Related
Context:
We are using Azure Cognitive Services in a mobile app to search patient diagnostic codes (ICD10 codes).
The ICD10 code list is approximately 94,000 items. For anyone interested here is a list.
We currently have set-up a standard Lucene analyser on the diagnostic description field
Requirement:
We want to provide a really good search as you type experience, which provides the most relevant suggestions
Using the Suggest method with the fuzzy parameter set to true works reasonably well for a single search term:
As you can see it does well in finding partial matches and is resilient to typos.
The issue comes in when I add a second search term. E.g. I want to search for asthma that is moderate:
In both these examples, there is no match.
So when searching for more than one term, requiring the user to express this in the sequence that this is in the data is not a good user experience.
Using the Search method instead, we can overcome the problem of finding matches where 2 search terms are supplied that do not appear consecutively in the data:
And this is resilient to typos
However, this is not good at finding partial matches (like the Suggest does).
E.g. in this search, we would still want the term moderate to be picked up:
Seemingly if we could combine a wild card search with a fuzzy search we could solve this problem. e.g. supplying the following search phrase: ashtma~* AND moder~*.
But from what we have seen this syntax is not supported.
Any suggestions on how to overcome this limitation so we can get the best of both worlds, i.e:
For 2 or more search terms, it will work on partial matches
And the search terms are treated independently and do not need to appear consecutively in the data
Many thanks in advance,
Andreas.
I recommend using (or at least experimenting with) Lucene ngrams.
An example custom analyzer can use the NGramTokenFilter.
This filter splits each source token into one or more indexed tokens by chopping up the source into substrings of different lengths.
An example from the above link:
"abc" will give "a", "ab", "abc", "b", "bc", "c"
You can, as an example, set each token to be from 3 to 5 characters long (but this is one of the areas where you can experiment with different settings).
When you use this analyzer for indexing, it's going to create many more tokens (larger index) but that gives you more searching flexibility.
Use the same analyzer for searching.
If the user enters the following two words as their search values:
ashtma moder
You would convert that into the following Lucene search phrase:
ashtma~ AND moder~
This will find the following hits:
doc id = 12877
field = Moderate persistent asthma with status asthmaticus
doc id = 12874
field = Moderate persistent asthma
doc id = 12875
field = Moderate persistent asthma, uncomplicated
doc id = 12876
field = Moderate persistent asthma with (acute) exacerbation
doc id = 94210
field = Family history of asthma and oth chronic lower resp diseases
doc id = 6970
field = Xanthelasma of right lower eyelid
doc id = 6973
field = Xanthelasma of left lower eyelid
doc id = 6979
field = Chloasma of right lower eyelid and periocular area
doc id = 6982
field = Chloasma of left lower eyelid and periocular area
As you can see it does find some false positives, but the first four hits (the highest scored) are the ones you want.
You can see how this approach performs in terms of index size and search speed.
One reason for suggesting ngrams is your point about wanting to handle mis-spellings: ngrams may help to isolate spelling mistakes into smaller tokens,since the ~ fuzzy search operator is fairly limited in what it can handle. But, definitely experiment with different ngram lengths - and maybe also without using ngrams at all.
This might end up being a very general question, but hopefully it will be useful to others as well.
I want to be able to request a word that is x number of syllables with a stress on x.[y] syllable. I've found plenty of APIs that return both of these such as Wordnik, but I'm not sure how to approach the search aspect. The URL to get the syllables is
GET /word.json/{word}/hyphenation
but I won't know the word ahead of time to make this request. They also have this:
GET /words.json/randomWords
which returns a list random words.
Is there a way to achieve what I want with this API without asking for random words over and over and checking if they meet my needs? That just seems like it would be really slow and push me over my usage limits.
Do I need to build my own data structure with the words and syllables to query locally?
I doubt you'll find this kind of specialized query on any of the big dictionary APIs. You'll need to download an English dictionary and create your own data structure to do this kind of thing.
The Moby Project has a hyphenated dictionary with about 185,000 words in it. There are many other dictionary projects available. A good place to start looking is http://www.dicts.info/dictionaries.php.
