skip to main content
10.1145/3357384.3357911acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Identifying Facet Mismatches In Search Via Micrographs

Published:03 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

E-commerce search engines are the primary means by which customers shop for products online. Each customer query contains multiple facets such as product type, color, brand, etc. A successful search engine retrieves products that are relevant to the query along each of these attributes. However, due to lexical (erroneous title, description, etc.) and behavioral irregularities (clicks or purchases of products that do not belong to the same facet as the query), some mismatched products are often included in search results. These irregularities can be detected using simple binary classifiers like gradient boosted decision trees or logistic regression. Typically, these binary classifiers use strong independence assumptions between the results and ignore structural relationships available in the data, such as the connections between products and queries. In this paper, we use the connections that exist between products and query to identify a special kind of structure we refer to as a micrograph. Further, we make use of Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) to incorporate these micrographs in the data and pose the problem as a structured prediction problem. We refer to this approach as structured mismatch classification (\SMC). In addition, we show that naive addition of structure does not improve the performance of the model and hence introduce a variation of \SMC, strong \SMC~(\SSMC), which improves over the baseline by passing information from high-confidence predictions to lower confidence predictions. In our empirical evaluation we show that our proposed approach outperforms the baseline classification methods by up to 12% in precision. Furthermore, we use quasi-Newton methods to make our method viable for real-time inference in a search engine and show that our approach is up to 150 times faster than existing ADMM-based solvers.

References

  1. Charu C. Aggarwal. 2014. Data Classification: Algorithms and Applications .Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Sanjay Agrawal, Kaushik Chakrabarti, Surajit Chaudhuri, Venkatesh Ganti, Arnd Christian Konig, and Dong Xin. 2009. Exploiting Web Search Engines to Search Structured Databases. In WWW .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Stephen H. Bach, Matthias Broecheler, Bert Huang, and Lise Getoor. 2017. Hinge-Loss Markov Random Fields and Probabilistic Soft Logic. JMLR , Vol. 18 (2017), 109:1--109:67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Stephen H. Bach, Bert Huang, Ben London, and Lise Getoor. 2013. Hinge-loss Markov Random Fields: Convex Inference for Structured Prediction. In UAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Christopher M. Bishop. 2006. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics) .Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stephen P. Boyd, Neal Parikh, Eric Chu, Borja Peleato, and Jonathan Eckstein. 2011. Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers. FTML (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael J. Cafarella, Michele Banko, and Oren Etzioni. 2006. Relational Web Search. In WWW .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In KDD .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. De Raedt, K. Kersting, S. Natarajan, and D. Poole. 2016. Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence: Logic, Probability, and Computation .Morgan & Claypool.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dhivya Eswaran, Stephan Günnemann, Christos Faloutsos, Disha Makhija, and Mohit Kumar. 2017. ZooBP: Belief Propagation for Heterogeneous Networks. VLDB (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rong-En Fan, Kai-Wei Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Xiang-Rui Wang, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2008. LIBLINEAR: A Library for Large Linear Classification. JMLR , Vol. 9 (2008), 1871--1874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jerome H. Friedman. 2000. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine. Annals of Statistics (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lise Getoor and Ben Taskar. 2007. Introduction to statistical relational learning .The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Siddharth Gopal and Yiming Yang. 2013. Distributed training of Large-scale Logistic models. In ICML .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Benjamin Haeffele, Eric Young, and Rene Vidal. 2014. Structured low-rank matrix factorization: Optimality, algorithm, and applications to image processing. In ICML .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Chih-Yang Hsia, Ya Zhu, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2017. A Study on Trust Region Update Rules in Newton Methods for Large-scale Linear Classification. In ACML .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. In NIPS .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Angelika Kimmig, Stephen H. Bach, Matthias Broecheler, Bert Huang, and Lise Getoor. 2012. A Short Introduction to Probabilistic Soft Logic. In NIPS Workshop on PP .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. George J. Klir and Bo Yuan. 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications .Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Xiangnan Kong, Philip S. Yu, Ying Ding, and David J. Wild. 2012. Meta Path-based Collective Classification in Heterogeneous Information Networks. In CIKM .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Arlind Kopliku, Karen Pinel-Sauvagnat, and Mohand Boughanem. 2014. Aggregated Search: A New Information Retrieval Paradigm. ACM CS , Vol. 46, 3 (2014), 41:1--41:31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Pigi Kouki, Shobeir Fakhraei, James Foulds, Magdalini Eirinaki, and Lise Getoor. 2015. HyPER: A Flexible and Extensible Probabilistic Framework for Hybrid Recommender Systems. In RecSys. ACM, ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chih-Jen Lin and Jorge J. Moré. 1999. Newton's Method for Large Bound-Constrained Optimization Problems. SIAM J. on Optimization (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Chih-Jen Lin, Ruby C Weng, and S Sathiya Keerthi. 2008. Trust region newton method for logistic regression. JMLR , Vol. 9, Apr (2008), 627--650.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nickel Maxmilien, Murphy Kevin, Tresp Volker, and Gabrilovich Evgeniy. 2016. A Review of Relational Machine Learning for Knowledge Graphs. Proc. IEEE , Vol. 104, 1 (2016), 11--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Rada F. Mihalcea and Dragomir R. Radev. 2011. Graph-based Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality. In NIPS .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Houssam Nassif, Yirong Wu, David Page, and Elizabeth S. Burnside. 2012. Logical Differential Prediction Bayes Net, improving breast cancer diagnosis for older women. In AMIA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Singla Parag and Domingos Pedros. 2006. Entity Resolution with Markov Logic. In ICDM .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Nikhil Rao, Hsiang-Fu Yu, Pradeep K Ravikumar, and Inderjit S Dhillon. 2015. Collaborative filtering with graph information: Consistency and scalable methods. In NIPS .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Gallagher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2008. Collective Classification in Network Data. AI Magazine , Vol. 29 (2008), 93--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Dhanya Sridhar, Shobeir Fakhraei, and Lise Getoor. 2016. A probabilistic approach for collective similarity-based drug-drug interaction prediction. Bioinformatics , Vol. 32, 20 (2016), 3175--3182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Charles Sutton and Andrew McCallum. 2012. An Introduction to Conditional Random Fields. FTML , Vol. 4 (2012), 267--373.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiao Wang, Houye Ji, Chuan Shi, Bai Wang, Peng Cui, P. Yu, and Yanfang Ye. 2019. Heterogeneous Graph Attention Network. In ICWC .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Benyu Zhang, Hua Li, Yi Liu, Lei Ji, Wensi Xi, Weiguo Fan, Zheng Chen, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2005. Improving Web Search Results Using Affinity Graph. In SIGIR .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yizhou Zhang, Yun Xiong, Xiangnan Kong, Shanshan Li, Jinhong Mi, and Yangyong Zhu. 2018. Deep Collective Classification in Heterogeneous Information Networks. In WWW .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiaojin Zhu, Andrew Goldberg, Jurgen Van Gael, and David Andrzejewski. 2007. Improving Diversity in Ranking using Absorbing Random Walks. In ACL .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Identifying Facet Mismatches In Search Via Micrographs

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CIKM '19: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
            November 2019
            3373 pages
            ISBN:9781450369763
            DOI:10.1145/3357384

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 3 November 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CIKM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate202of1,031submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

            Upcoming Conference

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader