Introduction to

Information Retrieval
Introducing Information Retrieval
and Web Search
 Information Retrieval
• Information Retrieval (IR) is finding material
(usually documents) of an unstructured nature
(usually text) that satisfies an information need
from within large collections (usually stored on
computers).

– These days we frequently think first of web search,

but there are many other cases:
• E-mail search
• Searching your laptop
• Corporate knowledge bases
• Legal information retrieval

2
Unstructured (text) vs. structured (database)
data in the mid-nineties

3
Unstructured (text) vs. structured (database)
data today

4
 Sec. 1.1

Basic assumptions of Information Retrieval

• Collection: A set of documents

– Assume it is a static collection for the moment

• Goal: Retrieve documents with information

that is relevant to the user’s information need
and helps the user complete a task

5
 The classic search model
User task Get rid of mice in a
politically correct way
Misconception?

Info need
Info about removing
mice
without killing them
Misformulation?

Query
how trap mice alive Search

Search
engine

Query Results
Collection
refinement
 Sec. 1.1

How good are the retrieved docs?

▪ Precision : Fraction of retrieved docs that are
relevant to the user’s information need
▪ Recall : Fraction of relevant docs in collection
that are retrieved

7
Introduction to
Information Retrieval
Term-document incidence matrices
 Sec. 1.1

Unstructured data in 1620

• One could grep all of Shakespeare’s plays for Brutus

and Caesar, then strip out lines containing Calpurnia?
• Why is that not the answer?
– Slow (for large corpora)
– Roman near countrymen is not trival (position of terms)
– Repeat linear scan with each query(too long time)
– Ranked retrieval (best documents to return)
9
 Sec. 1.1

Term-document incidence matrices

Brutus AND Caesar BUT 1 if play contains

NOT Calpurnia word, 0 otherwise
 Sec. 1.1

Incidence vectors
• So we have a 0/1 vector for each term.
• To answer query: take the vectors for Brutus,
Caesar and Calpurnia (complemented)
bitwise AND.
– 110100 AND
– 110111 AND
– 101111 =
– 100100

11
 Sec. 1.1

Answers to query

• Antony and Cleopatra, Act III, Scene ii

Agrippa [Aside to DOMITIUS ENOBARBUS]: Why, Enobarbus,
When Antony found Julius Caesar dead,
He cried almost to roaring; and he wept
When at Philippi he found Brutus slain.

• Hamlet, Act III, Scene ii

Lord Polonius: I did enact Julius Caesar I was killed i’ the
Capitol; Brutus killed me.

12
 Sec. 1.1

Bigger collections

13
 Sec. 1.1

Can’t build the matrix

• 500K x 1M matrix has half-a-trillion 0’s and 1’s.

• But it has no more than one billion 1’s Why?

• (1000*1million).
– matrix is extremely sparse (“most of entries are
0” 99.8%).
• What’s a better representation?
– We only record the 1 positions.

14
Introduction to
Information Retrieval
The Inverted Index
The key data structure underlying
modern IR
 Sec. 1.2

Inverted index
• For each term t, we must store a list of all
documents that contain t.
– Identify each doc by a docID, a document serial
number
• Can we used fixed-size arrays for this?
Brutus 1 2 4 1 3 4 173 174
1 1 5
Caesar 1 2 4 5 6 1 5 132
6 7
Calpurnia 2 31 54 101
What happens if the word Caesar
is added to document 14?
16
 Sec. 1.2

Inverted index
• We need variable-size postings lists
– On disk, a continuous run of postings is normal
and best
– In memory, can use linked lists or variable length
arrays Posting
• Some tradeoffs in size/ease of insertion
Brutus 1 2 4 1 3 4 173 174
1 1 5
Caesar 1 2 4 5 6 1 5 132
6 7
Calpurnia 2 3 54 101
1
Dictionary Postings
Sorted by docID (more later on why).
17
 Sec. 1.2

Inverted index construction

Documents Friends, Romans, countrymen.
to
be indexed
Tokenizer
Friend
Token stream Romans Countrymen
s

Linguistic modules
countryma
Modified tokens friend roman
n

Indexer friend 2 4
roman 1 2
Inverted
index countryman 1 1
 Initial stages of text processing
• Tokenization
– Cut character sequence into word tokens
• Deal with “John’s”, a state-of-the-art solution
• Normalization
– Map text and query term to same form
• You want U.S.A. and USA to match
• Stemming
– We may wish different forms of a root to match
• authorize, authorization
• Stop words
– We may omit very common words (or not)
• the, a, to, of
 Sec. 1.2

Indexer steps: Token sequence

• Sequence of (Modified token, Document ID) pairs.

Doc Doc
1 2
I did enact Julius So let it be with
Caesar I was killed Caesar. The noble
i’ the Capitol; Brutus hath told you
Brutus killed me. Caesar was ambitious
 Sec. 1.2

Indexer steps: Sort

• Sort by terms
– And then docID

Core indexing step

 Sec. 1.2

Indexer steps: Dictionary & Postings

• Multiple term entries
in a single document
are merged.
• Split into Dictionary
and Postings
• Doc. frequency
information is added.
 Sec. 1.2

Where do we pay in storage?