Once you've downloaded the dictionary, you'll need to preprocess it to build your data structure. You should be able to construct a dictionary or hash map that is indexed by (syllables, emphasis), and whose data member is a list of words. So you'd have an entry like (4, 2) (4-syllable word with emphasis on the 2nd syllable), and a list of all such words.
To query it, then, you'd just pack the query into a structure and look up that key in the hash map. Then pick a random word from the resulting list.
Introduction
My domain has articles, which have a title and text. Each article has revisions (like the SVN concept), so every time it is changed/edited, those changes will be stored as a revision. A revision is composed of changes and the description of those changes
I want to be able to obtain all revisions descriptions at once.
What's the problem?
I'm certain that I would store the revision as a hash in articles:revisions:<id> storing the changes, and the description in it.
What I'm not certain of is how do I get all of the descriptions at once.
I have many options to do this, but none of them convinces me.
Store the revision ids for an article as a set, and use SORT articles:revisions:idSet BY NOSORT GET articles:revisions:*->description. This means that I would store a set for each article. If every article had 50 revisions, and we had 10.000 articles, we would have 500.000 ids stored.
Is this the best way? Isn't this eating up too much RAM?
I have other ideas in mind, but I don't consider them good either.
Iterate from 0 to the last revision's id, doing a HGET for each id using MULTI
Create the idSet for a specific article if it doesn't exist and is request, expire after some time.
Isn't there a way for redis to do a SORT array BY NOSORT GET, with array being an adhoc array in the form of [0, MAX]?
Seems like you have a good solution.
As long as you keep those id numbers less than 10,000 and your sets with less than 512 elements(set-max-intset-entries), your memory consumption will be much lower than you think.
Here's a good explanation of it.
This can be solved in an optimized way using a TRIE or DAWG better than what Redis provides. I don't know your application or other info on your search problem (e.g. construction time, unsuccessful searches, update performance).
If you search much more often than you need to update / insert into your lookup storage, I'd suggest you have a look at DAWGDIC [1] as a library, and construct "search paths" (similar as you already described) using a string format that can be search-completed later:
articleID:revisionID:"changeDescription":"change"
Example (I assume you have one description per revision, and n changes. This isn't clear to me from your question):
1:2:"Some changes":"Added two sentences here, removed one sentence there"
1:2:"Some changes":"Fixed article title"
2:4:"Advertisement changes":"Added this, removed that"
Note: Even though you construct these strings with duplicate prefixes, the DAWG will store them in a very space efficient way (simply put, it will append the right side of the string to the data structure and create a shortcut for the common prefix, see also [2] for a comparison of TRIE data structures).
To list changes of article 1, revision 2, set the common prefix for your lookup:
completer.Start(index, "1:2");
Now you can simple call completer.Next() to lookup a next record that shares the same prefix, and completer.value() to get the record's value. In our example we'll get:
1:2:"Some changes":"Added two sentences here, removed one sentence there"
1:2:"Some changes":"Fixed article title"
Of course you need to parse the strings yourself into your data object.
Maybe that's not what you're looking for and overkill. But it can be a very space and search performance efficient way, if it meets your requirements.
[1] https://code.google.com/p/dawgdic/
[2] http://kmike.ru/python-data-structures/
In software engineering we create indexes all the time (e.g., in databases) but I also hear a lot of people talk about inverted indices. Is there something fundamentally different between the two? They sound like the same thing.
One common use is "...to allow fast full-text searching."
The two types denote directionality. One takes you forward through the index, and the other takes you backward (the inverse) through the index. That's it. There's no mystery to uncover here. Otherwise the two types are identical, it's just a question of what information you have, and as a result what information you're trying to find.
To address your inquiry, I don't think there's actually a way to know why the use is what it is today. The only reason it's important to define which is forward and which one is inverted is so that we can all have a conversation about them, and everyone knows which direction we're talking about. Think about the terms "left" and "right": they are relative. Which is which doesn't matter, except that everyone needs to agree which one is "left" and which one is "right" in order for the words to have meaning. If, as a culture, we decided to flip left and right, then you'd have the same issue figuring out what a "right turn" vs a "left turn" is since the agreed upon meaning had changed. However, the naming is arbitrary, so which one is which (in and of itself) doesn't matter - what matters is that we all agree on the meaning.
