So, I'll be storing millions of sentences in a database each with an author. I need to be able to efficiently search for a sentence and return the author. Now, I'd like to be able to mispell a word or forget a word or two in this sentence, and have the application still be able to match (fuzzy-esque). Can anyone point me in the right direction? How does google do this? Because I can search for lyrics on google for instance and it will return the song with the lyrics? I'm looking to do the same thing?
Thanks all.
If fuzzy makes things too complicated, then I can deal with just an efficient sentence search.
If you're writing in Java, you can try Lucene.
Shouldn't it really be "document" and author instead of individual sentences?
For full text search check inverted index data structure.
This is how search engines do it
samples of code
UPDATE:
also if you're working on a distributed system check Hadoop - open source alternative for Goolge's MapReduce
Full Text Indexing on SQL Server or Oracle will most likey be what you're after right out of the box. They can go fuzzy, use word roots and other clever stuff.
I can't comment on other DB engines though a quick google shows most will have something similar. For some reason I expect them to be more limited in the fuzziness.
Indeed fuzzy matching is not a simple thing to do, although some databases implement some kind of fuzzy search, depending on the method used and your data, your results may vary. Here's a link that explains fuzzy searches in SQL sever
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163731.aspx
As for the sentence search, most db engines implement full text search/indexing that you may want to look at... It comes with trade offs in terms of performance and storage, but you may want to look at it
How does google do this?
Using inverted indexes. The details are proprietary, but you can bet your last dollars that there is a lot of replication and storing of the indexes, etc in memory so that they can handle the vast number of search requests they get per second.
A new project with some interesting requirements has arrived on my desk. I need to develop a searchable directory of businesses, with a focus on delivering relevant results based on arbitrary search queries. The businesses can be of any niche; there's no one area that is more represented than another.
When googling for things like "search algorithm" or "content relevance algorithm," all I get are references to Google's "Mystical Algorithm of the Old Gods" and SEO firms.
Does the relevance value of MySQL's full text Match() function have what it takes for the task? I've never used it, but I'm definitely going to do some testing. Also, since this will largely be a human edited directory, I can assume that we can add weighted factors like tagging and categories. What would be a good way to combine these factors with MySQL's Match() relevancy?
I'm also open to ideas that I've not discussed here.
For an example of information retrieval based techniques lookup TF-IDF or BM25.
For machine learning based techniques, lookup RankNet and its variants from MSR.
If you have hand edited data, have a look at Oracle text search. In one of my previous projects we had some good results.
I was not directly involved in the database setups, but I know that the results were very welcome. (Before this they had just keyword based search).
Use a search engine like Solr to index the data. You can still use MySql to hold the data, but for searches use a search engine.
Given a few words of input, I want to have a utility that will return a diverse set of relevant terms, phrases, or concepts. A caveat is that it would need to have a large graph of terms to begin with, or else the feature would not be very useful.
For example, submitting "baseball" would return
["shortstop", "Babe Ruth", "foul ball", "steroids", ... ]
Google Sets is the best example I can find of this kind of feature, but I can't use it since they have no public API (and I wont go against their TOS). Also, single-word input doesn't garner a very diverse set of results. I'm looking for a solution that goes off on tangents.
The closest I've experimented with is using WikiPedia's API to search Categories and Backlinks, but there's no way to directly sort those results by "relevance" or "popularity". Without that, the suggestion list is massive and all over the place, which is not immediately useful and very hard to whittle down.
Using A Thesaurus could also work minimally, but that would leave out any proper nouns or tangentially relevant terms (like any of the results listed above).
I would happily reuse an open service, if one exists, but I haven't found anything sufficient.
I'm looking for either a way to implement this either in-house with a decently-populated starting set, or reuse a free service that offers this.
Have a solution? Thanks ahead of time!
UPDATE: Thank you for the incredibly dense & informative answers. I'll choose a winning answer in 6 to 12 months, when I'll hopefully understand what you've all suggested =)
You might be interested in WordNet. It takes a bit of linguistic knowledge to understand the API, but basically the system is a database of meaning-based links between English words, which is more or less what you're searching for. I'm sure I can dig up more information if you want it.
