--- appears to be the most social and outgoing of our nerdy authors
Just read it
---Q-d model: modeling the relevance of a document to a query
Alright, so: what is a document model? And how does it generate the query?They use the concept of automata to help explain what is meant by a language or document model. For any given document you have an alphabet w.r.t. that document and a language produces by that alphabetProbability is distributed over terms ST the sum of all probabilities is equal to 1. straightforward.
--- I didn’t quite understand where the 0.8 stop/continue probability came from---Left out because given a fixed STOP prob, it does not effect results when comparing models to leave it out.Now we will compare models
Next we look at probability over sequences of terms.
---By using the chain rule, we can build probabilities over sequences of terms. ---Two specific models that use the chain rule are the unigram and bigram modelsDescribe images---The fundamental question in language modeling is which doc-model to use?
---now we introduce formally the model representing the initial concepts of LM for IR
The most common way to achieve the goal of the query likelihood model is to use the multinomial unigram language modelThe query generation process is randomNext: estimating this 𝐏𝒒𝑴𝒅The most common way to achieve the goal of the query likelihood model is to use the multinomial unigram language modelThe query generation process is randomNext: estimating this 𝐏(𝒒│𝑴_𝒅 )
Basically we are counting how often each word occurs and dividing by the total # of words in the documentNotice the ^, that indicates that this probability is an estimateTherein lies the issue with language modelsWhich leads to the re-occuring issue of “zero probabilities”Which then leads to the much used approach of “smoothing”, which we will see a lot of in the next two presentations in detail.
the initial idea behind smoothing was to allow for non-occuring terms to be in a query generated by the document model GIVE example, say you have a document about tigers that doesn’t contain the word cat but a user queries “big striped cats”One of the important points in this section is that smoothing is essential for the overall good properties of LMs
---But, as Dr. Lease has mentioned… its easy to get good results when you are comparing to the standard tf-idf---NEXT: comparison of language models to other IR approaches
But they mention that LM can be thought to indirectly include relevance modeling by viewing documents and info needs as the same type of object and analyzing it with NLP BIM = binary independence model
-Both use tf-Both use df and cf to produce prob-Both treat terms independently ------NEXT: document model
Downsides: both downside stem from there being less text to estimate withNEXT: all three approaches
--- so far we’ve addressed query likelihood and document likelihood, now they focus on comparing these modelsNext: model comparison
Q -- What will we use to compare models? One example would be the notorious KL-divergence.Comment -- Some prior results show that comparing models outperforms both query and document likelihood modelsComment -- Not bad for ad hoc queries, but bad for topic trackingNEXT: translation model
-- Synonymy: uses similar, but not the same words to say the same thing---I believe synonymy is still a pretty big issue
-- more computationally intensive than basic LM approaches-- all of these extended language models have been shown to improve basic LM approaches
Transcript
1.
Introduction to Information Retrieval:Language models for information retrievalby C.D. Manning, P. Raghavan, and H. Schutze. Presentation by Dustin Smith The University of Texas at Austin School of Information dustin.smith@utexas.edu 10/3/2011 1 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval
2.
Christopher Manning – background BA Australian National University 1989 (majors in mathematics, computer science and linguistics) PhD Stanford Linguistics 1995 Asst Professor Carnegie Mellon University Computational Linguistics Program 1994-96 Lecturer University of Sydney Dept of Linguistics 1996-99 Asst Professor Stanford University Depts of Computer Science and Linguistics 1999-2006 Current: Assoc Professor Stanford University Depts of Linguistics and Computer Science 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 2
3.
Prabhakar Raghavan– background Undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from ITT, Madras PhD in computer science from UC Berkeley Current: Working at Yahoo! Labs and is a Consulting Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 3
4.
Hinrich Schütze– background Technical University of Braunschweig Vordiplom Mathematik Vordiplom Informatik University of Stuttgart, Diplom Informatik (MSCS) Stanford University, Ph.D., Computational Linguistics Current: Chair of Theoretical Computational Linguistics, Institute for Natural Language Processing at the University of Stuttgart 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 4
5.
Chapter/Presentation Outline Introduction to the concept of Language Models Finite automata and language models Types of language models Multinomial distributions over words Description of the Query Likelihood Model Using query likelihood language models in IR Estimating the query generation probability Ponte and Croft’s experiments Comparison of the language modeling approach to IR against other approaches to IR Description of various extension to the language modeling approach 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 5
6.
Language Models Based on concept that a document is a good match for a query if the document model is likely to generate the query. An alternative to the straightforward query-document probability model. (traditional approach) 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 6
In figure 12.1 the alphabet is {“I”, “wish”} and the language produced by the model is {“I wish”, “I wish I wish”, “I wish I wish I wish I wish”, etc.}
10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 10 Chain rule Language Models
19.
Using query likelihood language models in IR (242-243) Using Bayes rule: P(d|q)=P(q|d)P(d)/P(q) With P(d) and P(q) uniform across documents, => P(d|q) = P(q|d) In the query likelihood model we construct a language model 𝑀𝑑 from each document Goal: to rank documents by P(d|q), where the probability of a document is interpreted as the likelihood that it is relevant to the query
10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 11 The Query Likelihood Model
20.
Using query likelihood language models in IR (242-243) Multinomial unigram language model Pq𝑀𝑑=𝐾𝑞𝑡∈𝑉𝑃(𝑡|𝑀𝑑)𝑡𝑓𝑡,𝑑 𝐾𝑞 is dropped as it is constant across all queries
10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 12 Query generation process:1. Infer a LM for each document 2. Estimate Pq𝑀𝑑, the probability of generating the query according to each one of these document models 3. Rank the documents according to these probabilities
The Query Likelihood Model
21.
Estimating the query generation probability (244)
Query generation probability = Pq𝑀𝑑
10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 13
M𝑑 is the language model of document d
22.
tf𝑡.𝑑is the raw term frequency of term t in document d
Conceptually the same: The probability estimate for a word present in the document combines a discounted (MLE) and a fraction of the estimate of its prevalence in the whole collection. 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 14
29.
First experiments on the language modeling approach to IR
30.
Performed on TREC topics 202-250 over TREC disks 2 and 3.
LM much better than tf-idf (specifically at higher recalls) 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 15 The Query Likelihood Model
31.
LM vs. BIM vs. XML retrieval (249) Language models and the most successful XML retrieval models approach relevance modeling in a roundabout way as apposed to the BIM model that evaluates relevance directly. LM initially appears to not include relevance modeling The most successful XML retrieval models assume that queries and documents are objects of the same type BIM models have relevance as the central variable that is evaluated 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 16 Language Modeling Versus Other Approaches in IR
32.
LM vs. traditional tf-idf(249) The LM has significant relations to tf-idf models They differ on a more conceptual level Both directly use term frequency Both have a method of mixing document frequency and collection frequency to produce probabilities Both treat terms independently LM intuitions are more probabilistic than geometric LM mathematical models are more principled rather than heuristic LM differs in its use of tf and df 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 17
KL divergence is an asymmetric divergence measure originating in information theory, which measures how bad the probability distribution 𝑀𝑞 is at modeling 𝑀𝑑 (pg. 251)
43.
Outperforms query and document likelihood models
10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 20 Extended Language Modeling Approaches
45.
Translation Model – Features (251) Answer to synonymy in basic LM models Lets you generate query words that are not in a document by translating to alternate terms with similar meaning Provides a basis for executing cross-language IR 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 21 Extended Language Modeling Approaches
46.
Translation Model – Issues (251) Computationally intensive Need to build the model using outside resources Thesaurus Bilingual dictionary Statistical machine translation system’s translation dictionary 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 22 Extended Language Modeling Approaches
47.
Thanks for not throwing vegetables! Questions? 10/3/2011 INF384H / CS395T: Concepts of Information Retrieval 23
Views
Actions
Embeds 0
Report content