just
std::map<size_t,std::vector<size_t> > mymap;
For retrieval by queries X and Y, you need to
get hash value of the queries Xh and Yh
get the corresponding "sets" out of mymap
intersect the sets mymap[Xh] and mymap[Yh]
If I understand your needs correctly, you need a multi-state storing data structure, with retrievals on combinations of these states.
If the states are binary (as in your examples: Has milk/doesn't have milk, has sugar/doesn't have sugar) or could be converted to binary(by possibly adding more states) then you have a lightning speed algorithm for your purpose: Bitmap Indices
Bitmap indices can do such comparisons in memory and there literally is nothing in comparison on speed with these (ANDing bits is what computers can really do the fastest).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap_index
Here's the link to the original work on this simple but amazing data structure: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0306457385901086
Almost all SQL databases supoort Bitmap Indexing and there are several possible optimizations for it as well(by compression etc.):
MS SQL: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522541(v=sql.105).aspx
Oracle: http://www.orafaq.com/wiki/Bitmap_index
Edit:
Apparently the original research work on bitmap indices is no longer available for free public access.
Links to recent literature on this subject:
Bitmap Index Design Choices and Their Performance
Implications
Bitmap Index Design and Evaluation
Compressing Bitmap Indexes for Faster Search Operations
This problem is known in the literature as subset query. It is equivalent to the "partial match" problem (e.g.: find all words in a dictionary matching A??PL? where ? is a "don't care" character).
One of the earliest results in this area is from this paper by Ron Rivest from 19761. This2 is a more recent paper from 2002. Hopefully, this will be enough of a starting point to do a more in-depth literature search.
Rivest, Ronald L. "Partial-match retrieval algorithms." SIAM Journal on Computing 5.1 (1976): 19-50.
Charikar, Moses, Piotr Indyk, and Rina Panigrahy. "New algorithms for subset query, partial match, orthogonal range searching, and related problems." Automata, Languages and Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002. 451-462.
This seems like a custom made problem for a graph database. You make a node for each set or subset, and a node for each element of a set, and then you link the nodes with a relationship Contains. E.g.:
Now you put all the elements A,B,C,D,E in an index/hash table, so you can find a node in constant time in the graph. Typical performance for a query [A,B,C] will be the order of the smallest node, multiplied by the size of a typical set. E.g. to find {A,B,C] I find the order of A is one, so I look at all the sets A is in, S1, and then I check that it has all of BC, since the order of S1 is 4, I have to do a total of 4 comparisons.
A prebuilt graph database like Neo4j comes with a query language, and will give good performance. I would imagine, provided that the typical orders of your database is not large, that its performance is far superior to the algorithms based on set representations.
Hashing is usually an efficient technique for storage and retrieval of multidimensional data. Problem is here that the number of attributes is variable and potentially very large, right? I googled it a bit and found Feature Hashing on Wikipedia. The idea is basically the following:
Construct a hash of fixed length from each data entry (aka feature vector)
The length of the hash must be much smaller than the number of available features. The length is important for the performance.
On the wikipedia page there is an implementation in pseudocode (create hash for each feature contained in entry, then increase feature-vector-hash at this index position (modulo length) by one) and links to other implementations.
Also here on SO is a question about feature hashing and amongst others a reference to a scientific paper about Feature Hashing for Large Scale Multitask Learning.
I cannot give a complete solution but you didn't want one. I'm quite convinced this is a good approach. You'll have to play around with the length of the hash as well as with different hashing functions (bloom filter being another keyword) to optimize the speed for your special case. Also there might still be even more efficient approaches if for example retrieval speed is more important than storage (balanced trees maybe?).
I'm new to that area and I wondering mostly what the state-of-the-art is and where I can read about it.
Let's assume that I just have a key/value store and I have some distance(key1,key2) defined somehow (not sure if it must be a metric, i.e. if the triangle inequality must hold always).
What I want is mostly a search(key) function which returns me all items with keys up to a certain distance to the search-key. Maybe that distance-limit is configureable. Maybe this is also just a lazy iterator. Maybe there can also be a count-limit and an item (key,value) is with some probability P in the returned set where P = 1/distance(key,search-key) or so (i.e., the perfect match would certainly be in the set and close matches at least with high probability).
One example application is fingerprint matching in MusicBrainz. They use the AcoustId fingerprint and have defined this compare function. They use the PostgreSQL GIN Index and I guess (although I haven't fully understood/read the acoustid-server code) the GIN Partial Match Algorithm but I haven't fully understand wether that is what I asked for and how it works.
For text, what I have found so far is to use some phonetic algorithm to simplify words based on their pronunciation. An example is here. This is mostly to break the search-space down to a smaller space. However, that has several limitations, e.g. it must still be a perfect match in the smaller space.
But anyway, I am also searching for a more generic solution, if that exists.
There is no (fast) generic solution, each application will need different approach.
Neither of the two examples actually does traditional nearest neighbor search. AcoustID (I'm the author) is just looking for exact matches, but it searches in a very high number of hashes in hope that some of them will match. The phonetic search example uses metaphone to convert words to their phonetic representation and is also only looking for exact matches.
You will find that if you have a lot of data, exact search using huge hash tables is the only thing you can realistically do. The problem then becomes how to convert your fuzzy matching to exact search.
A common approach is to use locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) with a smart hashing method, but as you can see in your two examples, sometimes you can get away with even simpler approach.
Btw, you are looking specifically for text search, the simplest way you can do it split your input to N-grams and index those. Depending on how your distance function is defined, that might give you the right candidate matches without too much work.
I suggest you take a look at FLANN Fast Approximate Nearest Neighbors. Fuzzy search in big data is also known as approximate nearest neighbors.
This library offers you different metric, e.g Euclidian, Hamming and different methods of clustering: LSH or k-means for instance.
The search is always in 2 phases. First you feed the system with data to train the algorithm, this is potentially time consuming depending on your data.
I successfully clustered 13 millions data in less than a minute though (using LSH).
Then comes the search phase, which is very fast. You can specify a maximum distance and/or the maximum numbers of neighbors.
As Lukas said, there is no good generic solution, each domain will have its tricks to make it faster or find a better way using the inner property of the data your using.
Shazam uses a special technique with geometrical projections to quickly find your song. In computer vision we often use the BOW: Bag of words, which originally appeared in text retrieval.
If you can see your data as a graph, there are other methods for approximate matching using spectral graph theory for instance.
Let us know.
Depends on what your key/values are like, the Levenshtein algorithm (also called Edit-Distance) can help. It calculates the least number of edit operations that are necessary to modify one string to obtain another string.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance
http://www.levenshtein.net/