Title: Associative Peer to Peer Networks: Harnessing Latent Semantics
1Associative Peer to Peer Networks Harnessing
Latent Semantics
- Edith Cohen
- ATT Labs-research
Amos Fiat Haim Kaplan Tel-Aviv University
2Traditional Client-server Web
3Peer-to-peer Networks
Distributed network for sharing content (music,
video, software, etc.), where each host acts as
both a server and a client
- Harness vast resources
- Scalability/Robustness to failures/shutdowns
4P2P Search
Overall performance of a P2P network highly
depends on the efficiency and versatility of
search
What features are important ?
- Scope ability to locate rare items
Find the 10th episode of Star Trek Voyager - Partial-match/complex queries
Find an Indiana Jones movie - Or Indiana Joens movie..
5 (search in) Basic P2P Architectures
Partial-Matches
Scope
Centralized (Napster) central index service.
- Decentralized peers are connected by low-degree
overlay network.
6Associative P2P networks
- Retain Gnutellas desirable properties
- Distributed overlay network
- Peers store only what they need (common good at
par with own welfare) - No tight control of topology/content
- Support partial-match queries
- AND
- Have search scope (orders of magnitude
improvement over Gnutella)
- Make implicit use of latent semantics
- Provably good on a reasonable model
- Very good on simulations
7P2P search framework
- Search queries are propagated on the overlay
(from peer to a neighbor peer). - When a peer receives a query, it checks if it can
satisfy it decreases hop count and forwards it
to a subset of its neighbors. - Each search includes query and a propagation
rule, which determines which neighbors the
search is propagated to.
DHTs propagation rule hash of
query Gnutella propagation rule independent
of query Associative propagation rules are
predicates (guide rules)
8Overview
- What do we mean by latent semantics ?
- Challenges in using latent semantics in P2P
setting - Our proposal search propagation via Possession
rules - Possession rules overlays
- Search strategies
- Possession rules search strategies Rapier, GAS
- Models for blind search strategies (gnutella)
- Analysis in the Itemsets model
- Experimental evaluation
- More on GAS search strategy
9View of P2P file sharing network
10What is latent semantics?
- Selections people make are dependent
- If you buy baby formula, you are more likely to
buy diapers. - If two people loved a show, they are more likely
to agree on other shows.
- Peer/Item matrix is Market Basket dataset.
Similar to buyers/items, Document/terms,
Web-pages/hyperlinks, movies/viewers. - Applications for extracting patterns from market
basket data Information Retrieval, Collaborative
Filtering, Web search, Marketing, Recommendation
Systems,. (clustering, search, association
rules)
?? P2P search direct queries to peers with
interests that match yours
11Challenges
- Overlay topology (networking aspects) must be
coupled with search strategy (Information
Retrieval/Data-Mining) - Traditional IR and data-mining tools are not
adapted to the highly distributed P2P setting. - Similarity metrics/clustering/ranking involve
matrix operations on the market basket data
principal component analysis (LSI), eigenvalue
computations, association rules
12Possession Rules
- Rule(O) do you possess item O ?
- Peer maintains a possession rule for each item in
its index (subset if index is large) - Search strategy a sequence of possession rules
(with hop counts/search size limit)
Making this work
13Possession-rules overlays
Peer26
Index of P26 Rules/Items Rule(A) Rule(B) Rule(C
) Rule(D)
14Rules/Items Rule(A) Rule(B) Rule(C ) Rule(D)
15Possession-rule overlay
Network is gnutella-like, within each rule
- Coverage The induced overlay on peers that
satisfy each rule constitutes of large connected
components. - Small degree Each peer participates in a limited
number of rules. (yet, overall there is a large
number rules), for each rule it participates
in, the peer maintains several participating
neighbors. - Overlay and search boost each other (easy to find
appropriate neighbors for each rule)
- When you find O, you often discover multiple
peers that have O when you give O, the searcher
informs you of other peers with O. - Peers that have O can find other peers that have O
( can use super-peer overlay within each rule
!!)
16Search strategies
- To beat blind search, associative search should
probe peers that are more likely to answer than
random peers - Associative search
- RAPIER Random Possession Rule crudest
strategy - GAS Greedy Selection refined strategy
- Blind search
- Urand (gnutella) all peers have same
likelihood of being probed in each query - Prand (gnutella modified) peers are probed
proportionally to their index size (RAPIER has
same bias)
17RAPIER Random Possession Rulesimplest
possession-rule based strategy
- RAPIER Search strategy
- Repeat until found
- Pick a random item O from your index
- Search peers that have this item (using rule(O))
Straightforward to implement on top of a
possession-rule overlay network
18Analysis Itemsets Model
- Items belong to topics. There are very many
topics but each peer can only select items from
a fixed set of topics. Topic popularities can
highly vary but each peer has equal interest in
each of its topics. - We show that
- RAPIER is at least as good as Prand
- RAPIER is better than Prand when peers have fewer
topics - Simple model that hints on what is going on
19Experiments
- Data used Client/Hostname matrix from proxy
logs as peer/item matrix. Each entry, in turn,
is treated as a search item. - Similarly-structured market basket data
- Has rare items (which current P2P networks dont
support) - No universal model for market basket data
- Cant get a full index for many peers from
current P2P networks and these networks dont
reflect well on rare items. - Metric ESS (Expected Search Size number of
peers probed till search is resolved). CDF of
fraction of searches that have ESS below x.