Lists of
docIDs

Terms
and
counts
IR system
implementation
• How do we index
efficiently?
• How much storage
do we need?

Pointers 23
Introduction to
Information Retrieval
Query processing with an inverted index
 Sec. 1.3

The index we just built

• How do we process a query? Our focus

– Later - what kinds of queries can we process?

25
 Sec. 1.3

Query processing: AND

• Consider processing the query:
Brutus AND Caesar
– Locate Brutus in the Dictionary;
• Retrieve its postings.
– Locate Caesar in the Dictionary;
• Retrieve its postings.
– “Merge” the two postings (intersect the
document2 sets):
4 8 1 3 6 128 Brutu
6 2 4
1 2 3 5 8 1 2 34 s
Caesa
3 1 r
26
Intersecting two postings lists
(a “merge” algorithm)

27
 Sec. 1.3

The merge
• Walk through the two postings
simultaneously, in time linear in the total
number of postings entries
2 4 8 1 3 6 1 Brut
6 2 4 2 us
Caes
1 2 3 5 8 1 2 3
8 ar
3 1 4

28
Introduction to
Information Retrieval
The Boolean Retrieval Model
& Extended Boolean Models
 Sec. 2.4

Phrase queries
• We want to be able to answer queries such as
“stanford university” – as a phrase
• Thus the sentence “I went to university at
Stanford” is not a match.
– The concept of phrase queries has proven easily
understood by users; one of the few “advanced
search” ideas that works
• For this, it no longer suffices to store only
<term : docs> entries
 Sec. 2.4.1

A first attempt: Biword indexes

• Index every consecutive pair of terms in the text
as a phrase
• For example the text “Friends, Romans,
Countrymen” would generate the biwords
– friends romans
– romans countrymen
• Each of these biwords is now a dictionary term
• Two-word phrase query-processing is now
immediate.
 Sec. 2.4.1

Longer phrase queries

• Longer phrases can be processed by breaking
them down
• stanford university palo alto can be broken
into the Boolean query on biwords:
stanford university AND university palo AND
palo alto
• Although its find in a doc but indifferent
places ”not as the pharse”
Can have false positives!
 Sec. 2.4.1

Issues for biword indexes

• False positives, as noted before
• Index blowup due to bigger dictionary
– Infeasible for more than biwords, big even for
them
• Biword indexes are not the standard solution
(for all biwords) but can be part of a
compound strategy
 Sec. 2.4.2

Solution 2: Positional indexes

• In the postings, store, for each term the
position(s) in which tokens of it appear:

<term, number of docs containing term;

doc1: position1, position2 … ;
doc2: position1, position2 … ;
etc.>
 Sec. 2.4.2

Positional index example

<be: 993427;
1: 7, 18, 33, 72, 86, 231;
Which of docs 1,2,4,5
2: 3, 149; could contain “to be
4: 17, 191, 291, 430, 434; or not to be”?

5: 363, 367, …>

• For biword phrase queries, we use a merge
algorithm(phrase in query with dictionary)
recursively at the document level
• But we now need to deal with more than just
equality
 Sec. 2.4.2

Processing a phrase query

• Extract inverted index entries for each distinct
term: to, be, or, not.
• Merge their doc:position lists to enumerate all
positions with “to be or not to be”.
– to:
• 2:1,17,74,222,551; 4:8,16,190,429,433; 7:13,23,191; ...
– be:
• 1:17,19; 4:17,191,291,430,434; 5:14,19,101; ...
 Sec. 2.4.2

Rules of thumb
• A positional index is 2–4 as large as a non-
positional index

• Positional index size 35–50% of volume of

original text

– Caveat: all of this holds for “English-like”

languages
 Sec. 2.4.3

Combination schemes
• These two approaches can be profitably
combined
– For particular phrases (“Michael Jackson”, “Britney
Spears”) it is inefficient to keep on merging positional
postings lists
• Even more so for phrases like “The Who”
• Williams et al. (2004) evaluate a more
sophisticated mixed indexing scheme
– A typical web query mixture was executed in ¼ of the
time of using just a positional index
– It required 26% more space than having a positional
index alone
Introduction to
Information Retrieval
Structured vs. Unstructured Data
 IR vs. databases:
Structured vs unstructured data
• Structured data tends to refer to information
in “tables”
Employe Manage Salar
e r y
Smit 5000
Jones
h 0
Chan Smit 6000
g h 0
Iv Smit 5000
y h 0

Typically allows numerical range and exact match

(for text) queries, e.g.,
Salary < 60000 AND Manager = Smith.
40
 Unstructured data
• Typically refers to free text
• Allows
– Keyword queries including operators
– More sophisticated “concept” queries e.g.,
• find all web pages dealing with drug abuse
• Classic model for searching text documents

41
 Semi-structured data
• In fact almost no data is “unstructured”
• E.g., this slide has distinctly identified zones such
as the Title and Bullets
• … to say nothing of linguistic structure
• Facilitates “semi-structured” search such as
– Title contains data AND Bullets contain search
• Or even
– Title is about Object Oriented Programming AND
Author something like stro*rup
– where * is the wild-card operator

42