程序代写代做代考 information retrieval algorithm Excel Title

Title

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Introduction to

Information Retrieval

Lecture 2: Preprocessing

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Recap of the previous lecture

▪ Basic inverted indexes:

▪ Structure: Dictionary and Postings

▪ Key step in construction: Sorting

▪ Boolean query processing

▪ Intersection by linear time “merging”

▪ Optimizations

▪ Positional index

Ch. 1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Plan for this lecture

Elaborate basic indexing

▪ Preprocessing to form the term vocabulary

▪ Documents

▪ Tokenization

▪ What terms do we put in the index?

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Recall the basic indexing pipeline

Tokenizer

Token stream. Friends Romans Countrymen

Linguistic

modules

Modified tokens. friend roman countryman

Indexer

Inverted index.

friend

roman

countryman

2 4

13 16

Documents to

be indexed.

Friends, Romans, countrymen.

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Parsing a document

▪ What 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 …

Sec. 2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Complications: Format/language

▪ Documents being indexed can include docs from
many different languages
▪ A single index may have to contain terms of several

languages.

▪ Sometimes a document or its components can
contain multiple languages/formats
▪ French email with a German pdf attachment.

▪ What is a unit document?
▪ A file?

▪ An email? (Perhaps one of many in an mbox.)

▪ An email with 5 attachments?

▪ A group of files (PPT or LaTeX as HTML pages)

Sec. 2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

TOKENS AND TERMS

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Tokenization

▪ Input: “Friends, Romans and Countrymen”

▪ Output: Tokens

▪ Friends

▪ Romans

▪ Countrymen

▪ A token is an instance of a sequence of characters

▪ Each such token is now a candidate for an index
entry, after further processing

▪ Described below

▪ But what are valid tokens to emit?

Sec. 2.2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Tokenization

▪ Issues 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-education

▪ lowercase, lower-case, lower case ?

▪ It can be effective to get the user to put in possible hyphens

▪ San Francisco: one token or two?
▪ How do you decide it is one token?

Sec. 2.2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Numbers

▪ 3/20/91 Mar. 12, 1991 20/3/91

▪ 55 B.C.

▪ B-52

▪ My PGP key is 324a3df234cb23e

▪ (800) 234-2333

▪ Often have embedded spaces

▪ Older IR systems may not index numbers
▪ But 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” separately
▪ Creation date, format, etc.

Sec. 2.2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Tokenization: language issues

▪ French

▪ L’ensemble one token or two?
▪ L ? L’ ? Le ?

▪ Want l’ensemble to match with un ensemble

▪ Until at least 2003, it didn’t on Google

▪ Internationalization!

▪ German noun compounds are not segmented
▪ Lebensversicherungsgesellschaftsangestellter

▪ ‘life insurance company employee’

▪ German retrieval systems benefit greatly from a compound splitter
module

▪ Can give a 15% performance boost for German

Sec. 2.2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Tokenization: language issues

▪ Chinese and Japanese 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 tokenization

▪ Further complicated in Japanese, with multiple
alphabets intermingled

▪ Dates/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)

Katakana Hiragana Kanji Romaji

End-user can express query entirely in hiragana!

Sec. 2.2.1

南京市长江大桥

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Tokenization: language issues

▪ Arabic (or Hebrew) is basically written right to left,
but with certain items like numbers written left to
right

▪ Words 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

Sec. 2.2.1

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Stop words

▪ With a stop list, you exclude from the dictionary
entirely the commonest words. Intuition:
▪ They have little semantic content: the, a, and, to, be

▪ There are a lot of them: ~30% of postings for top 30 words

▪ But the trend is away from doing this:
▪ Good compression techniques (lecture 5) means the space for

including stopwords in a system is very small

▪ Good 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” vs. “flights from London”

Sec. 2.2.2

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Normalization to terms

▪ We need to “normalize” words in indexed text as
well as query words into the same form

▪ We want to match U.S.A. and USA

▪ Result is terms: a term is a (normalized) word type,
which is an entry in our IR system dictionary

▪ We most commonly implicitly define equivalence
classes of terms by, e.g.,

▪ deleting periods to form a term
▪ U.S.A., USA  USA

▪ deleting hyphens to form a term
▪ anti-discriminatory, antidiscriminatory  antidiscriminatory

Sec. 2.2.3

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Normalization: other languages

▪ Accents: e.g., French résumé vs. resume.

