Search-by-Example is a database search in which objects are used as query terms instead of keywords. Such objects may include articles, movies, or pictures. Objects that are “similar” to the input objects may be returned in response to the query.
As noted above, search-by-example queries may comprise objects as search terms such that the response thereto contains objects that are “similar” to the input objects. One way to respond to these queries is by using a predetermined weighted graph structure comprising multiple interlinked objects. Through the use of an algorithm known as random walk with restart (“RWR”), each input object may be located in the graph and other objects in the graph may be given a score that indicates its “similarity” or relevance to each input object. Some conventional techniques may invoke the RWR algorithm for each input object independently and may return a sum of the most relevant objects in response to the query.
Unfortunately, conventional techniques like the one described above may be inadequate when the input objects are very diverse or when there is a great contrast between the input objects. For example, if the input objects include a video concerning cats and a video concerning dogs, conventional techniques may return videos pertaining to domestic animals, which may be regarded as a quality result. However, if an input object concerns cats and the other concerns space travel, conventional techniques may not return quality results due to the vast difference between the two input objects. Instead, the results may be disproportionally associated with cats or disproportionally associated with space travel, but the results may not associate the two objects in a fairly balanced manner.
In view of the foregoing, disclosed herein are a system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and method for responding to object queries. In one example, a subgraph in a main graph of interconnected objects may be used to generate a list of objects that associates the input objects in a query. In another example, a link between each pair of objects in the main graph may represent a distance measure or metric between each pair of objects. In yet a further example, the subgraph may be such that a total distance between each pair of input objects and a central object in the subgraph is minimized. The techniques disclosed herein may generate quality results to queries comprising objects that seem very different from each other. Rather than analyzing each input object individually, the analysis may be based on a subgraph in the main graph with the shortest interconnect between the input objects. Thus, instead of providing a score indicative of a “similarity” or relevance to each input object, the score may be indicative of a similarity or relevance to the subgraph. Tests on different data sets have indicated that the system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and method of the present disclosure outperform conventional techniques. The aspects, features and advantages of the present disclosure will be appreciated when considered with reference to the following description of examples and accompanying figures. The following description does not limit the application; rather, the scope of the disclosure is defined by the appended claims and equivalents.
Non-transitory computer readable media may comprise any one of many physical media such as, for example, electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, or semiconductor media. More specific examples of suitable non-transitory computer-readable media include, but are not limited to, a portable magnetic computer diskette such as floppy diskettes or hard drives, a read-only memory (“ROM”), an erasable programmable read-only memory, a portable compact disc or other storage devices that may be coupled to computer apparatus 100 directly or indirectly. Alternatively, non-transitory CRM 112 may be a random access memory (“RAM”) device or may be divided into multiple memory segments organized as dual in-line memory modules (“DIMMs”). The non-transitory CRM 112 may also include any combination of one or more of the foregoing and/or other devices as well. While only one processor and one non-transitory CRM are shown in
The instructions residing in query handler 114 may comprise any set of instructions to be executed directly (such as machine code) or indirectly (such as scripts) by processor 110. In this regard, the terms “instructions,” “scripts,” and “applications” may be used interchangeably herein. The computer executable instructions may be stored in any computer language or format, such as in object code or modules of source code. Furthermore, it is understood that the instructions may be implemented in the form of hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software and that the examples herein are merely illustrative.
In one example, objects database 116 may be arranged as a graph data structure that may be stored in computer registers, in a relational database as a table having a plurality of different fields and records, XML documents or flat files. The graph data structure in objects database 116 may be the main graph of the system and may comprise interconnected objects with a link between each pair of objects therein. The link may represent a distance measure between each pair of objects that indicates a similarity therebetween. Query handler 114 may instruct processor 110 to read a query comprising a plurality of input objects. Query handler 114 may also instruct processor 110 to locate each input object in the main graph. In a further example, query handler 114 may detect a subgraph in the main graph such that a total distance between each pair of input objects and a central object of the detected subgraph is minimized. In another aspect, query handler 114 may also generate an ordered list of objects from the main graph that associate the input objects in the query. The selection of each listed object may be based at least partially on the subgraph.