20ESS Expected Search Size
- ESS 1/(success probability in each probe) (when
probes are independent not true for GAS) - Probe success probability
- Urand fraction of peers that have the item in
their index - Prand weight of each peer is its index size
divided by sum of index sizes of all peers. - Success prob (weight of peers with item) /
(weight of peers without item) - RAPIER the average, over possession rules peer
participates in, of fraction of peers in rule
that have the item.
21Peer-Item Matrix - Experiment
Items
?
?
?
?
?
?
Peers
?
?
22Urand and Prand
Items
Peers
?
23RAPIER (Random Possession Rule)
Items
Peers
?
24Caveat comparing apples and oranges
- When searching by possession rules we have bias
towards peers that participate in more rules/
have more items. - But, with this bias, a strategy has better chance
of finding what it is looking for! So - We show that the likelihood of being probed is
proportional to number of rules you participate
in. - Prand blind search strategy has same bias.
- Thus, it is fair to compare Prand search with
possession-rule based RAPIER
25GAS Refining RAPIER
- Ideas
- Some rules are better than others (e.g.,
possession of a very popular item carries weaker
information) - Unsuccessful search carries information suppose
you lost something, you think you lost it at
home. You search home going through various
closets and drawers and dont find it, then you
may decide to go search the office, even if you
have not completed an exhaustive search at home.
What happened? The posterior distribution on the
items location had changed as a result of the
search.
26All Items
- Urand Blind search (Gnutella),
- Prand Gnutella modified,
- Rapier, GAS our algorithms
27Rare Items present in 1 of peers
28Rarer items 0.1 of peers
29Even Rarer Item 0.01 of peers
30GAS Greedy Strategy
- Idea use the search strategy that would have
optimized your search on previous queries. - Caveat this is NP-Complete
- Can do greedy approximation strategy GAS
- GAS
- initialize the query vector to a uniform
distribution on previous selections. - Iterate the following
- Apply the possession rule that maximizes success
probability with respect to the query posterior - update the query posterior.
Theorem GAS is a constant factor approximation
of the optimal strategy
31Building GAS strategies
- GAS
- Take a sample of items currently in your index
D,E,F,G. - search for these items in each possession rule
you participate A,B,C - obtain a matrix fraction of peers with item x in
rule(y)
32GAS strategy (example)
C,C,C,A,C,C,A,C,A,C,B,B,A,C,B,B,C,A,B,B,C
GAS search of size 21 10 probes in rule(C)
6 probes in rule(B) 5 probes in rule(A)
RAPIER search of size 21 7 probes in
rule(C) 7 probes in rule(B) 7 probes in
rule(A)
33Summary
- We proposed a general framework for associative
P2P search exploit patterns inherent in human
selections to boost search. Adapted to the P2P
setting. - Search strategies and the overlay structure are
symbiotic and guided/boosted by previous
selections/queries. - Common good in par with own welfare All data
maintained by each peer has direct personal
benefit (like gnutella). Helping others helps
you - Possession rules
- Strategies are approximations to standard
similarity metrics that work!!. - Easy to find other sources of desired item (for
alternative/parallel downloads)
34Related work
- IR-DM association rules/collaborative
filtering/Web search - P2P networks unstructured networks DHTs
- DHTs have symbiotic overlay/search strategy
- Caching at peers (Freenet) adapt overlay
according to search - Intersection
- Crespo/Garcia-Molina 02 routing indexes
- System isolates topicsmap queries/items to
topics. - Peer knows summary of what can be reached thru
it/each neighbor - Query keywords are used to select a neighbor who
is a best match - Differences from our approach
- No connection between search and overlay topology
- Uses only text/keywords. We use co-location
associations between items. - CG02 tradeoff between topic divergence (all
nodes ending up with similar index summary) or
restricted coverage (number of peers included in
each peer summary) - neurogrid.net (Sam Joseph, U. Tokyo) agent
text-based approach - Peers learn and remember content of other peers
35Future
- Integrate text matching (of query keywords) in
search strategy (use rule(O) if query keywords
match Os metadata) - Select which possession rules to participate in
(e.g., using item popularity heuristic or
GAS-like selection) - Search strategy gives more weight to more recent
selections (are more indicative of next query) - Explore other types of propagation rules
- P2P communities ?
- Integrate Recommendation Systems in P2P ?
- Implementation
36Thank You!
37Some Extra Comments
- Issues with straightforward importing of IR
techniques - Vector space approach
- Similarity metrics
- Why we need to use several propagation rules in a
search? (when searching according to examples
in the index)
38Straight IR vector-space approach
- Peers are mapped to vectors, according to their
index content. Queries are mapped to the vectors
in the same space. - Overlay topology is correlated with distances in
this vector space (bias towards closer peers) - Search propagation targets regions of the space
that are closest to the query.
- neighborsO(dimension) - want small dimension
- Yet, Matrix operations, e.g principal component
analysis (LSI), are hard in our distributed
setting - Yet, each peer should be able to compute the
mapping for its queries and/or index - Proximity metric alone is insufficient (Need
different propagation rules)
39Why we need several propagation rules for the
same query decision-tree like search
- propagation rule approx interest area
- Each peer covers several interest areas, peers
have different sets of interest areas. - Peer Query 80 basketball 20polo
- World Index 5 basketball 0.1 polo
- All basketball lovers would be close matches
but need to direct search to more polo lovers - multi-rule search strategy basketball 200
peers polo 200 peers