Data Mining:    Concepts and Techniques — Chapter 10. Part 2 —   — Mining Text and Web Data — <ul><li>Jiawei Han and Miche...
 
Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li...
Data Mining / Knowledge Discovery Structured Data  Multimedia  Free Text   Hypertext Mining Text Data: An Introduction Hom...
Bag-of-Tokens Approaches Feature Extraction Loses all order-specific information! Severely limits  context ! Documents Tok...
Natural Language Processing (Taken from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) A  dog  is  chasing  a  boy  on  the  play...
General NLP — Too Difficult! <ul><li>Word-level ambiguity  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ design” can be a noun or a verb  (Ambig...
Shallow Linguistics <ul><li>Progress on  Useful   Sub -Goals: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>English  Lexicon </li></ul></ul><ul><u...
WordNet <ul><li>An extensive  lexical network  for the English language </li></ul><ul><li>Contains over  138,838 words . <...
Part-of-Speech Tagging This  sentence  serves  as  an  example  of  annotated  text… Det  N  V1  P  Det  N  P  V2  N Train...
Word Sense Disambiguation <ul><li>Supervised Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighboring  POS  ...
Parsing (Adapted from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) Choose  most likely  parse tree… the playground S NP VP BNP ...
Obstacles <ul><li>Ambiguity </li></ul><ul><li>“ A man saw a boy  with a telescope .” </li></ul><ul><li>Computational Inten...
Summary: Shallow NLP  <ul><li>However,  shallow  NLP techniques are  feasible  and  useful : </li></ul><ul><li>Lexicon  – ...
References for Introduction <ul><li>C. D. Manning and H. Schutze, “Foundations of Natural Language Processing”, MIT Press,...
Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li...
Text Databases and IR <ul><li>Text databases (document databases)  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large collections of documents fr...
Information Retrieval <ul><li>Typical IR systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online library catalogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>...
Basic Measures for Text Retrieval <ul><li>Precision:  the percentage of retrieved documents that are in fact relevant to t...
Information Retrieval Techniques <ul><li>Basic Concepts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A document can be described by a set of repr...
Information Retrieval Techniques <ul><li>Index Terms (Attribute) Selection: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stop list </li></ul></ul...
Boolean Model <ul><li>Consider that index terms are either present or absent in a document </li></ul><ul><li>As a result, ...
Keyword-Based Retrieval <ul><li>A document is represented by a string, which can be identified by a set of keywords </li><...
Similarity-Based Retrieval in Text Data <ul><li>Finds similar documents based on a set of common keywords </li></ul><ul><l...
Similarity-Based Retrieval in Text Data <ul><ul><li>Word stem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Several words are small synta...
Indexing Techniques <ul><li>Inverted index </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintains two hash- or B+-tree indexed tables:  </li></ul...
Vector Space Model <ul><li>Documents and user queries are represented as m-dimensional vectors, where m is the total numbe...
Latent Semantic Indexing <ul><li>Basic idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar documents have similar word frequencies </li></u...
Latent Semantic Indexing (2) Weighted Frequency Matrix Query Terms: - Insulation - Joint
Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Basic assumption: Given a user query, there is a set of documents which contains exactly the r...
Types of Text Data Mining <ul><li>Keyword-based association analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic document classification <...
Keyword-Based Association Analysis <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collect sets of keywords or terms that occur f...
Text Classification <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic classification for the large number of on-line text...
Text Classification(2) <ul><li>Classification Algorithms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support Vector Machines </li></ul></ul><ul...
Document Clustering <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatically group related documents based on their contents...
Text Categorization <ul><li>Pre-given categories and labeled document examples (Categories may form hierarchy) </li></ul><...
Applications <ul><li>News article classification </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic email filtering </li></ul><ul><li>Webpage cla...
Categorization Methods <ul><li>Manual: Typically rule-based  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not scale up (labor-intensive, rul...
Vector Space Model <ul><li>Represent a doc by a term vector </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Term: basic concept, e.g., word or phras...
VS Model: Illustration Java Microsoft Starbucks C 2 Category 2 C 1 Category 1 C 3 Category 3 new doc
What VS Model Does Not Specify <ul><li>How to select terms to capture “basic concepts”  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Word stoppin...
How to Assign Weights <ul><li>Two-fold heuristics based on frequency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TF (Term frequency) </li></ul><...
TF Weighting <ul><li>Weighting: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More frequent => more relevant to topic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><...
IDF Weighting <ul><li>Ideas: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less frequent  among  documents    more discriminative </li></ul></ul>...
TF-IDF Weighting <ul><li>TF-IDF weighting :  weight(t, d) = TF(t, d) * IDF(t) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Freqent within doc   ...
How to Measure Similarity? <ul><li>Given two document </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity definition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>dot pr...
Illustrative Example text  mining  travel  map  search  engine  govern  president  congress IDF(faked)  2.4  4.5   2.8  3....
VS Model-Based Classifiers <ul><li>What do we have so far? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A feature space with similarity measure <...
Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Main ideas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Category  C   is modeled as a probability distribution of pre...
Quick Revisit of Bayes’ Rule Category Hypothesis space: H = {C 1  ,   …,   C n } One document: D As we want to pick the mo...
Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Multi-Bernoulli </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Event: word presence or absence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><...
Parameter Estimation <ul><li>Category prior </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Bernoulli Doc model </li></ul><ul><li>Multinomial doc ...
Classification of New Document Multi-Bernoulli Multinomial
Categorization Methods <ul><li>Vector space model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-NN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision tree </li...
Evaluations <ul><li>Effectiveness measure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classic: Precision & Recall </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li...
Evaluation (con’t) <ul><li>Benchmarks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classic: Reuters collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A s...
Summary: Text Categorization <ul><li>Wide application domain </li></ul><ul><li>Comparable effectiveness to professionals <...
Research Problems in Text Mining <ul><li>Google: what is the next step? </li></ul><ul><li>How to find the pages that match...
References <ul><li>Fabrizio Sebastiani, “Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 3...
Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li...
Outline <ul><li>Background on Web Search </li></ul><ul><li>VIPS (VIsion-based Page Segmentation) </li></ul><ul><li>Block-b...
Search Engine – Two Rank Functions Web Pages Meta Data Forward Index Inverted Index Forward Link Backward Link (Anchor Tex...
<ul><li>Inverted index </li></ul><ul><li>- A data structure for supporting text queries </li></ul><ul><li>- like index in ...
The PageRank Algorithm <ul><li>More precisely:   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Link graph: adjacency matrix  A ,  </li></ul></ul><...
Layout Structure <ul><li>Compared to plain text, a web page  is a 2D presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich visual effect...
Web Page Block—Better Information Unit Web Page Blocks Importance = Med Importance = Low Importance = High
Motivation for VIPS (VIsion-based Page Segmentation) <ul><li>Problems of treating a web page as an atomic unit </li></ul><...
Is DOM a Good Representation of Page Structure? <ul><li>Page segmentation using DOM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extract structur...
VIPS Algorithm <ul><li>Motivation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In many cases, topics can be distinguished with visual clues. Suc...
VIPS: An Example <ul><li>A hierarchical structure of layout block </li></ul><ul><li>A  Degree of Coherence (DOC)  is defin...
Example of Web Page Segmentation (1) <ul><li>( DOM Structure ) </li></ul>( VIPS Structure )
Example of Web Page Segmentation (2) <ul><li>Can be applied on web image retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Surrounding text ...
