Restructuring Sparse High Dimensional Data for Effective Retrieval

The task in text retrieval is to find the subset of a collection of documents relevant to a user's information request, usually expressed as a set of words. Classically, documents and queries are represented as vectors of word counts. In its simplest form, relevance is defined to be the dot product between a document and a query vector--a measure of the number of common terms. A central difficulty in text retrieval is that the presence or absence of a word is not sufficient to determine relevance to a query. Linear dimensionality reduction has been proposed as a technique for extracting underlying structure from the document collection. In some domains (such as vision) dimensionality reduction reduces computational complexity. In text retrieval it is more often used to improve retrieval performance. We propose an alternative and novel technique that produces sparse representations constructed from sets of highly-related words. Documents and queries are represented by their distance to these sets. and relevance is measured by the number of common clusters. This technique significantly improves retrieval performance, is efficient to compute and shares properties with the optimal linear projection operator and the independent components of documents.

Theories of Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis is the problem of predicting how a system will react to perturbations in its parameters, and why. For example, comparative analysis could be asked to explain why the period of an oscillating spring/block system would increase if the mass of the block were larger. This thesis formalizes the task of comparative analysis and presents two solution techniques: differential qualitative (DQ) analysis and exaggeration. Both techniques solve many comparative analysis problems, providing explanations suitable for use by design systems, automated diagnosis, intelligent tutoring systems, and explanation based generalization. This thesis explains the theoretical basis for each technique, describes how they are implemented, and discusses the difference between the two. DQ analysis is sound; it never generates an incorrect answer to a comparative analysis question. Although exaggeration does occasionally produce misleading answers, it solves a larger class of problems than DQ analysis and frequently results in simpler explanations.