Probe, Count, and Classify: Categorizing HiddenWeb Databases - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Title: Probe, Count, and Classify: Categorizing HiddenWeb Databases


1
Probe, Count, and ClassifyCategorizing
Hidden-Web Databases

• SIGMOD 2001,
• Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis
• Computer Science Dept. Columbia University
• DB Lab.
• Hee-Jeon Lee

2
1. INTRODUCTION (1)

• Ordinary web
• Traditional web, crawlable
• 2 billion pages
• Hidden Web
• Only accessible through search interfaces
• Cohesive, Higher quality, not crawlable
• 500 billion pages

3
1. INTRODUCTION (2)

• Example Query with the keyword cancer
• - PubMed (http//ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
  )
• - Search engine on AltaVista

• The problem of accurate information retrieval in
  WWW
• Retrieve static document
• Determine searchable databases
• Searchable Web databases
• Is collection of text documents that is
  searchable through a web-accessible search
  interface
• Focus is on text

4
1. INTRODUCTION (3)

• Manually classifying searchable web databases
  (Yahoo!-like hierarchical categorization scheme)
• Lack of scalability

Automating classification process -
combination 1) machine learning 2) database
querying techniques - transform the rules
of the classifier into a set of query
probes
5
2. TEXT-DATABASE CLASSIFICATION

• Organize the space of searchable databases in a
  hierarchical categorization scheme.
• Sec 2.1
• Define appropriate classification schemes
• Sec 2.2
• Alternative methods

6
2.1 Classification Schemes for Databases
7
2.2 Alternative Classification Strategies (1)

• To assign a searchable web database to category
• Manually inspect the contents of the database and
  make a decision based on the results of
  inspection
• A less manual approach
• Coverage-based classification
• Specificity-based classification

• Specificity-based
• CBS SportsLine
• Coverage-based
• CBS SportsLine - Basketball

8
2.2 Alternative Classification Strategies (2)
9
2.2 Alternative Classification Strategies (3)
10
3. CLASSIFYING DATABASE THROUGH PROBING

• How can approximate information for a given
  database without accessing its contents
• Sec 3.1
• Train a rule-based document classifier with a set
  of preclassified documents.
• Sec 3.2
• Transform classifier rules into queries.
• Sec 3.3
• Adaptively issue queries to databases, extracting
  and adjusting the number of matches for each
  query using the classifiers confusion matrix.
• Sec 3.4
• Classify databases using the adjusted number of
  query matches.

11
3.1 Training a Document Classifier (1)

• Rely on a rule-based document classifier to
  create the probing queries
• Use supervised learning to construct a rule-based
  classifier from a set of preclassified documents
• The resulting classifier is a set of logical rules

• Antecedents are conjunctions
• of words.
• Consequents are the category
• assignments for each document.

12
3.1 Training a Document Classifier (2)

• To define a document classifier over an entire
  hierarchical classification scheme, train one
  flat rule-based document classifier for each
  internal node of the hierarchy.

13
3.1 Training a Document Classifier (3)

• To produce a rule-based document classifier
• 1. Feature selection
• To eliminate from the training set all words that
  appear very frequently in the training documents,
  as well as very infrequently appearing words.
• Eliminates the terms that have the least impact
  on the class distribution of documents
• 2. Classify the database according to the number
  of documents that it contains in each category

14
3.2 Defining Query Probes from a Document
Classifier (1)

• Query probe
• Will help estimate the number of documents for
  each category of interest in a searchable web
  database

15
3.2 Defining Query Probes from a Document
Classifier (2)

• Map the rule into the Boolean query
• IF jordan AND bulls THEN Sports -gt jordan AND
  bulls

16
3.2 Defining Query Probes from a Document
Classifier (3)
Boolean query
17
3.3 Adjusting Probing Results (1)

• Confusion matrix
• Need to adjust initial probing results to account
  for potential errors
• In the machine learning community to report the
  document classification results

18
3.3 Adjusting Probing Results (2)
19
3.3 Adjusting Probing Results (3)

• diagonally dominant matrix
• Gershgorin disk theorem

20
3.4 Using Probing Results for Classification (1)

• Classify database in a top-to-bottom way
• 1. Each database is first classified by
  root-level classifier
• 2. recursively push down to the lower level
  classifiers

21
3.4 Using Probing Results for Classification (2)

• Call Classify(root, D)

22
3.4 Using Probing Results for Classification (3)
23
4. EXPERIMENTAL SETTING

• Sec 4.1 Data Collections
• Controlled databases
• Homogeneous
• Heterogeneous
• Real web databases
• Sec 4.2 Techniques for Comparison
• Probe and Count (PnC)
• Document Sampling (DS)
• Query probing to automatically construct a
  language model of a text database
• Title-based Querying (TQ)
• One long query for each category using the title
  of the category itself augmented by the titles of
  all its subcategories

24
4.3 Evaluation Metrics (1)
25
4.3 Evaluation Metrics (2)
26
4.3 Evaluation Metrics (3)

• Correct Expanded (programming)
• Classified Expanded (Java)

Java / Java 1 / 1 1
Java / Prog.., C.., Pe.., Java, Visu..
1 / 5
27
5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

• Sec 5.1 Tuning the PnC Technique
• Effect of Confusion Matrix Adjustment (CMA)
• Effect of Feature Selection
• ECoverage estimates with FS on were between 15
  and 20 better
• ESpecificity estimates with FS on were around
  10 better

28
5.2 Results over the Controlled Databases
29
5.3 Results over the Web Databases
30
6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

• Have presented a novel and efficient method for
  the hierarchical classification of text databases
  on the web.
• Would completely automate the classification
  process is to eliminate the need for a human to
  construct the simple wrapper for each database to
  classify.
• Can be eliminated by automatically learning how
  to parse the pages with query results