Web Page Block—Better Information Unit Web Page Blocks <ul><li>Page Segmentation </li></ul><ul><li>Vision based approach <...
Block-based Web Search <ul><li>Index block instead of whole page </li></ul><ul><li>Block retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C...
Experiments <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TREC 2001 Web Track </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>WT10g corpus (1.69 mi...
Block Retrieval on TREC 2001 and TREC 2002 TREC 2001 Result TREC 2002 Result
Query Expansion on TREC 2001 and TREC 2002 TREC 2001 Result TREC 2002 Result
Block-level Link Analysis  C A B
A  Sample of User Browsing Behavior
Improving PageRank using Layout Structure <ul><li>Z :  block-to-page matrix (link structure) </li></ul><ul><li>X :  page-t...
Using Block-level PageRank to Improve Search Block-level PageRank achieves 15-25% improvement over PageRank  (SIGIR’04) Pa...
Mining Web Images Using Layout & Link Structure (ACMMM’04)
Image Graph Model & Spectral Analysis <ul><li>Block-to-block graph : </li></ul><ul><li>Block-to-image matrix (container re...
ImageRank <ul><li>Relevance Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Importance Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Combined Ranking </li></ul>
ImageRank vs. PageRank <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>26.5 millions web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>11.6 milli...
ImageRank vs PageRank <ul><li>Image search accuracy using ImageRank and PageRank. Both of them achieved their best results...
Example on Image Clustering & Embedding 1710 JPG images in 1287 pages are crawled within the website  http:// www.yahoolig...
 
2-D embedding of WWW images  The image graph was constructed from block level link analysis The image graph was constructe...
2-D Embedding of Web Images <ul><li>2-D visualization of the mammal category using the second and third eigenvectors.  </l...
Web Image Search Result Presentation <ul><li>Two different topics in the search result </li></ul><ul><li>A possible soluti...
Three kinds of WWW image representation <ul><li>Visual Feature Based Representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional CBIR...
Hierarchical  Clustering <ul><li>Clustering based on three representations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual feature </li></ul>...
Our System <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>26.5 millions web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://dir.yahoo.com/A...
Clustering Using Visual Feature <ul><li>From the perspectives of color and texture, the clustering results are quite good....
Clustering Using Textual Feature <ul><li>Six semantic categories are correctly identified if we choose  k  = 6. </li></ul>...
Clustering Using Graph Based Representation <ul><li>Each cluster is semantically aggregated. </li></ul><ul><li>Too many cl...
Combining Textual Feature and Link Graph <ul><li>Combine two  affinity matrix  </li></ul>Figure 9.  Six clusters   of  sea...
Final Presentation of Our System <ul><li>Using textual and link information to get some semantic clusters </li></ul><ul><l...
Summary <ul><li>More improvement on web search can be made by mining webpage Layout structure </li></ul><ul><li>Leverage v...
References <ul><li>Deng Cai, Shipeng Yu, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Extracting Content Structure for Web Pages based on...
www.cs.uiuc.edu/~hanj <ul><li>Thank you !!! </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques ? Chapter 10. Part 2 ...

1,969 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,969
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
94
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Throughout this course we have been discussing Data Mining over a variety of data types. Two former types we covered were Structured Data (relational) and multimedia data. Today and in the last class we have been discussing Data Mining over free text, and our next section will cover hypertext, such as web pages. Text mining is well motivated, due to the fact that much of the world’s data can be found in free text form (newspaper articles, emails, literature, etc.). There is a lot of information available to mine. While mining free text has the same goals as data mining in general (extracting useful knowledge/stats/trends), text mining must overcome a major difficulty – there is no explicit structure. Machines can reason will relational data well since schemas are explicitly available. Free text, however, encodes all semantic information within natural language. Our text mining algorithms, then, must make some sense out of this natural language representation. Humans are great at doing this, but this has proved to be a problem for machines.
  • The previous text mining presentations “made sense” out of free text by viewing text as a bag-of-tokens (words, n-grams). This is the same approach as IR. Under that model we can already summarize, classify, cluster, and compute co-occurrence stats over free text. These are quite useful for mining and managing large volumes of free text. However, there is a potential to do much more. The BOT approach loses a LOT of information contained in text, such as word order, sentence structure, and context. These are precisely the features that humans use to interpret text. Thus the natural question is can we do better?
  • NLP, or Computational Linguistics, is an entire field dedicated to the study of automatically understanding free text. This field has been active since the 50’s. General NLP attempts to understand document completely (at the level of a human reader). There are several steps involved in NLP. … Blah…
  • General NLP has proven to be too difficult. It is dubbed “AI-Complete”, meaning that such a program would basically have to have near-human intelligence (i.e. solve AI). The reason NLP in general is so difficult is that text is highly ambiguous. NL is meant for human consumption and often contains ambiguities under the assumption that humans will be able to develop context and interpret the intended meaning. For instance [rewind], in this example the sentence could mean that either the dog, or the boy, or both are on the playground. As a human we know that it is probably both, but that is due to our knowledge that a dog is probably chasing close behind the boy, playgrounds are large, they are probably playing, and a playground is a place to play. This background knowledge probably is not contained in a document containing this sentence. Despite such obstacles, computational linguists have made great progress on several subproblems. We will now talk about four of these subproblems.
  • Several subgoals to NLP have been addressed to derive more info than just bag-of-tokens view. English lexicon, POS Tagging, WSD, Parsing Even with imperfect performance, these solutions already open the door for more intelligent text processing.
  • WordNet is an extensive lexical network for the human language. Consists of a graph of synsets for each part of speech. Contains synonym and antonym relationships. (hyponym=isa/subset, maple is a tree -&gt; maple is a hyponym of tree) (meronym=hasa, tree has a leaf -&gt; leaf is a meronym of tree) As will see, this is useful throughout NLP/ShallowLinguistics. This encodes some of the lexicon that humans carry with them when interpreting text.
  • POS Tagging attempts to label each word with the appropriate part of speech. Past approaches were rule-based (manual, then learned). Current trend, however, is toward statistical approaches (HMM). This shift is common throughout NLP, due to the ability of statistical approaches to robustly handle noise and/or unexpected events. Conceptually statistical approaches are more fitting due to the fact that uncertainty is sometimes unavoidable (ambiguity). Current algorithms (Brill’s Tagger, CLAWS taggers) report accuracy in the 97% range.
  • WSD attempts to resolve ambiguity by labeling each word with a precise sense, as intended in the document. This is typically performed after POS tagging, since POS tags are quite useful for WSD. Current approaches address this as a supervised learning problem. Features include neighboring words w/ POS tags, stemmed form of word, high co-occurrence words (with stem). Quite a few supervised learning algorithms have been applied (rule-lists, bayesian, NN). Performance depends heavily upon the particular text, but from what I’ve read 90%+ accuracy is common.
  • Parsing attempts to infer the precise grammatical relationships between different words in a given sentence. For example, POS are grouped into phrases and phrases are combined into sentences. Approaches include parsing with probabilistic CFG’s, “link dictionaries”, and tree adjoining techniques (super-tagging). Current techniques can only parse at the sentence level, in some cases reporting accuracy in the 90% range. Again, the performance heavily depends upon the grammatical correctness and the degree of ambiguity of the text.
