2007.03.20 - slide 1is 240 – spring 2007 prof. ray larson university of california, berkeley...

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 1IS 240 – Spring 2007

Prof. Ray Larson University of California, Berkeley

School of InformationTuesday and Thursday 10:30 am - 12:00 pm

Spring 2007http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i240/s07

Principles of Information Retrieval

Lecture 17: Latent Semantic Indexing

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 2IS 240 – Spring 2007

Overview

• Review– IR Components– Relevance Feedback

• Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 3IS 240 – Spring 2007

Relevance Feedback in an IR System

Interest profiles& Queries

Documents & data

Rules of the game =Rules for subject indexing +

Thesaurus (which consists of

Lead-InVocabulary

andIndexing

Language

StorageLine

Potentially Relevant

Documents

Comparison/Matching

Store1: Profiles/Search requests

Store2: Documentrepresentations

Indexing (Descriptive and

Subject)

Formulating query in terms of

descriptors

Storage of profiles

Storage of Documents

Information Storage and Retrieval System

Selected relevant docs

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 4IS 240 – Spring 2007

Query Modification

• Changing or Expanding a query can lead to better results

• Problem: how to reformulate the query?– Thesaurus expansion:

• Suggest terms similar to query terms

– Relevance feedback:• Suggest terms (and documents) similar to

retrieved documents that have been judged to be relevant

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 5IS 240 – Spring 2007

Relevance Feedback

• Main Idea:– Modify existing query based on relevance

judgements• Extract terms from relevant documents and add

them to the query• and/or re-weight the terms already in the query

– Two main approaches:• Automatic (psuedo-relevance feedback)• Users select relevant documents

– Users/system select terms from an automatically-generated list

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 6IS 240 – Spring 2007

Rocchio Method

0.25) to and 0.75 to set best to studies some(in terms

t nonrelevan andrelevant of importance thetune and ,

chosen documentsrelevant -non ofnumber the

chosen documentsrelevant ofnumber the

document relevant -non for the vector the

document relevant for the vector the

query initial for the vector the

2

1

0

121101

21

n

n

iS

iR

Q

where

Sn

Rn

QQ

i

i

i

n

i

n

ii

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 7IS 240 – Spring 2007

Rocchio/Vector Illustration

Retrieval

Information

0.5

1.0

0 0.5 1.0

D1

D2

Q0

Q’

Q”

Q0 = retrieval of information = (0.7,0.3)D1 = information science = (0.2,0.8)D2 = retrieval systems = (0.9,0.1)

Q’ = ½*Q0+ ½ * D1 = (0.45,0.55)Q” = ½*Q0+ ½ * D2 = (0.80,0.20)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 8IS 240 – Spring 2007

Example Rocchio Calculation

)04.1,033.0,488.0,022.0,527.0,01.0,002.0,000875.0,011.0(

12

25.0

75.0

1

)950,.00.0,450,.00.0,500,.00.0,00.0,00.0,00.0(

)00.0,020,.00.0,025,.005,.00.0,020,.010,.030(.

)120,.100,.100,.025,.050,.002,.020,.009,.020(.

)120,.00.0,00.0,050,.025,.025,.00.0,00.0,030(.

121

1

2

1

new

new

Q

SRRQQ

Q

S

R

R

Relevantdocs

Non-rel doc

Original Query

Constants

Rocchio Calculation

Resulting feedback query

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 9IS 240 – Spring 2007

Rocchio Method

• Rocchio automatically– re-weights terms– adds in new terms (from relevant docs)

• have to be careful when using negative terms• Rocchio is not a machine learning algorithm

• Most methods perform similarly– results heavily dependent on test collection

• Machine learning methods are proving to work better than standard IR approaches like Rocchio

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 10IS 240 – Spring 2007

Probabilistic Relevance Feedback

Document Relevance

Documentindexing

Given a query term t

+ -

+ r n-r n

- R-r N-n-R+r N-n

R N-R N

Where N is the number of documents seenRobertson & Sparck Jones

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 11IS 240 – Spring 2007

Robertson-Spark Jones Weights

• Retrospective formulation --

rRnNrnrR

r

wnewt log

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 12IS 240 – Spring 2007

Robertson-Sparck Jones Weights

5.05.05.0

5.0

log)1(

rRnNrnrR

r

w

Predictive formulation

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 13IS 240 – Spring 2007

Using Relevance Feedback

• Known to improve results– in TREC-like conditions (no user involved)– So-called “Blind Relevance Feedback”

typically uses the Rocchio algorithm with the assumption that the top N documents in an initial retrieval are relevant

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 14IS 240 – Spring 2007

Blind Feedback

• Top 10 new terms taken from top 10 documents– Term selection is based on the classic