Working examples of the system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are shown in
As shown in block 202 of
Referring back to
In the example of
At time T3 of
As noted above, an ordered list of objects may be returned as a reply to the query. The selection of each listed object may be based at least partially on the subgraph. As also noted above, some conventional techniques use RWR to calculate the “similarity” between each object in the graph and each input object. In this instance, a given input object from the query may be used as a “starting node” in the RWR algorithm. A “random walker” may iteratively walk toward the neighbors of the starting node such that the probability of walking to a node may be proportional to the associative weight of the link connecting the each pair of nodes in the graph. A given node Q in the graph may receive a score based on the probability that the walker would travel back to the starting node S from Q. This probability score may indicate the similarity or relevancy between the given node Q and the starting node S. However, when the nodes in a properly constructed subgraph are collectively used as starting nodes, the quality of the results is enhanced. For example, the nodes H, I, G, C, S, K, and D in the sample subgraph shown at time T3 of
Advantageously, test results show that the foregoing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium enhance the quality of results made to object queries. In this regard, rather than analyzing each input object individually, a preliminary subgraph may be generated and used as a basis for further analysis. For example, using a detected subgraph as starting nodes for the RWR algorithm generates a list of objects that are scored based on their “similarity” to the subgraph. In turn, the listed objects associate the input objects better than conventional techniques.
Although the disclosure herein has been described with reference to particular examples, it is to be understood that these examples are merely illustrative of the principles of the disclosure. It is therefore to be understood that numerous modifications may be made to the examples and that other arrangements may be devised without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, while particular processes are shown in a specific order in the appended drawings, such processes are not limited to any particular order unless such order is expressly set forth herein; rather, processes may be performed in a different order or concurrently and steps may be added or omitted.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5634051 | Thomson | May 1997 | A |
6154220 | Prakriya | Nov 2000 | A |
6263328 | Coden et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6738759 | Wheeler et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
7844595 | Canright et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8356035 | Baluja | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8429163 | Ahmadullin | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8583659 | Alexandrescu | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8825646 | Alpert | Sep 2014 | B1 |
20020069218 | Sull | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20080040699 | Okada | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090204554 | Koren | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20100211924 | Begel | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100250625 | Olenick | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100274804 | Muskal | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110137902 | Wable | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110268364 | Hido | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110270851 | Mishina | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120158639 | Moore | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20130132402 | Yang | May 2013 | A1 |
20130191372 | Lee | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130230255 | Wang | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130268533 | Komarov | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130339352 | Jin | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140040244 | Rubinstein | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140172914 | Elnikety | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140214877 | Yildiz | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140214945 | Zhang | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140304278 | Kleiman | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140337306 | Gramatica | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140351241 | Leask | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140372413 | Banner | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20160004787 | Shinkuma | Jan 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2014002064 | Jan 2014 | CH |
2000925 | Dec 2008 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Tong et al., “Random Walk with Restart: Fast Solutions and Applications”, Knowledge and Information Systems 14(3): pp. 327-346, 2008. |
Muller et al., “Ranking Outlier Nodes in Subspaces of Attributed Graphs”, In ICDE Workshop, pp. 216-222 (7 pages), 2013. |
Nie et al., “Object-Level Ranking: Bringing Order to Web Objects”, In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '05), pp. 567-574 (8 pages), 2005. |
Thanh Tran et al., “Top-k Exploration of Query Candidates for Efficient Keyword Search on Graph-Shaped (RDF) Data,” IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, Nov. 26, 2009, pp. 405-416, IEEE, Available at: <people.aifb.kit.edu/dtr/papers/keywordtopk.pdf>. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140372413 A1 | Dec 2014 | US |