  • The biggest obstacle to sophisticated NLP is ambiguity. Humans are quite skilled at inferring context and meaning. NLP is expensive and can currently only be performed on the small scale (per-sentence, selective sentences). This restriction further limits our ability to derive context (from across the document). Current approach is to use fast IR techniques (bag-of-tokens) to determine promising text fragments and then apply more expensive NLP techniques on those fragments. (same idea is in multimedia mining)
  • Even though general NLP is elusive, the subgoals presented here already provide opportunity for more intelligent text processing/analysis. POS Tagging can provide a basis for extracting relations/facts (IE – HMM approach example). WSD can resolve semantic ambiguities at the word-level. Even interpret synonyms as related. (laptop, notebook) (in document and query) Parsing can translate free text into a logical, machine-understandable representation of the stated “knowledge”. (MT?, Inference?) Rest is up to ingenuity, but it seems clear that as more of the knowledge encoded in text can be machine-understood we will be able to build systems to more intelligently work/reason with textual data.
  • Chakrabarti’s book Cheng’s notes Manning’s notes (has book) Sproat’s notes Hearst’s notes Text Mining websites (UTex, IBM, UIUC NLP, Stanford,Hearst) Papers? Dan Roth? Jiawei’s book/papers? NEED SOME!!!
  • Noise: First, web pages usually do not contain pure content. A web page typically contains various types of materials that are not related to the topic of the web-page. Multiple topics: Secondly, a web page usually contains multiple topics, for example, a news page containing many different comments on a particular event or politician, or a conference web page containing sponsors from different companies and organizations. Although traditional documents also often have multiple topics, they are less diverse so that the impact on retrieval performance is smaller. There exist some new characteristics in web pages: Two-Dimension Logical Structure – Different from free-text documents, web pages have a 2-D view and a more sophisticated internal content structure. Each block of a web page could have relationships with blocks from up to four directions and contain or be contained in some other blocks. A content structure in semantic level exists for most pages and can be used to enhance retrieval. Visual Layout Presentation – To facilitate browsing and attract attention, web pages usually contain much visual information in the tags and properties in HTML [20]. Typical visual hints include lines, blank areas, colors, pictures, fonts, etc. Visual cues are very helpful to detect the semantic regions in web pages.
  • Noise: First, web pages usually do not contain pure content. A web page typically contains various types of materials that are not related to the topic of the web-page. Multiple topics: Secondly, a web page usually contains multiple topics, for example, a news page containing many different comments on a particular event or politician, or a conference web page containing sponsors from different companies and organizations. Although traditional documents also often have multiple topics, they are less diverse so that the impact on retrieval performance is smaller. There exist some new characteristics in web pages: Two-Dimension Logical Structure – Different from free-text documents, web pages have a 2-D view and a more sophisticated internal content structure. Each block of a web page could have relationships with blocks from up to four directions and contain or be contained in some other blocks. A content structure in semantic level exists for most pages and can be used to enhance retrieval. Visual Layout Presentation – To facilitate browsing and attract attention, web pages usually contain much visual information in the tags and properties in HTML [20]. Typical visual hints include lines, blank areas, colors, pictures, fonts, etc. Visual cues are very helpful to detect the semantic regions in web pages.
  • DOM in general provides a useful structure for a web page. But tags such as TABLE and P are used not only for content organization, but also for layout presentation. In many cases, DOM tends to reveal presentation structure other than content structure, and is often not accurate enough to discriminate different semantic blocks in a web page.
  • These figures and tables shows the experimental results on block retrieval using different page segmentation methods. FullDoc is not listed here since it will always get the baseline. The third column shows the results of using single-best block rank, and the last column shows the results of combining block rank and document rank, with α being optimal for each specific method. The dependency between P@10 and α is illustrated in Figure 3, in which all the curves converge to the baseline when α = 1. As can be seen from Figures and tables, if only the best block from each document is used to rank pages, DomPS performs the worst and FixedPS a little bit better, both of which are worse than the baseline for both data sets. VIPS is slightly better than baseline in TREC 2001 but fails to exceed baseline in TREC 2002, though it is the best among all the methods. CombPS wins TREC 2001, but is worse than VIPS in TREC 2002. For TREC 2002, no method can outperform the baseline. When block rank is combined with the original document rank, the performance of all these four methods increases significantly and is better than the baseline. This shows the effect of rank combination, similar to traditional passage retrieval [4]. DomPS is still the worst, and FixedPS is slightly better. VIPS and CombPS are still better than the former two and show similar comparison characteristics to the non-combining situations, except that result of CombPS (0.2379) is now much closer to that of VIPS (0.2408) in TREC 2002. Furthermore, from Figures it can be seen that the winner for either data set shows a consistent improvement compared to the other methods, and thus does not win by chance. For TREC 2001 CombPS gets better performance almost in every combination, and for TREC 2002 CombPS shares rather similar trends as VIPS when α exceeds 0.4.
  • We perform each web page segmentation method and choose top-ranked blocks (top-ranked documents for FullDoc) to do query expansion. In Table 4, the P@10 value for each segmentation method is the best performance achieved seen from Figure 5. Figure 5 illustrates the P@10 values given different number of blocks (documents in FullDoc). Figure 6 also shows the same comparison for TREC 2001 by using average precision as evaluation metric. From the experimental results, a general conclusion can be made that partitioning pages into blocks can improve the performance of query expansion, regardless of which page segmentation method is used. Furthermore, “good” segmentation method can improve the performance significantly and stably. Among all the page segmentation methods, FullDoc does nothing and thus may get good results (in TREC 2001) or bad results (in TREC 2002), but FixedPS, VIPS and CombPS can always get better results. DomPS is still unstable and sometimes even worse than the baseline. The performance of VIPS and FixedPS is similar, except that VIPS shows better performance in AvP, and that normally they achieve the peak at different number of blocks. CombPS, on the other hand, is always the best method and could achieve at most 17.3% improvement in P@10 and 28.5% in AvP.
  • An interesting point is that those three points near each other are the same images with different size.
  • For this query, it is difficult to say which search engine performs better since we do not know what the user is really looking for. In fact, all these results are related to the query. However, in different situations, the results of Pluto about solar system may be noise to the user who is looking for dog Pluto. How to cluster the search result is the main theme of this paper.
  • When the user submits a query, the system first computes the relevance score (based on the surrounding text) for every image and the images are ranked according to their relevance scores. Then we cluster the top N (in our system, N = 500) images and present them to the user.
  • The first category is about Pluto of solar system, having 157 images; The second category contained 46 images about a movie “The adventures of Pluto Nash: The man on the moon”; The third category is about the carton figure Pluto, having 70 images; The fourth category contained 110 images about a theme park of Pluto; The fifth category contained 28 images on site “http://pluto.njcc.com/~lfrankel/” and The sixth category contained 89 images on the site “http://pluto.njcc.com/~jhein/”. These images are retrieved because the URL of these images contain the word of “Pluto”.
  • How to determine the number of clusters is still an open problem. Many works on clustering assume the number of clusters is given [14][21]. While in image search result clustering, it is almost impossible to determine the number of clusters before clustering. In spectral clustering settings, we can use the difference of the consecutive eigenvlaues to determine the number of clusters while the performance of this method greatly depends on the graph (affinity matrix S in our case) structure. Combining the textual and link based representations, we can actually reveal the semantic structure of the web images.
  • The first level is clustering using textual and link representation of images. We can get some semantic categories. The second level is for each cluster result of the first level. We use low level visual feature to cluster each semantic category. Although we use the term “clustering” in the second level, yet our real goal is not to acquire different semantic clusters but to re-organize the images to make visually similar images be grouped together to facilitate user’s browsing.
  • Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques ? Chapter 10. Part 2 ...

    1. 1. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques — Chapter 10. Part 2 — — Mining Text and Web Data — <ul><li>Jiawei Han and Micheline Kamber </li></ul><ul><li>Department of Computer Science </li></ul><ul><li>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign </li></ul><ul><li>www.cs.uiuc.edu/~hanj </li></ul><ul><li>©2006 Jiawei Han and Micheline Kamber. All rights reserved. </li></ul>
    2. 3. Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Text categorization methods </li></ul><ul><li>Mining Web linkage structures </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    3. 4. Data Mining / Knowledge Discovery Structured Data Multimedia Free Text Hypertext Mining Text Data: An Introduction HomeLoan ( Loanee: Frank Rizzo Lender: MWF Agency: Lake View Amount: $200,000 Term: 15 years ) Frank Rizzo bought his home from Lake View Real Estate in 1992. He paid $200,000 under a15-year loan from MW Financial. <a href> Frank Rizzo </a> Bought <a hef> this home </a> from <a href> Lake View Real Estate </a> In <b> 1992 </b> . <p> ... Loans( $200K ,[ map ],... )
    4. 5. Bag-of-Tokens Approaches Feature Extraction Loses all order-specific information! Severely limits context ! Documents Token Sets Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation , conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation , or … nation – 5 civil - 1 war – 2 men – 2 died – 4 people – 5 Liberty – 1 God – 1 …
    5. 6. Natural Language Processing (Taken from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) A dog is chasing a boy on the playground Det Noun Aux Verb Det Noun Prep Det Noun Noun Phrase Complex Verb Noun Phrase Noun Phrase Prep Phrase Verb Phrase Verb Phrase Sentence Dog(d1). Boy(b1). Playground(p1). Chasing(d1,b1,p1). Semantic analysis Lexical analysis (part-of-speech tagging) Syntactic analysis (Parsing) A person saying this may be reminding another person to get the dog back… Pragmatic analysis (speech act) Scared(x) if Chasing(_,x,_). + Scared(b1) Inference
    6. 7. General NLP — Too Difficult! <ul><li>Word-level ambiguity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ design” can be a noun or a verb (Ambiguous POS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ root” has multiple meanings (Ambiguous sense) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Syntactic ambiguity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ natural language processing” (Modification) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A man saw a boy with a telescope .” (PP Attachment) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Anaphora resolution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ John persuaded Bill to buy a TV for himself .” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>( himself = John or Bill?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Presupposition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ He has quit smoking.” implies that he smoked before. </li></ul></ul>(Taken from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) Humans rely on context to interpret (when possible). This context may extend beyond a given document!
    7. 8. Shallow Linguistics <ul><li>Progress on Useful Sub -Goals: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>English Lexicon </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Part-of-Speech Tagging </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Word Sense Disambiguation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phrase Detection / Parsing </li></ul></ul>
    8. 9. WordNet <ul><li>An extensive lexical network for the English language </li></ul><ul><li>Contains over 138,838 words . </li></ul><ul><li>Several graphs, one for each part-of-speech . </li></ul><ul><li>Synsets (synonym sets), each defining a semantic sense. </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship information (antonym, hyponym, meronym …) </li></ul><ul><li>Downloadable for free (UNIX, Windows) </li></ul><ul><li>Expanding to other languages (Global WordNet Association) </li></ul><ul><li>Funded >$3 million , mainly government (translation interest) </li></ul><ul><li>Founder George Miller , National Medal of Science , 1991. </li></ul>synonym antonym wet dry watery moist damp parched anhydrous arid
    9. 10. Part-of-Speech Tagging This sentence serves as an example of annotated text… Det N V1 P Det N P V2 N Training data (Annotated text) POS Tagger “ This is a new sentence.” This is a new sentence. Det Aux Det Adj N Partial dependency (HMM) (Adapted from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) Pick the most likely tag sequence. Independent assignment Most common tag
    10. 11. Word Sense Disambiguation <ul><li>Supervised Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Features: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighboring POS tags ( N Aux V P N ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighboring words ( linguistics are rooted in ambiguity ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stemmed form ( root ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dictionary / Thesaurus entries of neighboring words </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High co-occurrence words ( plant , tree , origin ,…) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other senses of word within discourse </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Algorithms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rule-based Learning ( e.g. IG guided) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical Learning ( i.e. Naïve Bayes) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unsupervised Learning ( i.e. Nearest Neighbor) </li></ul></ul>“ The difficulties of computational linguistics are rooted in ambiguity .” N Aux V P N ?
    11. 12. Parsing (Adapted from ChengXiang Zhai, CS 397cxz – Fall 2003) Choose most likely parse tree… the playground S NP VP BNP N Det A dog VP PP Aux V is on a boy chasing NP P NP Probability of this tree=0.000015 . . . S NP VP BNP N dog PP Aux V is on a boy chasing NP P NP Det A the playground NP Probability of this tree=0.000011 S  NP VP NP  Det BNP NP  BNP NP  NP PP BNP  N VP  V VP  Aux V NP VP  VP PP PP  P NP V  chasing Aux  is N  dog N  boy N  playground Det  the Det  a P  on Grammar Lexicon 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.0 … … 0.01 0.003 … … Probabilistic CFG
    12. 13. Obstacles <ul><li>Ambiguity </li></ul><ul><li>“ A man saw a boy with a telescope .” </li></ul><ul><li>Computational Intensity </li></ul><ul><li>Imposes a context horizon . </li></ul><ul><li>Text Mining NLP Approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Locate promising fragments using fast IR methods (bag-of-tokens). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Only apply slow NLP techniques to promising fragments. </li></ul></ul>
    13. 14. Summary: Shallow NLP <ul><li>However, shallow NLP techniques are feasible and useful : </li></ul><ul><li>Lexicon – machine understandable linguistic knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>possible senses, definitions, synonyms, antonyms, typeof, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>POS Tagging – limit ambiguity (word/POS), entity extraction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ ... research interests include text mining as well as bioinformatics .” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NP N </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>WSD – stem/synonym/hyponym matches (doc and query) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Query: “Foreign cars” Document: “I’m selling a 1976 Jaguar…” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Parsing – logical view of information (inference?, translation?) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A man saw a boy with a telescope .” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Even without complete NLP, any additional knowledge extracted from text data can only be beneficial . </li></ul><ul><li>Ingenuity will determine the applications . </li></ul>
    14. 15. References for Introduction <ul><li>C. D. Manning and H. Schutze, “Foundations of Natural Language Processing”, MIT Press, 1999. </li></ul><ul><li>S. Russell and P. Norvig, “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach”, Prentice Hall, 1995. </li></ul><ul><li>S. Chakrabarti, “Mining the Web: Statistical Analysis of Hypertext and Semi-Structured Data” , Morgan Kaufmann, 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>G. Miller, R. Beckwith, C. FellBaum, D. Gross, K. Miller, and R. Tengi. Five papers on WordNet. Princeton University, August 1993. </li></ul><ul><li>C. Zhai, Introduction to NLP , Lecture Notes for CS 397cxz, UIUC, Fall 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>M. Hearst, Untangling Text Data Mining , ACL’99, invited paper. http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hearst/papers/acl99/acl99-tdm.html </li></ul><ul><li>R. Sproat, Introduction to Computational Linguistics , LING 306, UIUC, Fall 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>A Road Map to Text Mining and Web Mining, University of Texas resource page. http:// www.cs.utexas.edu/users/pebronia/text -mining/ </li></ul><ul><li>Computational Linguistics and Text Mining Group, IBM Research, http:// www.research.ibm.com/dssgrp / </li></ul>
    15. 16. Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Text information system and information retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Text categorization methods </li></ul><ul><li>Mining Web linkage structures </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    16. 17. Text Databases and IR <ul><li>Text databases (document databases) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large collections of documents from various sources: news articles, research papers, books, digital libraries, e-mail messages, and Web pages, library database, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data stored is usually semi-structured </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional information retrieval techniques become inadequate for the increasingly vast amounts of text data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Information retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A field developed in parallel with database systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information is organized into (a large number of) documents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information retrieval problem: locating relevant documents based on user input, such as keywords or example documents </li></ul></ul>
    17. 18. Information Retrieval <ul><li>Typical IR systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online library catalogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Online document management systems </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Information retrieval vs. database systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some DB problems are not present in IR, e.g., update, transaction management, complex objects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some IR problems are not addressed well in DBMS, e.g., unstructured documents, approximate search using keywords and relevance </li></ul></ul>
