Query Reranking As A Service

Query Reranking As A
Service
ABOLFAZL ASUDEH
NAN ZHANG
GAUTAM DAS
© 2016 VLDB Endowment 21508097/16/03
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON

Practical Challenges
How to design a small number of “good” ranking functions when different users often have
diverse and sometimes contradicting preferences
◦ e.g., “transit time” in airfare search, “mileage per year” in used car search
◦ Similarly, users with disabilities or special needs often need special ranking functions
Some database owners lack the expertise, resources, or even motivation to properly study the
requirements of their users

Motivation
Backend
DB
Top-k
web
Interface
Reranking
Service
User
filtering+
ranking

Applications
Meta-Ranking Service
◦ remember user preferences across multiple web databases (e.g., multiple car dealers)
Applications dedicated for users with disabilities, special needs, etc.

Critical Requirements
Accuracy: The output query answer must precisely follow the user-specified ranking function
Versatility: Support a wide variety of user-specific ranking function (so long as it is monotonic).
Allow pass-through of selection conditions. No knowledge of system ranking function.
Efficiency: the number of queries issued to the web database must be minimized.
◦ Because almost all such databases enforce certain query-rate limit.
◦ e.g., Google Flights allows only 50 free queries per user per day.

Solution Novelty: Baselines
Crawling the entire database
◦ Problem: efficiency
”Page down” [TZD13a, TZD13b] to retrieve more than k tuples
◦ Problem: no guarantee of accuracy unless retrieving all n tuples

Database Model
Hidden (web) Database
◦ Limited query interface
◦ Ranked Retrieval Model (Top-k)

Problem Statement
Query Reranking (Get-Next) Problem:
◦ Consider: a hidden web database D with a top-k interface
◦ with an arbitrary, unknown, system ranking function.
◦ Given:
◦ a user query q
◦ a user-specied monotonic ranking function S
◦ the top-h (h ≥ 0 can be greater than, equal to, or smaller than k) tuples satisfying q according to S
◦ Find
◦ the No. (h + 1) tuple for q while minimizing the number of queries issued D.

1D Re-Ranking Problem
Given:
◦ An attribute
◦ th, the h-ranked tuple according to the attribute
Find:
◦ th+1, the (h+1)-ranked tuple according to the attribute
Why?
◦ 1D  MD using TA or Fagin’s algorithm
◦ Rank by “transit time”

1D-BASELINE
th
q0
t0
q1
t1
q2
th+1
NULL
Problem: the query cost depend on the correlation between the system ranking function and
the attribute!
Negative Result: no algorithm can outperform 1D-BASELINE in the worst-case scenario.

1D-BINARY
th
q0
t0
q1
t1
q2
th+1
q3
NULL NULL
query cost:

1D-RERANK
Key Observation: dense regions  repeated incurrence of high query cost for re-ranking
Key Idea: Crawl dense regions to benefit future re-ranking requests (On-The-Fly Indexing)
follow 1D-BINARY
until search region
is not dense yet
Oracle
ask from oracle
if region is dense

Applying Sorted-List Algorithms (e.g. TA)
on 1D-RERANK
The Get-next operation designed by 1D-RERANK can
get used to develop a sorted-access top-k algorithm
(e.g. TA) on top of it and enable HD Get-next.
It has a major efficiency problem, mainly because of
not leveraging the full power provided by client-
server databases.

MD-BASELINE
q0: select *  t0
q1: where x < t0[x] and y < l(y)  null
q2: where x ≥ t0[x] and x < l(x) and y < t0[y]  t1
q3: where x ≥ t0[x] and x < b(x) and y < t0[y]  null
q4: where x ≥ b(x) and x < I(x) and y < b(y) null
q5: where x < t1[x] and y < t1[y]  null
x
y
t0
l(y)
l(x)
t1
b(y)
b(x)

apply 1D-RERANK

MD-BINARY
q0: select *  t0
q1: where x < t0[x] and y < l(y)  null
q2: where x ≥ t0[x] and x < l(x) and y < t0[y]  t1
q3: where x ≥ t0[x] and x < v0[x] and y < v0[y]  null
q4: where x ≥ t0[x] and x < b(x) and y < t0[y]  null
q5: where x ≥ b(x) and x < I(x) and y < b(y) null
q6: where x < t1[x] and y < t1[y]  null
x
y
t0
l(y)
l(x)
t1

V0
apply 1D-RERANK
b(x)
b(y)

MD-RERANK
High-level idea: follow MD-BINARY until a remaining search space (1) is covered by a region in
the index; or (2) has volume smaller than the threshold.
On-The-Fly Indexing: proactively record as an index densely located tuples once we encounter
them, so that we do not need to incur a high query cost every time a query q triggers visits to
the same dense region.

Experiments setup
Simulating the Top-k web interface on top of an offline dataset.
◦ US Department of Transportation (DOT): 457,013 tuples and over 28 attributes.
◦ Considered two system ranking functions:
◦ SR1(positively correlated ): 0.3 AIR-TIME + TAXI-IN (SR1) – Default function
◦ SR2 (negatively correlated): -0.1 DISTANCE - DEP-DELAY (SR2)
◦ Default k = 10.
Online Experiments
◦ Blue Nile (BN) diamonds: largest online retailer of diamonds; contained 117,641 tuples (diamonds) over
12 attributes.
◦ Yahoo! Autos (YA): offers a popular search service for used cars; contained 13,169 cars within 30 mile
of New York city over 8 attributes.

Offline Experiment Results
1D, Impact of n (SR1) 1D, Impact of n (SR2) 1D, Impact of System-k

Offline Experiment Results
MD, Impact of n (SR1) MD, Impact of n (SR2) MD, Impact of System-k

Online Experiment Results
BN, 1D: Top-k query cost YA, 1D: Top-k query cost

Online Experiment Results
BN, MD: Top-k query cost YA, MD: Top-k query cost

Query Reranking As A Service

More Related Content

Similar to Query Reranking As A Service (20)

More from Abolfazl Asudeh (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

Query Reranking As A Service