In your comment where you ask, "please don't just define the terms", you're missing the point, and I think you're just getting hung up on the wording when there is absolutely no difference between them.
For the benefit of future readers, I will now provide several "forward" and "inverted" index examples:
Example 1: Web search
If you're thinking that the inverse of an index is something like the inverse of a function in mathematics, where the inverse is a special thing that has a different form, then you're mistaken: that's not the case here.
In a search engine you have a list of documents (pages on web sites), where you enter some keywords and get results back.
A forward index (or just index) is the list of documents, and which words appear in them. In the web search example, Google crawls the web, building the list of documents, figuring out which words appear in each page.
The inverted index is the list of words, and the documents in which they appear. In the web search example, you provide the list of words (your search query), and Google produces the documents (search result links).
They are both indexes - it's just a question of which direction you're going. Forward is from documents->to->words, inverted is from words->to->documents.
Example 2: DNS
Another example is a DNS lookup (which takes a host name, and returns an IP address) and a reverse lookup (which takes an IP address, and gives you the host name).
Example 3: A book
The index in the back of a book is actually an inverted index, as defined by the examples above - a list of words, and where to find them in the book. In a book, the table of contents is like a forward index: it's a list of documents (chapters) which the book contains, except instead of listing the words in those sections, the table of contents just gives a name/general description of what's contained in those documents (chapters).
Example 4: Your cell phone
The forward index in your cell phone is your list of contacts, and which phone numbers (cell, home, work) are associated with those contacts. The inverted index is what allows you to manually enter a phone number, and when you hit "dial" you see the person's name, rather than the number, because your phone has taken the phone number and found you the contact associated with it.
They called it inverted just because there is already a forward index. Take the example of search engine, it composed by two parts: the first part is "web crawler and parser" which build a index from document to word, the second part is search database which build a index from word to document. Because of the first index exist, we naturally call the second index as inverted index.
If you name the TOC (Table of Content) of a book as index, then you should call the index at the end of book as "inverted index". Or, in other side, you can call the TOC as inverted index.
typically when speaking about index, you mean some added calculations or stored results of procedures which have been done in order to speed up application (e.g. MySQL or other RDBMS Consult MySQL the docs). Indexing can also be related to caching etc.
Inverted index creates file with structure that is primarily intender for (fulltext) searching.
Inverted index consists of two main files:
Vocabulary
Occurences
In vocabulary are common words extracted from text (of course after filtering blacklist words like pronouns). The occurences file holds the connection between words and documents (word1 appears in doc1 and doc2, not in doc3). It is represented in a form of a matrix.
In the above image is shown the process of creating the two files mentioned.
If you are further interester in this problematic I can recommend you a great book written by Ricardo Yated - Modern Information Retrieval (See it on Amazon) - about page 200 I think.
Hope it helps :-)
normalocity has already wonderfully differentiated between a forward and an inverted index but for the question of why one is called a forward index and the other an inverted index, maybe this is why they are called that way---
Taking example of search engine crawling and indexing (or building index for a book), a forward index can be built simultaneously while you are crawling the web pages(or reading the book) or going forward. So if you have 10 webpages to crawl(or 10 chapters in a book) you can crawl the first webpage(read the first chapter) and then make a list of words which appear in the webpage(words which appear in the chapter) and continue this process for other webpages(other chapters) so by the time you have crawled all the 10 webpages(read all 10 chapters) your forward index is complete with each webpage(chapter) pointing to a list of words it contains.
But to make an inverted index you have to crawl all the 10 webpages(read the 10 chapters) and and then take each word from each documents list and figure out which documents contain that word. So this is like going backward once you have crawled the webpages(read chapters of the book). So its called an inverted index.
This is just my speculation.