    18. 19. Basic Measures for Text Retrieval <ul><li>Precision: the percentage of retrieved documents that are in fact relevant to the query (i.e., “correct” responses) </li></ul><ul><li>Recall: the percentage of documents that are relevant to the query and were, in fact, retrieved </li></ul>Relevant Relevant & Retrieved Retrieved All Documents
    19. 20. Information Retrieval Techniques <ul><li>Basic Concepts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A document can be described by a set of representative keywords called index terms . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different index terms have varying relevance when used to describe document contents. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This effect is captured through the assignment of numerical weights to each index term of a document. (e.g.: frequency, tf-idf) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>DBMS Analogy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Index Terms  Attributes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weights  Attribute Values </li></ul></ul>
    20. 21. Information Retrieval Techniques <ul><li>Index Terms (Attribute) Selection: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stop list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Word stem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Index terms weighting methods </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Terms  Documents Frequency Matrices </li></ul><ul><li>Information Retrieval Models: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Boolean Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vector Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Probabilistic Model </li></ul></ul>
    21. 22. Boolean Model <ul><li>Consider that index terms are either present or absent in a document </li></ul><ul><li>As a result, the index term weights are assumed to be all binaries </li></ul><ul><li>A query is composed of index terms linked by three connectives: not , and , and or </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g.: car and repair, plane or airplane </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Boolean model predicts that each document is either relevant or non-relevant based on the match of a document to the query </li></ul>
    22. 23. Keyword-Based Retrieval <ul><li>A document is represented by a string, which can be identified by a set of keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Queries may use expressions of keywords </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., car and repair shop, tea or coffee, DBMS but not Oracle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Queries and retrieval should consider synonyms , e.g., repair and maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Major difficulties of the model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Synonymy : A keyword T does not appear anywhere in the document, even though the document is closely related to T , e.g., data mining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Polysemy : The same keyword may mean different things in different contexts, e.g., mining </li></ul></ul>
    23. 24. Similarity-Based Retrieval in Text Data <ul><li>Finds similar documents based on a set of common keywords </li></ul><ul><li>Answer should be based on the degree of relevance based on the nearness of the keywords, relative frequency of the keywords, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Basic techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Stop list </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Set of words that are deemed “irrelevant”, even though they may appear frequently </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., a, the, of, for, to, with , etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Stop lists may vary when document set varies </li></ul></ul></ul>
    24. 25. Similarity-Based Retrieval in Text Data <ul><ul><li>Word stem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Several words are small syntactic variants of each other since they share a common word stem </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., drug , drugs, drugged </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A term frequency table </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Each entry frequent_table(i, j) = # of occurrences of the word t i in document d i </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Usually, the ratio instead of the absolute number of occurrences is used </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Similarity metrics: measure the closeness of a document to a query (a set of keywords) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relative term occurrences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cosine distance: </li></ul></ul></ul>
    25. 26. Indexing Techniques <ul><li>Inverted index </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintains two hash- or B+-tree indexed tables: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>document_table : a set of document records <doc_id, postings_list> </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>term_table : a set of term records, <term, postings_list> </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Answer query: Find all docs associated with one or a set of terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>+ easy to implement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>– do not handle well synonymy and polysemy, and posting lists could be too long (storage could be very large) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Signature file </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Associate a signature with each document </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A signature is a representation of an ordered list of terms that describe the document </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Order is obtained by frequency analysis, stemming and stop lists </li></ul></ul>
    26. 27. Vector Space Model <ul><li>Documents and user queries are represented as m-dimensional vectors, where m is the total number of index terms in the document collection. </li></ul><ul><li>The degree of similarity of the document d with regard to the query q is calculated as the correlation between the vectors that represent them, using measures such as the Euclidian distance or the cosine of the angle between these two vectors. </li></ul>
    27. 28. Latent Semantic Indexing <ul><li>Basic idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar documents have similar word frequencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulty: the size of the term frequency matrix is very large </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use a singular value decomposition (SVD) techniques to reduce the size of frequency table </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retain the K most significant rows of the frequency table </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Method </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Create a term x document weighted frequency matrix A </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SVD construction: A = U * S * V’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Define K and obtain U k , , S k , and V k . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Create query vector q’ . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project q’ into the term-document space: Dq = q’ * U k * S k -1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Calculate similarities: cos α = Dq . D / ||Dq|| * ||D|| </li></ul></ul>
    28. 29. Latent Semantic Indexing (2) Weighted Frequency Matrix Query Terms: - Insulation - Joint
    29. 30. Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Basic assumption: Given a user query, there is a set of documents which contains exactly the relevant documents and no other (ideal answer set) </li></ul><ul><li>Querying process as a process of specifying the properties of an ideal answer set. Since these properties are not known at query time, an initial guess is made </li></ul><ul><li>This initial guess allows the generation of a preliminary probabilistic description of the ideal answer set which is used to retrieve the first set of documents </li></ul><ul><li>An interaction with the user is then initiated with the purpose of improving the probabilistic description of the answer set </li></ul>
    30. 31. Types of Text Data Mining <ul><li>Keyword-based association analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic document classification </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cluster documents by a common author </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cluster documents containing information from a common source </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Link analysis: unusual correlation between entities </li></ul><ul><li>Sequence analysis: predicting a recurring event </li></ul><ul><li>Anomaly detection: find information that violates usual patterns </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertext analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Patterns in anchors/links </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Anchor text correlations with linked objects </li></ul></ul></ul>
    31. 32. Keyword-Based Association Analysis <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collect sets of keywords or terms that occur frequently together and then find the association or correlation relationships among them </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Association Analysis Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preprocess the text data by parsing, stemming, removing stop words, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evoke association mining algorithms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Consider each document as a transaction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>View a set of keywords in the document as a set of items in the transaction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Term level association mining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No need for human effort in tagging documents </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The number of meaningless results and the execution time is greatly reduced </li></ul></ul></ul>
    32. 33. Text Classification <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic classification for the large number of on-line text documents (Web pages, e-mails, corporate intranets, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Classification Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data preprocessing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition of training set and test sets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of the classification model using the selected classification algorithm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Classification model validation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Classification of new/unknown text documents </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Text document classification differs from the classification of relational data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Document databases are not structured according to attribute-value pairs </li></ul></ul>
