1. Introduction
Web crawling is a widely used technique to obtain textual collections for multiple purposes in the fields of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Information Retrieval (IR). However, isolating relevant content from web pages is far from trivial. Noisy links, menus, navigation bars and other extraneous elements – the so-called boilerplate – impoverish the performance of downstream applications (Kohlschütter Reference Kohlschütter2009; Yi et al. Reference Yi, Liu and Li2003) and impose a substantial load on the systems (e.g., leading to higher storage requirements or larger search and classification times).
Traditional approaches to this problem follow rule-based or supervised learning approaches (Vieira et al. Reference Vieira, Da Silva, Pinto, De Moura, Cavalcanti and Freire2006; Vogels et al. Reference Vogels, Ganea and Eickhoff2018). In this paper, we propose a novel unsupervised strategy to perform the removal of boilerplate content. A Language Model (LM) is used to compute a perplexity value, which computes the logarithm of the probability for a given sentence according to the model distribution. This score can be seen as the ‘unlikeliness’ of the sentence, which can, in turn, be employed as a way to identify boilerplate and other non-language noise.
Our proposal also addresses efficiency issues by reducing execution times and storage requirements. As a non-supervised method, no specific training process is required and the resulting systems are lighter, computationally efficient, but still effective. This is intimately related to the current trend on Green AI solutions. Some authors (Duhart et al. Reference Duhart, Dublon, Mayton, Davenport and Paradiso2019; Henderson et al. Reference Henderson, Hu, Romoff, Brunskill, Jurafsky and Pineau2020; Schwartz et al. Reference Schwartz, Dodge, Smith and Etzioni2020) have begun to warn about the problem of focusing only on the performance metrics of algorithms and ignoring other economic, environmental and social costs. Schwartz et al. (Reference Schwartz, Dodge, Smith and Etzioni2020) also underlined the need to guarantee access to state-of-the-art technologies without huge investments being made. They propose to increase the importance of efficiency criteria when evaluating AI algorithms and studies. We believe that perplexity can become a valuable pre-processing element with potential to support multiple text mining applications, and, more specifically, it can act as a formal pruning device that leads to energy efficient solutions.
The main contributions of this paper can be summarised as follows:
-
A novel unsupervised method for boilerplate removal based on Language Models and perplexity estimation is proposed.
-
In terms of effectiveness, we show that this perplexity-based technique leads to improvements in an information retrieval search task and in a classification task. To that end, we have experimented with different datasets and evaluation metrics. In addition, we also demonstrate the potential of perplexity for a well-established webpage cleaning task.
-
Efficiency criteria have been carefully considered, and we show that removing boilerplate following a perplexity approach produces substantial reductions in storage space and yields low execution times. The offline (pre-processing) requirements of the boilerplate removal stage are quickly compensated for the computational advantages associated with the resulting noise-free web contents when they are used in search or classification tasks.
-
A Python package named PyPlexity has been built, and it is freely available to useFootnote a. It offers all the functionalities developed for this experimentation: removing HTML tags from a web document and computing perplexity for a given sentence, file or dataset. An online demoFootnote b is also available to test our models.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews some papers related to our research. In Section 3, we explain our unsupervised method for boilerplate removal. Section 4 reviews the experimental settings utilised to conduct the study. Performance and efficiency results for all tasks are reported in Section 5. Section 6 discusses the main findings, and Section 7 presents the Python package and web application. The paper ends with some conclusions.
2. Related work
Seminal approaches to boilerplate removal were rule-based. For example, Finn et al. (Reference Finn, Kushmerick and Smyth2001) utilised the position of HTML tags in web pages to determine a series of heuristics for extracting the main content. However, this method is rather rigid and cannot handle web documents that follow new structural patterns.
Later, some research teams considered DOM trees and HTML pages divided into blocks and employed supervised learning methods to discern between useful and non-useful blocks. Bauer et al. (Reference Bauer, Degen, Deng, Herger, Gasthaus, Giesbrecht, Jansen, Kalina, Kräger and Märtin2007) used Support Vector Machines (SVMs) to classify blocks based on linguistic, visual and structural features. Spousta et al. (Reference Spousta, Marek and Pecina2008) proposed a cleaning tool that follows a sequence-labelling approach based on Conditional Random Fields. Kohlschütter et al. (Reference Kohlschütter, Fankhauser and Nejdl2010) performed a comparison between shallow textual features and more sophisticated approaches. This comparative study was run with SVMs and under a block-oriented strategy. Pomikálek (Reference Pomikálek2011) also presented an unsupervised approach (named jusText) to deal with boilerplate based on hyperparameter exploration. This was the first algorithm that took context into account when identifying blocks of text.