Peter Norvig (director of research at Google) spoke about how they do this at Google (specifically mentioning Google Sets) in a Facebook Tech Talk. The idea is that a relatively simple algorithm on a huge dataset (e.g. the entire web) is much better than a complicated algorithm on a small data set.
You could look at Google's n-gram collection as a starting point. You'd start to see what concepts are grouped together. Norvig hinted that internally Google has up to 7-grams for use in things like Google Translate.
If you're more ambitious, you could download all of Wikipedia's articles in the language you desire and create your own n-gram database.
The problem is even more complicated if you just have a single word; check out this recent thesis for more details on word sense disambiguation.
It's not an easy problem, but it is useful as you mentioned. In the end, I think you'll find that a really successful implementation will have a relatively simple algorithm and a whole lot of data.
Take a look at the following two papers:
Clustering User Queries of a Search Engine [pdf]
Topic Detection by Clustering Keywords [pdf]
Here is my attempt at a very simplified explanation:
If we have a database of past user queries, we can define a similarity function between two queries. For example: number of words in common. Now for each query in our database, we compute its similarity with each other query, and remember the k most similar queries. The non-overlapping words from these can be returned as "related terms".
We can also take this approach with a database of documents containing information users might be searching for. We can define the similarity between two search terms as the number of documents containing both divided by the number of documents containing either. To decide which terms to test, we can scan the documents and throw out words that are either too common ('and', 'the', etc.) or that are too obscure.
If our data permits, then we could see which queries led users to choosing which results, instead of comparing documents by content. For example if we had data that showed us that users searching for "Celtics" and "Lakers" both ended up clicking on espn.com, then we could call these related terms.
If you're starting from scratch with no data about past user queries, then you can try Wikipedia, or the Bag of Words dataset as a database of documents. If you are looking for a database of user search terms and results, and if you are feeling adventurous, then you can take a look at the AOL Search Data.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been developing an internal website for a portfolio management tool. There is a lot of text data, company names etc. I've been really impressed with some search engines ability to very quickly respond to queries with "Did you mean: xxxx".
I need to be able to intelligently take a user query and respond with not only raw search results but also with a "Did you mean?" response when there is a highly likely alternative answer etc
[I'm developing in ASP.NET (VB - don't hold it against me! )]
UPDATE:
OK, how can I mimic this without the millions of 'unpaid users'?
Generate typos for each 'known' or 'correct' term and perform lookups?
Some other more elegant method?
Here's the explanation directly from the source ( almost )
Search 101!
at min 22:03
Worth watching!
Basically and according to Douglas Merrill former CTO of Google it is like this:
1) You write a ( misspelled ) word in google
2) You don't find what you wanted ( don't click on any results )
3) You realize you misspelled the word so you rewrite the word in the search box.
4) You find what you want ( you click in the first links )
This pattern multiplied millions of times, shows what are the most common misspells and what are the most "common" corrections.
This way Google can almost instantaneously, offer spell correction in every language.
Also this means if overnight everyone start to spell night as "nigth" google would suggest that word instead.
EDIT
#ThomasRutter: Douglas describe it as "statistical machine learning".
They know who correct the query, because they know which query comes from which user ( using cookies )
If the users perform a query, and only 10% of the users click on a result and 90% goes back and type another query ( with the corrected word ) and this time that 90% clicks on a result, then they know they have found a correction.
They can also know if those are "related" queries of two different, because they have information of all the links they show.
Furthermore, they are now including the context into the spell check, so they can even suggest different word depending on the context.
See this demo of google wave ( # 44m 06s ) that shows how the context is taken into account to automatically correct the spelling.
Here it is explained how that natural language processing works.
And finally here is an awesome demo of what can be done adding automatic machine translation ( # 1h 12m 47s ) to the mix.
I've added anchors of minute and seconds to the videos to skip directly to the content, if they don't work, try reloading the page or scrolling by hand to the mark.
I found this article some time ago: How to Write a Spelling Corrector, written by Peter Norvig (Director of Research at Google Inc.).
It's an interesting read about the "spelling correction" topic. The examples are in Python but it's clear and simple to understand, and I think that the algorithm can be easily
translated to other languages.
Below follows a short description of the algorithm.
The algorithm consists of two steps, preparation and word checking.
Step 1: Preparation - setting up the word database
Best is if you can use actual search words and their occurence.