    33. 34. Text Classification(2) <ul><li>Classification Algorithms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support Vector Machines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>K-Nearest Neighbors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Naïve Bayes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neural Networks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision Trees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Association rule-based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Boosting </li></ul></ul>
    34. 35. Document Clustering <ul><li>Motivation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatically group related documents based on their contents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No predetermined training sets or taxonomies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generate a taxonomy at runtime </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clustering Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data preprocessing: remove stop words, stem, feature extraction, lexical analysis, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hierarchical clustering: compute similarities applying clustering algorithms. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Model-Based clustering (Neural Network Approach): clusters are represented by “exemplars”. (e.g.: SOM) </li></ul></ul>
    35. 36. Text Categorization <ul><li>Pre-given categories and labeled document examples (Categories may form hierarchy) </li></ul><ul><li>Classify new documents </li></ul><ul><li>A standard classification (supervised learning ) problem </li></ul>Categorization System … Sports Business Education Science … Sports Business Education
    36. 37. Applications <ul><li>News article classification </li></ul><ul><li>Automatic email filtering </li></ul><ul><li>Webpage classification </li></ul><ul><li>Word sense disambiguation </li></ul><ul><li>… … </li></ul>
    37. 38. Categorization Methods <ul><li>Manual: Typically rule-based </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does not scale up (labor-intensive, rule inconsistency) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May be appropriate for special data on a particular domain </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Automatic: Typically exploiting machine learning techniques </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vector space model based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Prototype-based (Rocchio) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>K-nearest neighbor (KNN) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decision-tree (learn rules) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Neural Networks (learn non-linear classifier) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Support Vector Machines (SVM) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Probabilistic or generative model based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Naïve Bayes classifier </li></ul></ul></ul>
    38. 39. Vector Space Model <ul><li>Represent a doc by a term vector </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Term: basic concept, e.g., word or phrase </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each term defines one dimension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>N terms define a N-dimensional space </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Element of vector corresponds to term weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., d = (x 1 ,…,x N ), x i is “importance” of term i </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New document is assigned to the most likely category based on vector similarity. </li></ul>
    39. 40. VS Model: Illustration Java Microsoft Starbucks C 2 Category 2 C 1 Category 1 C 3 Category 3 new doc
    40. 41. What VS Model Does Not Specify <ul><li>How to select terms to capture “basic concepts” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Word stopping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. “a”, “the”, “always”, “along” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Word stemming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. “computer”, “computing”, “computerize” => “compute” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Latent semantic indexing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How to assign weights </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not all words are equally important: Some are more indicative than others </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. “algebra” vs. “science” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>How to measure the similarity </li></ul>
    41. 42. How to Assign Weights <ul><li>Two-fold heuristics based on frequency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TF (Term frequency) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More frequent within a document  more relevant to semantics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g., “query” vs. “commercial” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IDF (Inverse document frequency) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Less frequent among documents  more discriminative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. “algebra” vs. “science” </li></ul></ul></ul>
    42. 43. TF Weighting <ul><li>Weighting: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More frequent => more relevant to topic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. “query” vs. “commercial” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Raw TF= f( t,d ): how many times term t appears in doc d </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Normalization: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Document length varies => relative frequency preferred </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g., Maximum frequency normalization </li></ul></ul></ul>
    43. 44. IDF Weighting <ul><li>Ideas: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less frequent among documents  more discriminative </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Formula: </li></ul><ul><li>n — total number of docs k — # docs with term t appearing </li></ul><ul><li>(the DF document frequency) </li></ul>
    44. 45. TF-IDF Weighting <ul><li>TF-IDF weighting : weight(t, d) = TF(t, d) * IDF(t) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Freqent within doc  high tf  high weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selective among docs  high idf  high weight </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recall VS model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each selected term represents one dimension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each doc is represented by a feature vector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Its t -term coordinate of document d is the TF-IDF weight </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This is more reasonable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Just for illustration … </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many complex and more effective weighting variants exist in practice </li></ul></ul>
    45. 46. How to Measure Similarity? <ul><li>Given two document </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity definition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>dot product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>normalized dot product (or cosine) </li></ul></ul>
    46. 47. Illustrative Example text mining travel map search engine govern president congress IDF(faked) 2.4 4.5 2.8 3.3 2.1 5.4 2.2 3.2 4.3 doc1 2(4.8) 1(4.5) 1(2.1) 1(5.4) doc2 1(2.4 ) 2 (5.6) 1(3.3) doc3 1 (2.2) 1(3.2) 1(4.3) newdoc 1(2.4) 1(4.5) To whom is newdoc more similar? doc3 text mining search engine text travel text map travel government president congress doc1 doc2 …… Sim(newdoc,doc1)=4.8*2.4+4.5*4.5 Sim(newdoc,doc2)=2.4*2.4 Sim(newdoc,doc3)=0
    47. 48. VS Model-Based Classifiers <ul><li>What do we have so far? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A feature space with similarity measure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This is a classic supervised learning problem </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Search for an approximation to classification hyper plane </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>VS model based classifiers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-NN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision tree based </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neural networks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support vector machine </li></ul></ul>
    48. 49. Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Main ideas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Category C is modeled as a probability distribution of pre-defined random events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Random events model the process of generating documents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore, how likely a document d belongs to category C is measured through the probability for category C to generate d . </li></ul></ul>
    49. 50. Quick Revisit of Bayes’ Rule Category Hypothesis space: H = {C 1 , …, C n } One document: D As we want to pick the most likely category C*, we can drop p(D) Posterior probability of C i Document model for category C
    50. 51. Probabilistic Model <ul><li>Multi-Bernoulli </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Event: word presence or absence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D = (x 1 , …, x |V| ), x i =1 for presence of word w i ; x i =0 for absence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parameters: {p(w i =1|C), p(w i =0|C)}, p(w i =1|C)+ p(w i =0|C)=1 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multinomial (Language Model) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Event: word selection/sampling </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>D = (n 1 , …, n |V| ), n i : frequency of word w i n=n 1 ,+…+ n |V| </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parameters: {p(w i |C)} p(w 1 |C)+… p(w |v| |C) = 1 </li></ul></ul>
    51. 52. Parameter Estimation <ul><li>Category prior </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-Bernoulli Doc model </li></ul><ul><li>Multinomial doc model </li></ul>Training examples: Vocabulary: V = {w 1 , …, w |V| } C 1 C 2 C k E(C 1 ) E(C k ) E(C 2 )
    52. 53. Classification of New Document Multi-Bernoulli Multinomial
    53. 54. Categorization Methods <ul><li>Vector space model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-NN </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision tree </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neural network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support vector machine </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Probabilistic model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Naïve Bayes classifier </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Many, many others and variants exist [F.S. 02] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. Bim, Nb, Ind, Swap-1, LLSF, Widrow-Hoff, Rocchio, Gis-W, … … </li></ul></ul>