Robertson/Sparck Jones probabilistic model

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 15IS 240 – Spring 2007

Blind Feedback in Cheshire II

• Perform initial search (using TREC2 Probabilistic Algorithm) next slide

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 16IS 240 – Spring 2007

TREC2 Algorithm

logO(R | C,Q) co c1

1

Qc 1

qtf i

ql 35i1

Qc

c2

1

Qc 1log

tf i

cl 80i1

Qc

c3

1

Qc 1log

ctf i

N ti1

Qc

c4 Qc

|Qc| is the number of terms in common between the query and the componentqtf is the query term frequencyql is the query length (number of tokens)tfi is the term frequency in the component/documentcl is the number of terms in the component/documentctfi is the collection term frequency (number of occurrences in collection)Nt is the number of terms in the entire collection

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 17IS 240 – Spring 2007


• Take top N documents and get the term vectors for those documents

• Calculate the Robertson/Sparck Jones weights for each term in the vectors– Note that collection

stats are used for non-rel documents (i.e. n, n-m, etc)

tt

tt

t

t

t

tttt

tttt

mmnn

mnmm

m

w

nmnm

nnmmnnmmnotindexed

nmnmindexed

nonrelrel

log

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 18IS 240 – Spring 2007


• Rank the terms by wt and take the top M terms (ignoring those that occur in less than 3 of the top ranked docs)

• For the new query:– Use original freq weight * 0.5 as the weight for old

terms

– Add wt to the new query length for old terms

– Use 0.5 as the weight for new terms and add 0.5 to the query length for each term.

• Perform the TREC2 ranking again using the new query with the new weights and length

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 19IS 240 – Spring 2007

Koenemann and Belkin

• Test of user interaction in relevance feedback

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 20IS 240 – Spring 2007

Relevance Feedback Summary

• Iterative query modification can improve precision and recall for a standing query

• In at least one study, users were able to make good choices by seeing which terms were suggested for R.F. and selecting among them

• So … “more like this” can be useful!

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 21IS 240 – Spring 2007

Alternative Notions of Relevance Feedback

• Find people whose taste is “similar” to yours. Will you like what they like?

• Follow a users’ actions in the background. Can this be used to predict what the user will want to see next?

• Track what lots of people are doing. Does this implicitly indicate what they think is good and not good?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 22IS 240 – Spring 2007

Alternative Notions of Relevance Feedback

• Several different criteria to consider:– Implicit vs. Explicit judgements – Individual vs. Group judgements– Standing vs. Dynamic topics– Similarity of the items being judged vs.

similarity of the judges themselves

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 23

Collaborative Filtering (social filtering)

• If Pam liked the paper, I’ll like the paper

• If you liked Star Wars, you’ll like Independence Day

• Rating based on ratings of similar people– Ignores the text, so works on text, sound,

pictures etc.– But: Initial users can bias ratings of future

users Sally Bob Chris Lynn KarenStar Wars 7 7 3 4 7Jurassic Park 6 4 7 4 4Terminator II 3 4 7 6 3Independence Day 7 7 2 2 ?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 24

Ringo Collaborative Filtering (Shardanand & Maes 95)

• Users rate musical artists from like to dislike– 1 = detest 7 = can’t live without 4 = ambivalent– There is a normal distribution around 4– However, what matters are the extremes

• Nearest Neighbors Strategy: Find similar users and predicted (weighted) average of user ratings

• Pearson r algorithm: weight by degree of correlation between user U and user J– 1 means very similar, 0 means no correlation, -1 dissimilar– Works better to compare against the ambivalent rating (4), rather

than the individual’s average score

22 )()(

))((

JJUU

JJUUrUJ

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 25IS 240 – Spring 2007

Social Filtering

• Ignores the content, only looks at who judges things similarly

• Works well on data relating to “taste”– something that people are good at predicting

about each other too

• Does it work for topic? – GroupLens results suggest otherwise

(preliminary)– Perhaps for quality assessments– What about for assessing if a document is

about a topic?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 26

Learning interface agents

• Add agents in the UI, delegate tasks to them• Use machine learning to improve performance

– learn user behavior, preferences

• Useful when:– 1) past behavior is a useful predictor of the future– 2) wide variety of behaviors amongst users

• Examples: – mail clerk: sort incoming messages in right mailboxes– calendar manager: automatically schedule meeting

times?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 27IS 240 – Spring 2007

Example Systems

• Example Systems– Newsweeder– Letizia– WebWatcher– Syskill and Webert

• Vary according to– User states topic or not– User rates pages or not

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 28

NewsWeeder (Lang & Mitchell)

• A netnews-filtering system

• Allows the user to rate each article read from one to five

• Learns a user profile based on these ratings

• Use this profile to find unread news that interests the user.