If you don't have that a large set of text can be used instead.
Count the occurrence (popularity) of each word.
Step 2. Word checking - finding words that are similar to the one checked
Similar means that the edit distance is low (typically 0-1 or 0-2). The edit distance is the minimum number of inserts/deletes/changes/swaps needed to transform one word to another.
Choose the most popular word from the previous step and suggest it as a correction (if other than the word itself).
For the theory of "did you mean" algorithm you can refer to Chapter 3 of Introduction to Information Retrieval. It is available online for free. Section 3.3 (page 52) exactly answers your question. And to specifically answer your update you only need a dictionary of words and nothing else (including millions of users).
Hmm... I thought that google used their vast corpus of data (the internet) to do some serious NLP (Natural Language Processing).
For example, they have so much data from the entire internet that they can count the number of times a three-word sequence occurs (known as a trigram). So if they see a sentence like: "pink frugr concert", they could see it has few hits, then find the most likely "pink * concert" in their corpus.
They apparently just do a variation of what Davide Gualano was saying, though, so definitely read that link. Google does of course use all web-pages it knows as a corpus, so that makes its algorithm particularly effective.
My guess is that they use a combination of a Levenshtein distance algorithm and the masses of data they collect regarding the searches that are run. They could pull a set of searches that have the shortest Levenshtein distance from the entered search string, then pick the one with the most results.
Normally a production spelling corrector utilizes several methodologies to provide a spelling suggestion. Some are:
Decide on a way to determine whether spelling correction is required. These may include insufficient results, results which are not specific or accurate enough (according to some measure), etc. Then:
Use a large body of text or a dictionary, where all, or most are known to be correctly spelled. These are easily found online, in places such as LingPipe. Then to determine the best suggestion you look for a word which is the closest match based on several measures. The most intuitive one is similar characters. What has been shown through research and experimentation is that two or three character sequence matches work better. (bigrams and trigrams). To further improve results, weigh a higher score upon a match at the beginning, or end of the word. For performance reasons, index all these words as trigrams or bigrams, so that when you are performing a lookup, you convert to n-gram, and lookup via hashtable or trie.
Use heuristics related to potential keyboard mistakes based on character location. So that "hwllo" should be "hello" because 'w' is close to 'e'.
Use a phonetic key (Soundex, Metaphone) to index the words and lookup possible corrections. In practice this normally returns worse results than using n-gram indexing, as described above.
In each case you must select the best correction from a list. This may be a distance metric such as levenshtein, the keyboard metric, etc.
For a multi-word phrase, only one word may be misspelled, in which case you can use the remaining words as context in determining a best match.
Use Levenshtein distance, then create a Metric Tree (or Slim tree) to index words.
Then run a 1-Nearest Neighbour query, and you got the result.
Google apparently suggests queries with best results, not with those which are spelled correctly. But in this case, probably a spell-corrector would be more feasible, Of course you could store some value for every query, based on some metric of how good results it returns.
So,
You need a dictionary (english or based on your data)
Generate a word trellis and calculate probabilities for the transitions using your dictionary.
Add a decoder to calculate minimum error distance using your trellis. Of course you should take care of insertions and deletions when calculating distances. Fun thing is that QWERTY keyboard maximizes the distance if you hit keys close to each other.(cae would turn car, cay would turn cat)
Return the word which has the minimum distance.
Then you could compare that to your query database and check if there is better results for other close matches.
Here is the best answer I found, Spelling corrector implemented and described by Google's Director of Research Peter Norvig.
If you want to read more about the theory behind this, you can read his book chapter.
The idea of this algorithm is based on statistical machine learning.
I saw something on this a few years back, so may have changed since, but apparently they started it by analysing their logs for the same users submitting very similar queries in a short space of time, and used machine learning based on how users had corrected themselves.
As a guess... it could
search for words
if it is not found use some algorithm to try to "guess" the word.
Could be something from AI like Hopfield network or back propagation network, or something else "identifying fingerprints", restoring broken data, or spelling corrections as Davide mentioned already ...
Simple. They have tons of data. They have statistics for every possible term, based on how often it is queried, and what variations of it usually yield results the users click... so, when they see you typed a frequent misspelling for a search term, they go ahead and propose the more usual answer.
