-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 72
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[FEATURE] Add z-score for the normalization processor #376 #468
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ | ||
/* | ||
* Copyright OpenSearch Contributors | ||
* SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
package org.opensearch.neuralsearch.processor.normalization; | ||
|
||
import java.util.Arrays; | ||
import java.util.List; | ||
import java.util.Objects; | ||
import java.util.Optional; | ||
|
||
import lombok.ToString; | ||
|
||
import org.apache.lucene.search.ScoreDoc; | ||
import org.apache.lucene.search.TopDocs; | ||
import org.opensearch.neuralsearch.processor.CompoundTopDocs; | ||
|
||
import com.google.common.primitives.Floats; | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Implementation of z-score normalization technique for hybrid query | ||
* This is currently modeled based on the existing normalization techniques {@link L2ScoreNormalizationTechnique} and {@link MinMaxScoreNormalizationTechnique} | ||
* However, this class as well as the original ones require a significant work to improve style and ease of use, see TODO items below | ||
*/ | ||
/* | ||
TODO: Some todo items that apply here but also on the original normalization techniques on which it is modeled {@link L2ScoreNormalizationTechnique} and {@link MinMaxScoreNormalizationTechnique} | ||
1. Random access to abstract list object is a bad practice both stylistically and from performance perspective and should be removed | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Can you please provide an alternative what should be used? As per my understanding, random access on the List is bad if List concrete implementation is LinkedList. But what I have seen generally is we use ArrayList which is backed by arrays, hence random access is done in constant time. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It should be fine if we know the exact implementation of List, as Navneet mentioned. But with list we can use functional style easier, without expensive conversion array -> stream, that was a reason why we switched to a List. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Usually it is highly discouraged to do There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm ok to switch from using general There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @martin-gaievski same here, I added the comment out of intention to propose as a separate refactoring PR. |
||
2. Identical sub queries and their distribution between shards is currently completely implicit based on ordering and should be explicit based on identifier | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is really a good thought, but problem is none of the query clauses in Opensearch supports identifiers. During the implementation this was discussed. The problem is the way after QueryPhase the results are returned. They are returned in a ScoreDocs array which doesn't support identifiers. We can go around that but it will require changes in interface of OpenSearch Core. Hence we decided against it to make sure that we are compatible with OpenSearch core. If there is an alternative supported in opensearch please let us know, may be we are missing something There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. sounds good @navneet1v I will give it some thought and will come up with suggestion. In any case not planning to do as part of this change. Can keep it for now and can suggest refactor or just remove if not achievable. |
||
3. Implicit calculation of numOfSubQueries instead of having a more explicit upstream indicator/metadata regarding it | ||
*/ | ||
@ToString(onlyExplicitlyIncluded = true) | ||
public class ZScoreNormalizationTechnique implements ScoreNormalizationTechnique { | ||
@ToString.Include | ||
public static final String TECHNIQUE_NAME = "z_score"; | ||
private static final float SINGLE_RESULT_SCORE = 1.0f; | ||
|
||
@Override | ||
public void normalize(final List<CompoundTopDocs> queryTopDocs) { | ||
/* | ||
TODO: There is an implicit assumption in this calculation that probably need to be made clearer by passing some metadata with the results. | ||
Currently assuming that finding a single non empty shard result will contain all sub query results with 0 hits. | ||
*/ | ||
final Optional<CompoundTopDocs> maybeCompoundTopDocs = queryTopDocs.stream() | ||
.filter(Objects::nonNull) | ||
.filter(topDocs -> topDocs.getTopDocs().size() > 0) | ||
.findAny(); | ||
|
||
final int numOfSubQueries = maybeCompoundTopDocs.map(compoundTopDocs -> compoundTopDocs.getTopDocs().size()).orElse(0); | ||
|
||
// to be done for each subquery | ||
float[] sumPerSubquery = findScoreSumPerSubQuery(queryTopDocs, numOfSubQueries); | ||
long[] elementsPerSubquery = findNumberOfElementsPerSubQuery(queryTopDocs, numOfSubQueries); | ||
float[] meanPerSubQuery = findMeanPerSubquery(sumPerSubquery, elementsPerSubquery); | ||
float[] stdPerSubquery = findStdPerSubquery(queryTopDocs, meanPerSubQuery, elementsPerSubquery, numOfSubQueries); | ||
|