The term "Inverted Word Index" refers to the change in relationship of
a single-document containing many-words, to each unique word containing
(or identifying) a list of many-documents. This is effectively taking a One-to-Many Relationship (Docs to Words) and Inverting (or reversing) it such that a new "Inverted" One-to-Many Relationship now exists, which is each-unique-word relating to Many-Documents (i.e., all that contain that word). It's origin really is that simple, and the term "inverted index" was used to describe manual indexes of the same type long before computers and electronic high-speed indexing even existed (yes, admittedly, I'm an old, geezer programmer, almost old enough to have considered Grace Hopper a "sweet young lady" age appropriate for courting back when COBOL was a shiny new language). Please don't discard us geezers just yet, as we may occasionally provide a useful, and possibly even valuable, historical tid-bit or two - when our personal RAM is still working, that is. [grin]
There are many types of index. For example, B-tree, R-tree, hash... For different purposes, we must choose correct index.
Inverted index is a special one. Inverted index usually used in full text search engine. Use inverted index we can find out a word's locate in a document(or documents set) as fast as possible. Think about the limit of memory and cpu, other index can't finish this job.
You can read lucene document for more details. It's a open source search engine. http://lucene.apache.org/java/docs/index.html
in inverted indexes, we have the following form:
word1-> list of docs it occurs in (sorted order)
word2-> list of docs it occurs in (sorted order)
It is very useful for search engine query processing as it allows us to find docs that word occurs in .
You can use supervised machine learing to build this inverted index.
One more difference:
Handling updates with the inverted index are expensive in comparison with forward index.
Forward index handles updates easily by reflecting the changes only in the corresponding document index, whereas in the inverted index, the same change has to reflect in multiple positions across the inverted index.
I have Persons table in SQL Server 2008.
My goal is to find Persons who have almost similar addresses.
The address is described with columns state, town, street, house, apartment, postcode and phone.
Due to some specific differences in some states (not US) and human factor (mistakes in addresses etc.), address is not filled in the same pattern.
Most common mistakes in addresses
Case sensitivity
Someone wrote "apt.", another one "apartment" or "ap." (although addresses aren't written in English)
Spaces, dots, commas
Differences in writing street names, like 'Dr. Jones str." or "Doctor Jones street" or "D. Jon. st." or "Dr Jones st" etc.
The main problem is that data isn't in the same pattern, so it's really difficult to find similar addresses.
Is there any algorithm for this kind of issue?
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE
As I mentioned address is separated into different columns. Should I generate a string concatenating columns or do your steps for each column?
I assume I shouldn't concatenate columns, but if I'll compare columns separately how should I organize it? Should I find similarities for each column an union them or intersect or anything else?
Should I have some statistics collecting or some kind of educating algorithm?
Suggest approaching it thus:
Create word-level n-grams (a trigram/4-gram might do it) from the various entries
Do a many x many comparison for string comparison and cluster them by string distance. Someone suggested Levenshtein; there are better ones for this kind of task, Jaro-Winkler Distance and Smith-Waterman work better. A libraryt such as SimMetrics would make life a lot easier
Once you have clusters of n-grams, you can resolve the whole string using the constituent subgrams i.e. D.Jones St => Davy Jones St. => DJones St.
Should not be too hard, this is an all-too-common problem.
Update: Based on your update above, here are the suggested steps
Catenate your columns into a single string, perhaps create a db "view" . For example,
create view vwAddress
as
select top 10000
state town, street, house, apartment, postcode,
state+ town+ street+ house+ apartment+ postcode as Address
from ...
Write a separate application (say in Java or C#/VB.NET) and Use an algorithm like JaroWinkler to estimate the string distance for the combined address, to create a many x many comparison. and write into a separate table
address1 | address n | similarity
You can use Simmetrics to get the similarity thus:
JaroWinnkler objJw = new JaroWinkler()
double sim = objJw.GetSimilarity (address1, addres n);
You could also trigram it so that an address such as "1 Jones Street, Sometown, SomeCountry" becomes "1 Jones Street", "Jones Street Sometown", and so on....
and compare the trigrams. (or even 4-grams) for higher accuracy.