Actually, if the misspelling is in effect the most frequent searched term, the algorythm will take it for the right one.
regarding your question how to mimic the behavior without having tons of data - why not use tons of data collected by google? Download the google sarch results for the misspelled word and search for "Did you mean:" in the HTML.
I guess that's called mashup nowadays :-)
Apart from the above answers, in case you want to implement something by yourself quickly, here is a suggestion -
Algorithm
You can find the implementation and detailed documentation of this algorithm on GitHub.
Create a Priority Queue with a comparator.
Create a Ternay Search Tree and insert all english words (from Norvig's post) along with their frequencies.
Start traversing the TST and for every word encountered in TST, calculate its Levenshtein Distance(LD) from input_word
If LD ≤ 3 then put it in a Priority Queue.
At Last extract 10 words from the Priority Queue and display.
You mean to say spell checker? If it is a spell checker rather than a whole phrase then I've got a link about the spell checking where the algorithm is developed in python. Check this link
Meanwhile, I am also working on project that includes searching databases using text. I guess this would solve your problem
This is an old question, and I'm surprised that nobody suggested the OP using Apache Solr.
Apache Solr is a full text search engine that besides many other functionality also provides spellchecking or query suggestions. From the documentation:
By default, the Lucene Spell checkers sort suggestions first by the
score from the string distance calculation and second by the frequency
(if available) of the suggestion in the index.
There is a specific data structure - ternary search tree - that naturally supports partial matches and near-neighbor matches.
Easiest way to figure it out is to Google dynamic programming.
It's an algorithm that's been borrowed from Information Retrieval and is used heavily in modern day bioinformatics to see how similiar two gene sequences are.
Optimal solution uses dynamic programming and recursion.
This is a very solved problem with lots of solutions. Just google around until you find some open source code.
When developing a database of articles in a Knowledge Base (for example) - what are the best ways to sort and display the most relevant answers to a users' question?
Would you use additional data such as keyword weighting based on whether previous users found the article of help, or do you find a simple keyword matching algorithm to be sufficient?
Perhaps the easiest and most naive approach that will give immediately useful results would be to implement *tf-idf:
Variations of the tf–idf weighting scheme are often used by search engines as a central tool in scoring and ranking a document's relevance given a user query. tf–idf can be successfully used for stop-words filtering in various subject fields including text summarization and classification.
In a recent related question of mine here I learned of an excellent free book on this topic which you can download or read online:
An Introduction to Information Retrieval
That's a hard question, and companies like Google are pushing a lot of efforts to address this question. Have a look at Google Enterprise Search Appliance or Exalead Enterprise Search.
Then, as a personal opinion, I don't think that any "naive" approach is going to improve much the result compared to naive keyword search and ordering by the number of views on the documents.
If you have the possibility to expose your knowledge base to the web, then, just do it, and let your favorite search engine handles the search for you.
I think the angle here is not the retrieval itself... its about scoring the relevence of the information retrieved (A more reactive and passive approach) which can be later used to improve the search engine.
I guess you can try -
knn on tfidf for retrieving information
Hand tagging these retrieved info a relevency score
Then regress that score to predict the score for an unknwon search result and sort it.
Just a thought...
The third point is actually based on Rocchio algorithm. You can see it here
A little more specificity of your exact problem would be good. There are a lot of different techniques that you can use. Many of these are driven by other pieces of data. You can of course use Lucene and build your own indexes. There are bindings for many languages to lucene. Moving up there is also the Solr project which is Lucene with a lot of tools and extra functionality around it. That may be more along the lines of what you are looking for.
Intent is tricky and most modern search engines rely on statistical intent to aid in the ordering of results. You can always have an is this article useful button and store the query text that leads to useful documents. You could then add a layer of information to the index to boost specific words or phrases and help them point to certain documents.
Some things to think about...How many documents? What is the average length? Are they updated frequently? What do users do with the documents? What does the spread of unique words to documents look like? (More simply is it easy to match a query with a specific document(s) based on common unique features.)
If it is on the web you can always make a google custom search engine that just searches your site although you may find this to be sub-optimal for a variety of reasons.
You can always start with a simple index and gradually make it more sophisticated by talking with users and capturing data.
keyword matching is not enough when dealing with questions, you need to understand intent, as joannes say a very hot topic in search