||
// do normalization using actual score and z-scores for corresponding sub query | ||
for (CompoundTopDocs compoundQueryTopDocs : queryTopDocs) { | ||
if (Objects.isNull(compoundQueryTopDocs)) { | ||
continue; | ||
} | ||
List<TopDocs> topDocsPerSubQuery = compoundQueryTopDocs.getTopDocs(); | ||
for (int j = 0; j < topDocsPerSubQuery.size(); j++) { | ||
TopDocs subQueryTopDoc = topDocsPerSubQuery.get(j); | ||
for (ScoreDoc scoreDoc : subQueryTopDoc.scoreDocs) { | ||
scoreDoc.score = normalizeSingleScore(scoreDoc.score, stdPerSubquery[j], meanPerSubQuery[j]); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
static private float[] findScoreSumPerSubQuery(final List<CompoundTopDocs> queryTopDocs, final int numOfScores) { | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit. private would be better unless you have specific reason this to be static. Better way would be moving all these methods to another class to make it easier to write unit test. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. convention I was following is that if method is not dependent on any instance object it should be static. |
||
final float[] sumOfScorePerSubQuery = new float[numOfScores]; | ||
Arrays.fill(sumOfScorePerSubQuery, 0); | ||
// TODO: make this syntactically clearer regarding performance by avoiding List.get(j) with an abstract List type | ||
for (CompoundTopDocs compoundQueryTopDocs : queryTopDocs) { | ||
if (Objects.isNull(compoundQueryTopDocs)) { | ||
continue; | ||
} | ||
List<TopDocs> topDocsPerSubQuery = compoundQueryTopDocs.getTopDocs(); | ||
for (int j = 0; j < topDocsPerSubQuery.size(); j++) { | ||
sumOfScorePerSubQuery[j] += sumScoreDocsArray(topDocsPerSubQuery.get(j).scoreDocs); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return sumOfScorePerSubQuery; | ||
} | ||
|
||
static private long[] findNumberOfElementsPerSubQuery(final List<CompoundTopDocs> queryTopDocs, final int numOfScores) { | ||
final long[] numberOfElementsPerSubQuery = new long[numOfScores]; | ||
Arrays.fill(numberOfElementsPerSubQuery, 0); | ||
// TODO: make this syntactically clearer regarding performance by avoiding List.get(j) with an abstract List type | ||
for (CompoundTopDocs compoundQueryTopDocs : queryTopDocs) { | ||
if (Objects.isNull(compoundQueryTopDocs)) { | ||
continue; | ||
} | ||
List<TopDocs> topDocsPerSubQuery = compoundQueryTopDocs.getTopDocs(); | ||
for (int j = 0; j < topDocsPerSubQuery.size(); j++) { | ||
numberOfElementsPerSubQuery[j] += topDocsPerSubQuery.get(j).totalHits.value; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return numberOfElementsPerSubQuery; | ||
} | ||
|
||
static private float[] findMeanPerSubquery(final float[] sumPerSubquery, final long[] elementsPerSubquery) { | ||
final float[] meanPerSubQuery = new float[elementsPerSubquery.length]; | ||
for (int i = 0; i < elementsPerSubquery.length; i++) { | ||
if (elementsPerSubquery[i] == 0) { | ||
meanPerSubQuery[i] = 0; | ||
} else { | ||
meanPerSubQuery[i] = sumPerSubquery[i] / elementsPerSubquery[i]; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return meanPerSubQuery; | ||
} | ||
|
||
static private float[] findStdPerSubquery( | ||
final List<CompoundTopDocs> queryTopDocs, | ||
final float[] meanPerSubQuery, | ||
final long[] elementsPerSubquery, | ||
final int numOfScores | ||
) { | ||
final double[] deltaSumPerSubquery = new double[numOfScores]; | ||
Arrays.fill(deltaSumPerSubquery, 0); | ||
// TODO: make this syntactically clearer regarding performance by avoiding List.get(j) with an abstract List type | ||
for (CompoundTopDocs compoundQueryTopDocs : queryTopDocs) { | ||
if (Objects.isNull(compoundQueryTopDocs)) { | ||
continue; | ||
} | ||
List<TopDocs> topDocsPerSubQuery = compoundQueryTopDocs.getTopDocs(); | ||
for (int j = 0; j < topDocsPerSubQuery.size(); j++) { | ||
for (ScoreDoc scoreDoc : topDocsPerSubQuery.get(j).scoreDocs) { | ||
deltaSumPerSubquery[j] += Math.pow(scoreDoc.score - meanPerSubQuery[j], 2); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
final float[] stdPerSubQuery = new float[numOfScores]; | ||
for (int i = 0; i < deltaSumPerSubquery.length; i++) { | ||
if (elementsPerSubquery[i] == 0) { | ||
stdPerSubQuery[i] = 0; | ||
} else { | ||
stdPerSubQuery[i] = (float) Math.sqrt(deltaSumPerSubquery[i] / elementsPerSubquery[i]); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return stdPerSubQuery; | ||
} | ||
|
||
static private float sumScoreDocsArray(final ScoreDoc[] scoreDocs) { | ||
float sum = 0; | ||
for (ScoreDoc scoreDoc : scoreDocs) { | ||
sum += scoreDoc.score; | ||
} | ||
|
||
return sum; | ||
} | ||
|
||
private static float normalizeSingleScore(final float score, final float standardDeviation, final float mean) { | ||
// edge case when there is only one score and min and max scores are same | ||
if (Floats.compare(mean, score) == 0) { | ||
return SINGLE_RESULT_SCORE; | ||
} | ||
return (score - mean) / standardDeviation; | ||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
any reason why we are removing this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not in use anywhere in the code