Finally you can order by similarity to get a cluster of most similar addresses and decide an approprite threshold. Not sure why you are stuck
I would try to do the following:
split up the address in multiple words, get rid of punctuation at the same time
check all the words for patterns that are typically written differently and replace them with a common name (e.g. replace apartment, ap., ... by apt, replace Doctor by Dr., ...)
put all the words back in one string alphabetically sorted
compare all the addresses using a fuzzy string comparison algorithm, e.g. Levenshtein
tweak the parameters of the Levenshtein algorithm (e.g. you want to allow more differences on longer strings)
finally do a manual check of the strings
Of course, the solution to keep your data 'in shape' is to have explicit fields for each of your characteristics in your database. Otherwise, you will end up doing this exercise every few months.
The main problem I see here is to exactly define equality.
Even if someone writes Jon. and another Jone. - you will never be able to say if they are the same. (Jon-Jonethan,Joneson,Jonedoe whatever ;)
I work in a firm where we have to handle exact this problem - I'm afraid I have to tell you this kind of checking the adress lists for navigation systems is done "by hand" most of the time. Abbrevations are sometimes context dependend, and there are other things that make this difficult. Ofc replacing string etc is done with python - but telling you the MEANING of such an abbr. can only done by script in a few cases. ("St." -> Can be "Saint" and "Street". How to decide? impossible...this is human work.).
Another big problem is as you said "Is there a street "DJones" or a person? Or both? Which one is ment here? Is this DJones the same as Dr Jones or the same as Don Jones? Its impossible to decide!
You can do some work with lists as presented by another answer here - but it will give you enough "false positives" or so.
You have a postcode field!!!
So, why don't you just buy a postcode table for your country
and use that to clean up your street/town/region/province information?
I did a project like this in the last centuary. Basicly it was a consolidation of two customer files after a merger, and, involved names and addresses from three different sources.
Firstly as many posters have suggested, convert all the common words and abbreveations and spelling mistakes to a common form "Apt." "Apatment" etc. to "Apt".
Then look through the name and identifiy the first letter of the first name, plus the first surname. (Not that easy consider "Dr. Med. Sir Henry de Baskerville Smythe") but dont worry where there are amiguities just take both! So if you lucky you get HBASKERVILLE and HSMYTHE. Now get rid of all the vowels as thats where most spelling variations occur so now you have HBSKRVLL HSMTH.
You would also get these strings from "H. Baskerville","Sir Henry Baskerville Smith" and unfortunately "Harold Smith" but we are talking fuzzy matching here!
Perform a similar exercise on the street, and apartment and postcode fields. But do not throw away the original data!
You now come to the interesting bit first you compare each of the original strings and give say 50 points for each string that matches exactly. Then go through you "normalised" strings and give say 20 points for each one that matches exactly. Then go through all the strings and give say 5 points for each four character or more substring they have in common. For each pair compared you will end up with some with scores > 150 which you can consider as a certain match, some with scores less than 50 which you can consider not matched and some inbetween which have some probability of matching.
You need some more tweaking to improve this by adding various rules like "subtract 20 points for a surname of 'smith'". You really have to keep running and tweaking until you get happy with the resulting matches, but, once you look at the results you get a pretty good feel which score to consider a "match" and which are the false positives you need to get rid of.
I think the amount of data could affect what approach works best for you.
I had a similar problem when indexing music from compilation albums with various artists. Sometimes the artist came first, sometimes the song name, with various separator styles.
What I did was to count the number of occurrences on other entries with the same value to make an educated guess wether it was the song name or an artist.
Perhaps you can use soundex or similar algorithm to find stuff that are similar.
EDIT: (maybe I should clarify that I assumed that artist names were more likely to be more frequently reoccurring than song names.)
One important thing that you mention in the comments is that you are going to do this interactively.
This allows to parse user input and also at the same time validate guesses on any abbreviations and to correct a lot of mistakes (the way for example phone number entry works some contact management systems - the system does the best effort to parse and correct the country code, area code and the number, but ultimately the user is presented with the guess and has the chance to correct the input)
If you want to do it really good then keeping database/dictionaries of postcodes, towns, streets, abbreviations and their variations can improve data validation and pre-processing.