    54. 55. Evaluations <ul><li>Effectiveness measure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classic: Precision & Recall </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Precision </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Recall </li></ul></ul></ul>
    55. 56. Evaluation (con’t) <ul><li>Benchmarks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classic: Reuters collection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A set of newswire stories classified under categories related to economics. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficulties of strict comparison </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>different parameter setting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>different “split” (or selection) between training and testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>various optimizations … … </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However widely recognizable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Best: Boosting-based committee classifier & SVM </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Worst: Naïve Bayes classifier </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to consider other factors, especially efficiency </li></ul></ul>
    56. 57. Summary: Text Categorization <ul><li>Wide application domain </li></ul><ul><li>Comparable effectiveness to professionals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manual TC is not 100% and unlikely to improve substantially. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A.T.C. is growing at a steady pace </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prospects and extensions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Very noisy text, such as text from O.C.R. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speech transcripts </li></ul></ul>
    57. 58. Research Problems in Text Mining <ul><li>Google: what is the next step? </li></ul><ul><li>How to find the pages that match approximately the sohpisticated documents, with incorporation of user-profiles or preferences? </li></ul><ul><li>Look back of Google: inverted indicies </li></ul><ul><li>Construction of indicies for the sohpisticated documents, with incorporation of user-profiles or preferences </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity search of such pages using such indicies </li></ul>
    58. 59. References <ul><li>Fabrizio Sebastiani, “Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization”, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 34, No.1, March 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Soumen Chakrabarti, “Data mining for hypertext: A tutorial survey”, ACM SIGKDD Explorations, 2000. </li></ul><ul><li>Cleverdon, “Optimizing convenient online accesss to bibliographic databases”, Information Survey, Use4, 1, 37-47, 1984 </li></ul><ul><li>Yiming Yang, “An evaluation of statistical approaches to text categorization”, Journal of Information Retrieval, 1:67-88, 1999. </li></ul><ul><li>Yiming Yang and Xin Liu “A re-examination of text categorization methods”. Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'99, pp 42--49), 1999. </li></ul>
    59. 60. Mining Text and Web Data <ul><li>Text mining, natural language processing and information extraction: An Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Text categorization methods </li></ul><ul><li>Mining Web linkage structures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on the slides by Deng Cai </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul>
    60. 61. Outline <ul><li>Background on Web Search </li></ul><ul><li>VIPS (VIsion-based Page Segmentation) </li></ul><ul><li>Block-based Web Search </li></ul><ul><li>Block-based Link Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Web Image Search & Clustering </li></ul>
    61. 62. Search Engine – Two Rank Functions Web Pages Meta Data Forward Index Inverted Index Forward Link Backward Link (Anchor Text) Web Topology Graph Web Page Parser Indexer Anchor Text Generator Web Graph Constructor Importance Ranking (Link Analysis) Rank Functions URL Dictioanry Term Dictionary (Lexicon) Search Relevance Ranking Ranking based on link structure analysis Similarity based on content or text
    62. 63. <ul><li>Inverted index </li></ul><ul><li>- A data structure for supporting text queries </li></ul><ul><li>- like index in a book </li></ul>Relevance Ranking inverted index aalborg 3452, 11437, ….. . . . . . arm 4, 19, 29, 98, 143, ... armada 145, 457, 789, ... armadillo 678, 2134, 3970, ... armani 90, 256, 372, 511, ... . . . . . zz 602, 1189, 3209, ... disks with documents indexing
    63. 64. The PageRank Algorithm <ul><li>More precisely: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Link graph: adjacency matrix A , </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constructs a probability transition matrix M by renormalizing each row of A to sum to 1 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Treat the web graph as a markov chain (random surfer) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The vector of PageRank scores p is then defined to be the stationary distribution of this Markov chain. Equivalently, p is the principal right eigenvector of the transition matrix </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Basic idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>significance of a page is determined by the significance of the pages linking to it </li></ul></ul>
    64. 65. Layout Structure <ul><li>Compared to plain text, a web page is a 2D presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich visual effects created by different term types, formats, separators, blank areas, colors, pictures, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different parts of a page are not equally important </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Title: CNN.com International </li></ul><ul><li>H1: IAEA: Iran had secret nuke agenda </li></ul><ul><li>H3: EXPLOSIONS ROCK BAGHDAD </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul><ul><li>TEXT BODY (with position and font type): The International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that Iran has secretly produced small amounts of nuclear materials including low enriched uranium and plutonium that could be used to develop nuclear weapons according to a confidential report obtained by CNN… </li></ul><ul><li>Hyperlink: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>URL: http://www.cnn.com/ ... </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anchor Text: AI oaeda… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Image: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>URL: http:// www.cnn.com /image/ ... </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alt & Caption: Iran nuclear … </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Anchor Text: CNN Homepage News … </li></ul>
    65. 66. Web Page Block—Better Information Unit Web Page Blocks Importance = Med Importance = Low Importance = High
    66. 67. Motivation for VIPS (VIsion-based Page Segmentation) <ul><li>Problems of treating a web page as an atomic unit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web page usually contains not only pure content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Noise: navigation, decoration, interaction, … </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple topics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different parts of a page are not equally important </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web page has internal structure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two-dimension logical structure & Visual layout presentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>> Free text document </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>< Structured document </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Layout – the 3 rd dimension of Web page </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 st dimension: content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 nd dimension: hyperlink </li></ul></ul>
    67. 68. Is DOM a Good Representation of Page Structure? <ul><li>Page segmentation using DOM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extract structural tags such as P, TABLE, UL, TITLE, H1~H6, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DOM is more related content display, does not necessarily reflect semantic structure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How about XML? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A long way to go to replace the HTML </li></ul></ul>
    68. 69. VIPS Algorithm <ul><li>Motivation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In many cases, topics can be distinguished with visual clues. Such as position, distance, font, color, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goal: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extract the semantic structure of a web page based on its visual presentation. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Procedure: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Top-down partition the web page based on the separators </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Result </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A tree structure, each node in the tree corresponds to a block in the page. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each node will be assigned a value (Degree of Coherence) to indicate how coherent of the content in the block based on visual perception. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each block will be assigned an importance value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hierarchy or flat </li></ul></ul>
    69. 70. VIPS: An Example <ul><li>A hierarchical structure of layout block </li></ul><ul><li>A Degree of Coherence (DOC) is defined for each block </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Show the intra coherence of the block </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DoC of child block must be no less than its parent’s </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Permitted Degree of Coherence (PDOC) can be pre-defined to achieve different granularities for the content structure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The segmentation will stop only when all the blocks’ DoC is no less than PDoC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The smaller the PDoC , the coarser the content structure would be </li></ul></ul>
    70. 71. Example of Web Page Segmentation (1) <ul><li>( DOM Structure ) </li></ul>( VIPS Structure )
    71. 72. Example of Web Page Segmentation (2) <ul><li>Can be applied on web image retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Surrounding text extraction </li></ul></ul>( DOM Structure ) ( VIPS Structure )
    72. 73. Web Page Block—Better Information Unit Web Page Blocks <ul><li>Page Segmentation </li></ul><ul><li>Vision based approach </li></ul><ul><li>Block Importance Modeling </li></ul><ul><li>Statistical learning </li></ul>Importance = Med Importance = Low Importance = High
