【论文阅读 CIKM‘2021】Learning Multiple Intent Representations for Search Queries

Original Paper

Learning Multiple Intent Representations for Search Queries

More related papers can be found in :

• ShiyuNee/Awesome-Conversation-Clarifying-Questions-for-Information-Retrieval: Papers about Conversation and Clarifying Questions (github.com)

Motivation

The typical use of representation models has a major limitation in that they generate only a single representation for a query, which may have multiple intents or facets.

• propose NMIR(Neural Multiple Intent Representations) to support multiple intent representations for each query

Method

Task Description and Problem Formulation

• training query set: Q = { q 1 , ⋯   , q n } Q = \{q_1,\cdots,q_n\} Q={q1​,⋯,qn​}
• $D_i=d_{i1},\cdots ,d_{im}$ be the top m retrieved documents in response to the query $q_i$
• F i = { f i 1 , ⋯   , f i k } F_i=\{f_{i1},\cdots,f_{ik}\} Fi​={fi1​,⋯,fik​} denote the set of all textual intent descriptions associated with the query $q_i$
  • $k_i$ is the number of query intents

NMIR Framework: A High-Level Overview

• one straightforward solution:
  • using an encoder-decoder architecture
    • input: query $q_i$
    • output: generates multiple query intent descriptions of the query by taking the top $k_i$ most likely predictions
  • drawback: These generations are often synonyms or refer to the same concept
• another straightforward solution:
  • task as a sequence-to-sequence problem
    • input: query $q_i$
    • output: generate all the query intent descriptions concatenated with each other(like translation)
  • drawback:
    • different intent representations are not distinguishable in the last layer of the model.
    • most existing effective text encoding models are not able to represent long sequences of tokens, such as a concatenation of the top 𝑚 retrieved documents

NMIR Framework:

• 𝜙 (·) and 𝜓 (·) denote a text encoder and decoder pair

Step1: NMIR assigns each learned document representation to one of the query intent descriptions $f_{i}j$ ∈ 𝐹𝑖 using a document-intent matching algorithm 𝛾:

• $C_i^{\ast }$ is a set of documents and each $C_{ij}^{\ast }$ is a set of documents form $D_i$ that are assigned to $f_{ij}$ by 𝛾.

Step2: NMIR then transforms the encoded general query representation to its intent representations through a query intent encoder 𝜁.

• the representation for the $j^{th}$​ query intent is obtained using 𝜁 (𝑞𝑖 ,$C_{ij}^{\ast }$ ;𝜙).

Train: training for a mini-batch 𝑏 is based on a gradient descent-based minimization:

• $q_{ij}^{\ast }$​ is a concatenation of the query string, the first 𝑗 −1 intent descriptions, and 𝑘𝑖 − 𝑗 mask tokens
  • given the associated cluster $C_{ij}^{\ast }$ and the encoded query text plus the past 𝑗−1 intent descriptions.
  • helps the model avoid generating the previous intent representations and learn widely distributed representations

where $L_{CE}$ is the cross-entropy loss

• $f_{ijt}$ is the $t^{th}$ token in the given intent description $f_{ij}$.

Inference: $q_{ij}^{\ast }$ s are constructed differently.

• first feed“𝑞𝑖 …” to the model and apply beam search to the decoder’s output to obtain
  the first intent description $f_{i1}$'.
• then use the model’s output to iteratively create the input for the next step “𝑞𝑖 $f_{i1}$’ …”and repeat this process

Model Implementation and Training

Figure1(a) represents the model architecture.

• use Transformer encoder and decoder architectures(pre-trained BART) for implementing 𝜙 and𝜓, respectively

The intent encoding component 𝜁 : use $N^{\prime }$ layers Guided Transformer model

• Guided Transformer is used for influencing an input representation by the guidance of some external information.
  • we use 𝜙 ($q_{ij}$ ) as the input representation and 𝜙 (𝑑) :∀𝑑 ∈$C_{ij}^{\ast }$ as the external information.

The document-intent matching component 𝛾 : develop a clustering algorithm

• encodes all the top retrieved documents and creates $k_i$ clusters, using a clustering algorithm(use K-Means).

  

  • C i j = { C i 1 , ⋯   , C i k i } C_{ij} = \{C_{i1},\cdots,C_{ik_i}\} Cij​={Ci1​,⋯,Ciki​​}​ denotes a set of clusters and each $C_{ij}$ contains all the documents in the 𝑗 th cluster associated with the query 𝑞𝑖 .
  • M i = { μ i 1 , ⋯ μ i k i } M_i=\{\mu_{i1},\cdots\mu_{ik_i}\} Mi​={μi1​,⋯μiki​​}is a set of all cluster centroids such that ${\mu }_{ij}$ = centroid($C_{ij}$).

• K-Means requires the number of clusters as input.

  • consider two cases at inference time
    • assume the number of clusters is equal to a tuned hyper-parameter 𝑘∗ for all queries
    • replace the K-Means algorithm by a non-parametric version of K-Means

• Issue: The component 𝛾 requires a one-to-one assignment between the cluster centroids and the query intents in the training data, all clusters may be assigned to a single most dominant query intent. So we use the intent identification function I:

  • my view: the problem is how to assign centroids to query intents after clustering.

  

• output:

  

𝛾 is not differentiable and cannot be part of the network for gradient descent-based optimization. We move it to an asynchronous process as figure1(b) below:

Asynchronous training: use asynchronous training method to speed up(the clustering of document representations is an efficiency bottleneck) described as figure1(b)

Data

• training data: We follow a weak supervision solution based on the MIMIC-Click dataset, recently released by Zamani et al. MIMICS: A Large-Scale Data Collection for Search Clarification
• evaluation data: Qulac dataset