So, at least you would have fully qualified address. If you can do this for all the input you will have all the data categorized and matches can then be strict on certain field and less strict on others, with matching score calculated according weights you assign.
After you have consistently pre-processed the input then n-grams should be able to find similar addresses.
Have you looked at SQL Server Integration Services for this? The Fuzzy Lookup component allows you to find 'Near matches': http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms137786.aspx
For new input, you could call the package from .Net code, passing the value row to be checked as a set of parameters, you'd probably need to persist the token index for this to be fast enough for user interaction though.
There's an example of address matching here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163731.aspx
I'm assuming that response time is not critical and that the problem is finding an existing address in a database, not merging duplicates. I'm also assuming the database contains a large number of addresses (say 3 million), rather than a number that could be cleaned up economically by hand or by Amazon's Mechanical Turk.
Pre-computation - Identify address fragments with high information content.
Identify all the unique words used in each database field and count their occurrences.
Eliminate very common words and abbreviations. (Street, st., appt, apt, etc.)
When presented with an input address,
Identify the most unique word and search (Street LIKE '%Jones%') for existing addresses containing those words.
Use the pre-computed statistics to estimate how many addresses will be in the results set
If the estimated results set is too large, select the second-most unique word and combine it in the search (Street LIKE '%Jones%' AND Town LIKE '%Anytown%')
If the estimated results set is too small, select the second-most unique word and combine it in the search (Street LIKE '%Aardvark%' OR Town LIKE '%Anytown')
if the actual results set is too large/small, repeat the query adding further terms as before.
The idea is to find enough fragments with high information content in the address which can be searched for to give a reasonable number of alternatives, rather than to find the most optimal match. For more tolerance to misspelling, trigrams, tetra-grams or soundex codes could be used instead of words.
Obviously if you have lists of actual states / towns / streets then some data clean-up could take place both in the database and in the search address. (I'm very surprised the Armenian postal service does not make such a list available, but I know that some postal services charge excessive amounts for this information. )
As a practical matter, most systems I see in use try to look up people's accounts by their phone number if possible: obviously whether that is a practical solution depends upon the nature of the data and its accuracy.
(Also consider the lateral-thinking approach: could you find a mail-order mail-list broker company which will clean up your database for you? They might even be willing to pay you for use of the addresses.)
I've found a great article.
Adding some dlls as sql user-defined functions we can use string comparison algorithms using SimMetrics library.
Check it
http://anastasiosyal.com/archive/2009/01/11/18.aspx
the possibilities of such variations are countless and even if such an algorithm exists, it can never be fool-proof. u can't have a spell checker for nouns after all.
what you can do is provide a drop-down list of previously entered field values, so that they can select one, if a particular name already exists.
its better to have separate fields for each value like apartments and so on.
You could throw all addresses at a web service like Google Maps (I don't know whether this one is suitable, though) and see whether they come up with identical GPS coordinates.
One method could be to apply the Levenshtein distance algorithm to the address fields. This will allow you to compare the strings for similarity.
Edit
After looking at the kinds of address differences you are dealing with, this may not be helpful after all.
Another idea is to use learning. For example you could learn, for each abbreviation and its place in the sentence, what the abbreviation means.
3 Jane Dr. -> Dr (in 3rd position (or last)) means Drive
Dr. Jones St -> Dr (in 1st position) means Doctor
You could, for example, use decision trees and have a user train the system. Probably few examples of each use would be enough. You wouldn't classify single-letter abbreviations like D.Jones that could be David Jones, or Dr. Jones as likely. But after a first level of translation you could look up a street index of the town and see if you can expand the D. into a street name.
Again, you would run each address through the decision tree before storing it.
It feels like there should be some commercial products doing this out there.
A possibility is to have a dictionary table in the database that maps all the variants to the 'proper' version of the word:
*Value* | *Meaning*
Apt. | Apartment
Ap. | Apartment
St. | Street
Then you run each word through the dictionary before you compare.
Edit: this alone is too naive to be practical (see comment).