    73. 74. Block-based Web Search <ul><li>Index block instead of whole page </li></ul><ul><li>Block retrieval </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Combing DocRank and BlockRank </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Block query expansion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Select expansion term from relevant blocks </li></ul></ul>
    74. 75. Experiments <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>TREC 2001 Web Track </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>WT10g corpus (1.69 million pages), crawled at 1997. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>50 queries (topics 501-550) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TREC 2002 Web Track </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>.GOV corpus (1.25 million pages), crawled at 2002. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>49 queries (topics 551-560) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Retrieval System </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Okapi, with weighting function BM2500 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Preprocessing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stop-word list (about 220) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not use stemming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not consider phrase information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tune the b , k 1 and k 3 to achieve the best baseline </li></ul>
    75. 76. Block Retrieval on TREC 2001 and TREC 2002 TREC 2001 Result TREC 2002 Result
    76. 77. Query Expansion on TREC 2001 and TREC 2002 TREC 2001 Result TREC 2002 Result
    77. 78. Block-level Link Analysis C A B
    78. 79. A Sample of User Browsing Behavior
    79. 80. Improving PageRank using Layout Structure <ul><li>Z : block-to-page matrix (link structure) </li></ul><ul><li>X : page-to-block matrix (layout structure) </li></ul><ul><li>Block-level PageRank : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compute PageRank on the page-to-page graph </li></ul></ul><ul><li>BlockRank : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compute PageRank on the block-to-block graph </li></ul></ul>
    80. 81. Using Block-level PageRank to Improve Search Block-level PageRank achieves 15-25% improvement over PageRank (SIGIR’04) PageRank Block-level PageRank Search =  IR_Score + (1-  PageRank 
    81. 82. Mining Web Images Using Layout & Link Structure (ACMMM’04)
    82. 83. Image Graph Model & Spectral Analysis <ul><li>Block-to-block graph : </li></ul><ul><li>Block-to-image matrix (container relation): Y </li></ul><ul><li>Image-to-image graph: </li></ul><ul><li>ImageRank </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compute PageRank on the image graph </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Image clustering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Graphical partitioning on the image graph </li></ul></ul>
    83. 84. ImageRank <ul><li>Relevance Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Importance Ranking </li></ul><ul><li>Combined Ranking </li></ul>
    84. 85. ImageRank vs. PageRank <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>26.5 millions web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>11.6 millions images </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Query set </li></ul><ul><ul><li>45 hot queries in Google image search statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ground truth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Five volunteers were chosen to evaluate the top 100 results re-turned by the system (iFind) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ranking method </li></ul>
    85. 86. ImageRank vs PageRank <ul><li>Image search accuracy using ImageRank and PageRank. Both of them achieved their best results at  =0.25. </li></ul>
    86. 87. Example on Image Clustering & Embedding 1710 JPG images in 1287 pages are crawled within the website http:// www.yahooligans.com /content/animals/ Six Categories Fish Bird Mammal Reptile Amphibian Insect
    87. 89. 2-D embedding of WWW images The image graph was constructed from block level link analysis The image graph was constructed from traditional page level link analysis
    88. 90. 2-D Embedding of Web Images <ul><li>2-D visualization of the mammal category using the second and third eigenvectors. </li></ul>
    89. 91. Web Image Search Result Presentation <ul><li>Two different topics in the search result </li></ul><ul><li>A possible solution: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cluster search results into different semantic groups </li></ul></ul>Figure 1. Top 8 returns of query “pluto” in Google’s image search engine (a) and AltaVista’s image search engine (b) (a) (b)
    90. 92. Three kinds of WWW image representation <ul><li>Visual Feature Based Representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional CBIR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Textual Feature Based Representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Surrounding text in image block </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Link Graph Based Representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Image graph embedding </li></ul></ul>
    91. 93. Hierarchical Clustering <ul><li>Clustering based on three representations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual feature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to reflect the semantic meaning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Textual feature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sometimes the surrounding text is too little </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Link graph: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Semantic </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Many disconnected sub-graph (too many clusters) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Steps: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using texts and link information to get semantic clusters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For each cluster, using visual feature to re-organize the images to facilitate user’s browsing </li></ul></ul>
    92. 94. Our System <ul><li>Dataset </li></ul><ul><ul><li>26.5 millions web pages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Visual_Arts/Photography/Museums_and_Galleries/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>11.6 millions images </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Filter images whose ratio between width and height are greater than 5 or smaller than 1/5 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Removed images whose width and height are both smaller than 60 pixels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Analyze pages and index images </li></ul><ul><ul><li>VIPS: Pages  Blocks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Surrounding texts used to index images </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An illustrative example </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Query “Pluto” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Top 500 results </li></ul></ul>
    93. 95. Clustering Using Visual Feature <ul><li>From the perspectives of color and texture, the clustering results are quite good. Different clusters have different colors and textures. However, from semantic perspective, these clusters make little sense. </li></ul>Figure 5 . F ive clusters of search results of query “pluto” using low level visual feature. Each row is a cluster.
    94. 96. Clustering Using Textual Feature <ul><li>Six semantic categories are correctly identified if we choose k = 6. </li></ul>Figure 7. Six clusters of search results of query “pluto” using textual feature. Each row is a cluster Figure 6. The Eigengap curve with k for the “pluto” case using textual representation
    95. 97. Clustering Using Graph Based Representation <ul><li>Each cluster is semantically aggregated. </li></ul><ul><li>Too many clusters. </li></ul><ul><li>In “pluto” case, the top 500 results are clustered into 167 clusters. The max cluster number is 87, and there are 112 clusters with only one image. </li></ul>Figure 8. Five clusters of search results of query “pluto” using image link graph. Each row is a cluster
    96. 98. Combining Textual Feature and Link Graph <ul><li>Combine two affinity matrix </li></ul>Figure 9. Six clusters of search results of query “pluto” using combination of textual feature and image link graph. Each row is a cluster Figure 10. The Eigengap curve with k for the “pluto” case using textual and link combination
    97. 99. Final Presentation of Our System <ul><li>Using textual and link information to get some semantic clusters </li></ul><ul><li>Use low level visual feature to cluster (re-organize) each semantic cluster to facilitate user’s browsing </li></ul>
    98. 100. Summary <ul><li>More improvement on web search can be made by mining webpage Layout structure </li></ul><ul><li>Leverage visual cues for web information analysis & information extraction </li></ul><ul><li>Demos: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~dengcai2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Papers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>VIPS demo & dll </li></ul></ul></ul>
    99. 101. References <ul><li>Deng Cai, Shipeng Yu, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Extracting Content Structure for Web Pages based on Visual Representation”, The Fifth Asia Pacific Web Conference, 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>Deng Cai, Shipeng Yu, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “VIPS: a Vision-based Page Segmentation Algorithm”, Microsoft Technical Report (MSR-TR-2003-79), 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>Shipeng Yu, Deng Cai, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Improving Pseudo-Relevance Feedback in Web Information Retrieval Using Web Page Segmentation”, 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003), May 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>Ruihua Song, Haifeng Liu, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Learning Block Importance Models for Web Pages”, 13th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2004), May 2004. </li></ul><ul><li>Deng Cai, Shipeng Yu, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Block-based Web Search”, SIGIR 2004, July 2004 . </li></ul><ul><li>Deng Cai, Xiaofei He, Ji-Rong Wen and Wei-Ying Ma, “Block-Level Link Analysis”, SIGIR 2004, July 2004 . </li></ul><ul><li>Deng Cai, Xiaofei He, Wei-Ying Ma, Ji-Rong Wen and Hong-Jiang Zhang, “Organizing WWW Images Based on The Analysis of Page Layout and Web Link Structure”, The IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and EXPO (ICME'2004) , June 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Deng Cai, Xiaofei He, Zhiwei Li, Wei-Ying Ma and Ji-Rong Wen, “Hierarchical Clustering of WWW Image Search Results Using Visual, Textual and Link Analysis”,12th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Oct. 2004 . </li></ul>
    100. 102. www.cs.uiuc.edu/~hanj <ul><li>Thank you !!! </li></ul>

    ×