▪ Umlauts: e.g., German: Tuebingen vs. Tübingen

▪ Should be equivalent

▪ Most 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 them

▪ Often best to normalize to a de-accented term

▪ Tuebingen, Tübingen, Tubingen  Tubingen

Sec. 2.2.3

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Normalization: other languages

▪ Normalization of things like date forms

▪ 7月30日 vs. 7/30

▪ Japanese use of kana vs. Chinese characters

▪ Tokenization and normalization may depend on the
language and so is intertwined with language
detection

▪ Crucial: Need to “normalize” indexed text as well as
query terms into the same form

Morgen will ich in MIT …

Is this

German “mit”?

Sec. 2.2.3

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Case folding

▪ Reduce all letters to lower case

▪ exception: upper case in mid-sentence?
▪ e.g., General Motors

▪ Fed vs. fed

▪ SAIL vs. sail

▪ Often 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.

Sec. 2.2.3

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Normalization to terms

▪ An alternative to equivalence classing is to do
asymmetric expansion

▪ An example of where this may be useful
▪ Enter: window Search: window, windows

▪ Enter: windows Search: Windows, windows, window

▪ Enter: Windows Search: Windows

▪ Potentially more powerful, but less efficient

Sec. 2.2.3

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Thesauri and soundex

▪ Do we handle synonyms and homonyms?
▪ E.g., by hand-constructed equivalence classes

▪ car = automobile color = colour

▪ We can rewrite to form equivalence-class terms
▪ When the document contains automobile, index it under car-

automobile (and vice-versa)

▪ Or we can expand a query
▪ When the query contains automobile, look under car as well

▪ What about spelling mistakes?
▪ One approach is soundex, which forms equivalence classes

of words based on phonetic heuristics

▪ More in lectures 3 and 9

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Lemmatization

▪ Reduce inflectional/variant forms to base form

▪ E.g.,

▪ am, are, is  be

▪ car, cars, car’s, cars’  car

▪ the boy’s cars are different colors the boy car be
different color

▪ Lemmatization implies doing “proper” reduction to
dictionary headword form

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Stemming

▪ Reduce terms to their “roots” before indexing

▪ “Stemming” suggest crude affix chopping

▪ language dependent

▪ e.g., automate(s), automatic, automation all reduced to
automat.

for example compressed

and compression are both

accepted as equivalent to

compress.

for exampl compress and

compress ar both accept

as equival to compress

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Porter’s algorithm

▪ Commonest algorithm for stemming English

▪ Results suggest it’s at least as good as other stemming
options

▪ Conventions + 5 phases of reductions

▪ phases applied sequentially

▪ each phase consists of a set of commands

▪ sample convention: Of the rules in a compound command,
select the one that applies to the longest suffix.

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Typical rules in Porter

▪ sses  ss

▪ ies  i

▪ ational  ate

▪ tional  tion

▪ Weight of word sensitive rules

▪ (m>1) EMENT →
▪ replacement → replac

▪ cement → cement

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Other stemmers

▪ Other stemmers exist, e.g., Lovins stemmer
▪ http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/stemming/general/lovins.htm

▪ Single-pass, longest suffix removal (about 250 rules)

▪ Full morphological analysis – at most modest
benefits for retrieval

▪ Do stemming and other normalizations help?
▪ English: very mixed results. Helps recall for some queries but

harms precision on others

▪ E.g., operative (dentistry) ⇒ oper

▪ Definitely useful for Spanish, German, Finnish, …

▪ 30% performance gains for Finnish!

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Language-specificity

▪ Many of the above features embody transformations
that are

▪ Language-specific and

▪ Often, application-specific

▪ These are “plug-in” addenda to the indexing process

▪ Both open source and commercial plug-ins are
available for handling these

Sec. 2.2.4

COMP6714: Information Retrieval & Web Search

Dictionary entries – first cut

ensemble.french

時間.japanese

MIT.english

mit.german

guaranteed.english

entries.english

sometimes.english

tokenization.english

These may be

grouped by

language (or

not…).

Published by admin

Leave a Reply Cancel reply