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 29

Letizia (Lieberman 95)

• Recommends web pages during browsing based on user profile

• Learns user profile using simple heuristics • Passive observation, recommend on request• Provides relative ordering of link interestingness

• Assumes recommendations “near” current page are more valuable than others

user letizia

user profile

heuristics recommendations

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 30IS 240 – Spring 2007

Letizia (Lieberman 95)

• Infers user preferences from behavior• Interesting pages

– record in hot list– save as a file– follow several links from pages– returning several times to a document

• Not Interesting– spend a short time on document– return to previous document without following links– passing over a link to document (selecting links above

and below document)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 31

WebWatcher (Freitag et al.)

• A "tour guide" agent for the WWW. – User tells it what kind of information is wanted– System tracks web actions– Highlights hyperlinks that it computes will be

of interest.

• Strategy for giving advice is learned from feedback from earlier tours. – Uses WINNOW as a learning algorithm

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 32

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 33

Syskill & Webert (Pazzani et al 96)

• User defines topic page for each topic• User rates pages (cold or hot) • Syskill & Webert creates profile with

Bayesian classifier– accurate– incremental– probabilities can be used for ranking of

documents– operates on same data structure as picking

informative features• Syskill & Webert rates unseen pages

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 34

Rating Pages

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 35

Advantages

• Less work for user and application writer– compare w/ other agent approaches

• no user programming• significant a priori domain-specific and user

knowledge not required

• Adaptive behavior– agent learns user behavior, preferences over

time

• Model built gradually

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 36

Consequences of passiveness

• Weak heuristics– click through multiple uninteresting pages en

route to interestingness– user browses to uninteresting page, heads to

nefeli for a coffee– hierarchies tend to get more hits near root

• No ability to fine-tune profile or express interest without visiting “appropriate” pages

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 37

Open issues

• How far can passive observation get you?– for what types of applications is passiveness

sufficient?

• Profiles are maintained internally and used only by the application. some possibilities:– expose to the user (e.g. fine tune profile) ?– expose to other applications (e.g. reinforce belief)?– expose to other users/agents (e.g. collaborative

filtering)?– expose to web server (e.g. cnn.com custom news)?

• Personalization vs. closed applications• Others?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 38IS 240 – Spring 2007

Relevance Feedback on Non-Textual Information

• Image Retrieval

• Time-series Patterns

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 39

MARS (Riu et al. 97)

Relevance feedback based on image similarity

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 40IS 240 – Spring 2007

BlobWorld (Carson, et al.)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 41

Time Series R.F. (Keogh & Pazzani 98)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 42IS 240 – Spring 2007

Classifying R.F. Systems

• Standard Relevance Feedback– Individual, explicit, dynamic, item

comparison

• Standard Filtering (NewsWeeder)– Individual, explicit, standing profile, item

comparison

• Standard Routing– “Community” (gold standard), explicit,

standing profile, item comparison

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 43IS 240 – Spring 2007


• Letizia and WebWatcher– Individual, implicit, dynamic, item comparison

• Ringo and GroupLens:– Group, explicit, standing query, judge-based

comparison

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 44IS 240 – Spring 2007


• Syskill & Webert:– Individual, explicit, dynamic + standing, item

comparison

• Alexa: (?)– Community, implicit, standing, item

comparison, similar items

• Amazon (?):– Community, implicit, standing, judges + items,

similar items

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 45IS 240 – Spring 2007

Summary

• Relevance feedback is an effective means for user-directed query modification.

• Modification can be done with either direct or indirect user input

• Modification can be done based on an individual’s or a group’s past input.

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 46IS 240 – Spring 2007

Today

• LSI – Latent Semantic Indexing

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 47IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

• The words that searchers use to describe the their information needs are often not the same words used by authors to describe the same information.

• I.e., index terms and user search terms often do NOT match– Synonymy– Polysemy

• Following examples from Deerwester, et al. Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. JASIS 41(6), pp. 391-407, 1990

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 48IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

Access Document Retrieval Information Theory Database Indexing Computer REL MD1 x x x x x RD2 x* x x* MD3 x x* x * R M

Query: IDF in computer-based information lookup

Only matching words are “information” and “computer”D1 is relevant, but has no words in the query…

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 49IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

• Problems of synonyms– If not specified by the user, will miss

synonymous terms– Is automatic expansion from a thesaurus

useful?– Are the semantics of the terms taken into

account?

• Is there an underlying semantic model of terms and their usage in the database?