A recent proposal is Web2Text (Vogels et al. Reference Vogels, Ganea and Eickhoff2018), which introduces a set of features from adjacent neighbours in the DOM tree and utilises deep learning techniques to predict each block’s category. Leonhardt and colleagues (Leonhardt et al. Reference Leonhardt, Anand and Khosla2020) noticed that these models require a large number of hand-crafted features and annotated training data. For this reason, they offered an alternative model that does not require pre-processing and directly classifies sequences of raw HTML from few training examples.
Most of these studies have shown the usefulness of their methods in tasks such as IR search, where pre-processing had been classically confined to simple strategies such as stemming or stopword removal (Kannan et al. Reference Kannan, Gurusamy, Vijayarani, Ilamathi, Nithya, Kannan and Gurusamy2014). In this study, we try to go one step further by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of our boilerplate removal method not only for a search task but also for document classification and cleaning tasks.
The main novelty of our study lies in the utilisation of perplexity as an indicator of well-formed text. Thus, our method can not only remove unnecessary scraped HTML blocks, but also malformed content. Instead of block segmentation, we propose a more general sentence segmentation technique. We build a Language Model and employ perplexity to estimate sentence likelihood (see Section 3 for more details). Related to our work, Wenzek et al. (Reference Wenzek, Lachaux, Conneau, Chaudhary, Guzmán, Joulin and Grave2019) employed perplexity as a proxy of quality of documents and scored documents to create curated monolingual corpora. We are not interested in removing documents from the collections but, rather, we define a document pre-processing technique able to remove noisy parts of the original texts.
Other uses of perplexity-based metrics have been suggested for some language-related tasks, such as tweet classification (González Reference González2015), language distance (Gamallo et al. Reference Gamallo, Pichel and Alegria2017; Campos et al. Reference Campos, Otero and Loinaz2020) or misinformation identification (Lee et al. Reference Lee, Bang, Madotto and Fung2020). Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Kanoulas and de Rijke2020) also employed perplexity scoring as an evaluation measure to estimate the quality of their entity extraction model. Solorio et al. (Reference Solorio, Sherman, Liu, Bedore, Peña and Iglesias2011) used NLP techniques to determine linguistic profiles in children, also using an LM background and the role of perplexity as an assessment metric.
As a final note, observe that we adopted in our study perplexity as our main indicator device, but other language metrics could have been considered. For example, multiple language divergence measures, such as Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) (Csiszár Reference Csiszár1975), could be applied to this task. The exploration of other divergence-based metrics and the study of their connection with the perplexity-based approach reported here is left for future work.
3. Methodology
Perplexity is a measure that has been mainly employed to evaluate LMs without targeting a specific downstream task (Sennrich Reference Sennrich2012) (i.e., as an intrinsic evaluation of models of language). A perplexity model indicates how well the data fit into the model distribution. If we assume that the model distribution is correct and unbiased, perplexity allows us to identify noisy data and outliers. In our case, we adopt perplexity as an indicator of potential boilerplate within a webpage.
The perplexity scores represents a metric about how well a language model fits a text sample, for instance a word or a sentence. Low perplexity suggests that the language model is good at predicting a given word, sentence or textual extract, while high perplexity indicates that the language model is not good for that prediction. More formally, the perplexity (called Perpl for short) of a language model on a text sample (e.g., a sentence) is the exponential of the cross entropy of the given text. Given a sentence
$S = w_{1}, w_{2}, ..., w_{n}$
and a language model LM with n-gram probabilities,
$P(\!{\cdot}\!)$
, estimated on a large corpus, the Perpl of S given the n-gram model LM is computed as follows:
\begin{align} Perpl(S,LM) = 2^{-\frac{1}{n} \cdot \sum_{i}^{n} \log_2{P(w_{i}|w_{1}^{i-1})}}\end{align}
where n-gram probabilities
$P(\!{\cdot}\!)$
of a word in position i given the immediate sequence to the left are defined as:
\begin{equation} P(w_{i}|w_{1}^{i-1}) = \frac{C(w_{1}^{i-1}w_{i})}{C(w_{1}^{i-1})}\end{equation}
Equation (2) estimates the n-gram probability by dividing the observed frequency (C) of a particular sequence of words by the observed frequency of the same sequence without the last word.
The use of perplexity for cleaning and pruning a corpus is illustrated in Figure 1. In our method, perplexity is computed on all input sentences and those with Perpl scores above a certain threshold (e.g.,
$\gt 1000$
) are removed. This represents a simple but potentially effective way to remove noisy parts of webpages. Traditional pruning mechanisms (e.g., word-level techniques such as stopword removal, frequency-based word pruning or stemming and lemmatisation) are also rather straightforward but, over the years, have become standard elements in multiple text mining and retrieval tools. Note also that the removal of noisy and non-relevant contents can be beneficial not only in terms of effectiveness but also in terms of efficiency (e.g., lighter indexes or data structures, faster access times).
