1 / 25

Question Answering over Implicitly Structured Web Content

Question Answering over Implicitly Structured Web Content. Eugene Agichtein* Emory University Chris Burges Microsoft Research Eric Brill Microsoft Research * Research done while at Microsoft Research. Questions are Problematic for Web Search.

wing-zimmerman
Download Presentation

Question Answering over Implicitly Structured Web Content

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Question Answering over Implicitly Structured Web Content Eugene Agichtein* Emory University Chris Burges Microsoft Research Eric Brill Microsoft Research * Research done while at Microsoft Research

  2. Questions are Problematic for Web Search • What was the name of president Fillmore’s cat? • Who invented crocs? • … Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  3. Web search: What was the name of president Fillmore’s cat? Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  4. Web Question Answering Why are questions problematic for web search engines? • Search engines treat questions as keyword queries, ignoring the semantic relationships between words, and the explicitly stated information need • Poor performance for long (> 5 terms) queries • Problem exacerbated when common keywords are included Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  5. … and millions more of other tables and lists … Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  6. Implicitly Structured Web Content • HTML Tables, Lists • Product descriptions • Example: Lists of favorite things, “top 10” lists, etc. • HTML Syntax (sometimes) reflects semantics • Authors imply semantic relationships, entity types by grouping • Can infer information about ambiguous entities from others in the same column • Millions of HTML tables, lists on the “surface” web alone • No common schema • Keyword queries: primary access method. • How to exploit this structured content for good (e.g., for Question Answering) at web scale? Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  7. Related Work • Web Question Answering • AskMSR (TREC 2001)  Aranea (TREC 2003) • Mulder (WWW 2001) • A No-Frills Architecture for Lightweight Answer Retrieval (WWW 2007) • Web-scale Information Extraction • QXtract (ICDE 2003): learn keyword queries to retrieve content • KnowItAll (WWW 2004): minimal supervision, larger scale • TextRunner (IJCAI 2007): single pass scan, disambiguate at query time • Towards Domain-Independent Information Extraction from Web Tables (WWW 2007) Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  8. Our System TQA: Overview • Indexall promising HTML tables • Translate a question into select/project query • Select table rows, project candidate answers • Rank candidate answers • Return top K answers Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  9. TableQA: Indexing • Crawl the Web • Identify “promising” tables (heuristic, could be improved) • Extract metadata for each table • Context • Document content • Document metadata • Index extracted metadata Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  10. Table Metadata Combines information about the source document, and table context Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  11. TQA Question Processing Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  12. Table QA: Querying Overview Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  13. Features for Ranking Candidate Answers Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  14. Ranking Answer Candidates • Frequency-based (AskMSR): • Heuristic weight assignment (AskMSR improved) • Neither is robust or general Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  15. Ranking Answer Candidates (cont) • Solution: machine learning-based ranking • Naïve Bayes: Score(answer) = • RankNet(Burges et al. 2005):scalable Neural Net implementation: • Optimized for ranking– predicting an ordering of items, not scores for each • Trains on pairs (where first point is to be ranked higher or equal to second) • Uses cross entropy costandgradient descent to set weights Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  16. Some Implementation Details • Lucene, distributed indices (20M tables per index) • NLP Tools: • MS internal Named Entity tagger (many free ones exist) • Porter Stemmer • Relatively light-weight architecture: • Client (question processing): desktop machine • Table index server: dual-processor, 8 Gb RAM, WinNT Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  17. Experimental Setup • Queries: TREC QA 2002, 2003 questions • Corpus: 100M web pages (a “random” subset of an MSN Search crawl, from 2005) • Evaluation: TREC QA factoid patterns • “Minimal” regular expressions to match only right answers • Not comprehensive (based on judgement pool) Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  18. Evaluation Metrics • MRR (mean reciprocal rank): • MRR @ K = , averaged over all questions • Recall @ K: • The fraction of the questions for which a system returned a correct answer ranked at or above K. Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  19. Results (1): Accuracy vs. Corpus Size Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  20. Results (2): Comparing Ranking Methods If output consumed by another system, large K ok Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  21. Results (3): Accuracy on Hard Questions • TQA can retrieve answer in top 100 when best QA system not able to return any answer Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  22. Result Summary • Requires indexing more than 150M tables before respectable accuracy achieved • Performance was around median on TREC 2002, 2003 benchmarks • Can be helpful for questions difficult for traditional QA systems Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  23. Promising Directions for Future Work • Craw-time: aggressive pruning/classification • Index-time: Integration of related tables • Query-time: taxonomies integration/hypernimy • User behavior modeling • Past clickthrough to rerank candidate tables, answers • Query reformulation Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  24. Conclusions • Implicitly structured web content can be useful for web question answering • We demonstrated scalability of a lightweight table-based web QA approach • Much room for improvement, future research Agichtein et al., WI 2007

  25. Thank you! Questions? E-mail: eugene@mathcs.emory.edu Plug: User Interactions for Web Question Answering: http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~eugene/uqa/ • E. Agichtein, E. Brill, S. Dumais, Mining user behavior to improve web search ranking, SIGIR 2006 • E. Agichtein, User Behavior Mining and Information Extraction: Towards closing the gap, IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, Dec. 2006 • E. Agichtein, C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, and G. Mishne, Finding High Quality Content in Social Media with applications to Community-based Question Answering, to appear WSDM 2008 Agichtein et al., WI 2007

More Related