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 50IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

• Statistical techniques such as Factor Analysis have been developed to derive underlying meanings/models from larger collections of observed data

• A notion of semantic similarity between terms and documents is central for modelling the patterns of term usage across documents

• Researchers began looking at these methods that focus on the proximity of items within a space (as in the vector model)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 51IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

• Researchers (Deerwester, Dumais, Furnas, Landauer and Harshman) considered models using the following criteria– Adjustable representational richness– Explicit representation of both terms and

documents– Computational tractability for large databases

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 52IS 240 – Spring 2007

LSI Rationale

• The only method that satisfied all three criteria was Two-Mode Factor Analysis– This is a generalization of factor analysis based on

Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)– Represents both terms and documents as vectors in a

space of “choosable dimensionality”– Dot product or cosine between points in the space

gives their similarity– An available program could fit the model in O(N2*k3)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 53IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

• Start with a matrix of terms by documents• Analyze the matrix using SVD to derive a

particular “latent semantic structure model”• Two-Mode factor analysis, unlike

conventional factor analysis, permits an arbitrary rectangular matrix with different entities on the rows and columns – Such as Terms and Documents

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 54IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

• The rectangular matrix is decomposed into three other matices of a special form by SVD– The resulting matrices contain “singular

vectors” and “singular values”– The matrices show a breakdown of the original

relationships into linearly independent components or factors

– Many of these components are very small and can be ignored – leading to an approximate model that contains many fewer dimensions

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 55IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

• In the reduced model all of the term-term, document-document and term-document similiarities are now approximated by values on the smaller number of dimensions

• The result can still be represented geometrically by a spatial configuration in which the dot product or cosine between vectors representing two objects corresponds to their estimated similarity

• Typically the original term-document matrix is approximated using 50-100 factors

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 56IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

TitlesC1: Human machine interface for LAB ABC computer applicationsC2: A survey of user opinion of computer system response timeC3: The EPS user interface management systemC4: System and human system engineering testing of EPSC5: Relation of user-percieved response time to error measurementM1: The generation of random, binary, unordered treesM2: the intersection graph of paths in treesM3: Graph minors IV: Widths of trees and well-quasi-orderingM4: Graph minors: A survey

Italicized words occur and multiple docs and are indexed

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 57IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

Terms Documents c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 m1 m2 m3 m4Human 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Interface 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Computer 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0User 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0System 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0Response 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Time 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0EPS 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Survey 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Trees 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0Graph 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1Minors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 58IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

Dimension 2

Dimension 1

11graphM2(10,11,12)

10 Tree12 minor

9 survey

M1(10) 7 time

3 computer

4 user6 response

5 system

2 interface1 human

M4(9,11,12)

M2(10,11)C2(3,4,5,6,7,9)

C5(4,6,7)

C1(1,2,3)

C3(2,4,5,8)

C4(1,5,8)

Q(1,3)Blue dots are termsDocuments are red squaresBlue square is a queryDotted cone is cosine .9 from Query “Human Computer Interaction”-- even docs with no terms in common(c3 and c5) lie within cone.

SVD to 2 dimensions

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 59IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

X T0=

S0 D0’

txd txm mxm mxd

X = T0S0D0’

docs

terms

T0 has orthogonal, unit-length columns (T0’ T0 = 1)D0 has orthogonal, unit-length columns (D0’ D0 = 1)S0 is the diagonal matrix of singular valuest is the number of rows in Xd is the number of columns in Xm is the rank of X (<= min(t,d)

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 60IS 240 – Spring 2007

How LSI Works

X = TSD’T has orthogonal, unit-length columns (T’T = 1)D has orthogonal, unit-length columns (D’ D = 1)S0 is the diagonal matrix of singular valuest is the number of rows in Xd is the number of columns in Xm is the rank of X (<= min(t,d)k is the chosen number of dimensions in the reduced model (k <= m)

X T=

S D’

txd txk mxk kxd

docs

terms^

^

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 61IS 240 – Spring 2007

Comparisons in LSI

• Comparing two terms

• Comparing two documents

• Comparing a term and a document

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 62IS 240 – Spring 2007

Comparisons in LSI

• In the original matrix these amount to:– Comparing two rows– Comparing two columns– Examining a single cell in the table

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 63IS 240 – Spring 2007

Comparing Two Terms

• Dot product between the row vectors of X(hat) reflects the extent to which two terms have a similar pattern of occurrence across the set of documents

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 64IS 240 – Spring 2007

Comparing Two Documents

• The dot product between two column vectors of the matrix X(hat) which tells the extent to which two documents have a similar profile of terms

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 65IS 240 – Spring 2007

Comparing a term and a document

• Treat the query as a pseudo-document and calculate the cosine between the pseudo-document and the other documents

2007.03.20 - SLIDE 66IS 240 – Spring 2007

Use of LSI

• LSI has been tested and found to be “modestly effective” with traditional test collections.

• Permits compact storage/representation (vectors are typically 50-150 elements instead of thousands)