Figure 1. Perplexity model for boilerplate removal.
3.1 Perplexity models
Two different datasets were selected to build the Language Models: the CORD-19 dataset (Wang et al. Reference Wang, Lo, Chandrasekhar, Reas, Yang, Burdick, Eide, Funk, Katsis, Kinney, Li, Liu, Merrill, Mooney, Murdick, Rishi, Sheehan, Shen, Stilson, Wade, Wang, Wang, Wilhelm, Xie, Raymond, Weld, Etzioni and Kohlmeier2020) and the British National Corpus (BNC) (Consortium et al. Reference Consortium2007). The first is a language corpus associated with a specific topic, while the second represents a more general use of language. CORD-19 contains 50K papers with over 41K full texts about COVID-19 and related historical coronaviruses such as MERS or SARS. We employed the abstracts of the papers to build the LM since abstracts are well-formed and contain succinct sentences. These abstracts add up 510 MB of text. BNC is a 100 million word collection of written and spoken British English collected from several sources and created by Oxford University. Work on the corpus began in 1991 and the written part, which is the one that interests us the most here, represents 90% of the total, including extracts from newspapers, specialist journals, academic books, and popular fiction. In total, we worked with 620 MB of data to build the LM.
We preferred highly curated texts to create the LMs, and we opted for two collections from different domains and genres, one more specific and another more general. This helps to study the influence of specificity vs generality on perplexity-based pruning of webpages. For this task, there was no need for an intricate model, since the objective is to just discern between well-formed sentences and notorious boilerplate. We chose simple bigrams and trigrams probabilistic models, which are both fast and adequate for perplexity computation.
4. Experimental settings
4.1 Datasets
The perplexity models built from CORD-19 and BNC were evaluated with two test collections designed for specific tasks (see Table 1 for details). The ClueWeb12-B13Footnote c collection was employed to perform experiments of indexing and search. This collection contains approximately 50 million pages. We ran tests with two different sets of queries and relevance assessments (one set of search topics – from the medical domain – obtained from the TREC 2019 Decision Track (Abualsaud et al. Reference Abualsaud, Lioma, Maistro, Smucker and Zuccon2019) and another set of general topics from the TREC 2013 Web Track (Collins-Thompson et al. Reference Collins-Thompson, Bennett, Diaz, Clarke and Voorhees2013)). The first set was used to determine the only parameter that our method requires: the maximum admissible value of perplexity per sentence. This parameter selection was then validated with the second set of test queries. The results are reported in Section 5.
Table 1. General statistics of search collections
A second class of experiments was executed to assess the effectiveness of the perplexity-based approach within a text classification task (webpage classification). To that end, the WebKB collectionFootnote d was chosen. It contains 8282 web pages from four different universities classified into seven different categories (courses, departments, faculty, projects, staff, students and other).
Finally, a third set of experiments was conducted to test the ability of our solution to clean up web content in the context of a well-known competition for cleaning webpages. More specifically, the shared-task CleanEval (Baroni et al. Reference Baroni, Chantree, Kilgarriff and Sharoff2008) provided the ideal framework for these last experiments. The CleanEval dataset contains a random sample of web corpora which was collected by making queries to Google (only html pages were collected). We employed 625 CleanEval webpages written in English. The collection contains the original webpages and webpages cleaned by recruiting human annotators who read the webpages and removed noisy content.
4.2 Metrics
For testing retrieval performance, the following metrics were used:
-
Precision at n (
$P@n$
): represents the fraction of the top n documents of the ranking that are relevant to the user’s information need (Croft et al. Reference Croft, Metzler and Strohman2010):.(3)where rel(p) equals 1 if the item at position p is a relevant document and 0 otherwise.
\begin{equation} P@n = \frac{\sum_{p=1}^{n} rel(p)}{n} \end{equation}
-
Average Precision (AP): it summarises the ranking by averaging the precision scores at the rank positions where a relevant document is foundeFootnote e (Croft et al. Reference Croft, Metzler and Strohman2010). In Equation (4), rels is the total number of relevant documents and
$P@n$
is the precision at a cut-off n. The mean AP (MAP) for a set of queries is the mean of average precision scores for each query. It is a popular method to assess the effectiveness of a ranked set of results.(4)
\begin{equation} AP = \frac{1}{rels} \cdot \sum_{n=1}^{rels} P@n \cdot rel(n) \end{equation}
-
Normalised Discounted Cumulative Gain at n (
$NDCG@n$
): NDCG measures the quality of search results taking into account different grades or levels of relevance (Croft et al. Reference Croft, Metzler and Strohman2010):(5)
\begin{equation} NDCG = \frac{DCG}{IDCG} \end{equation}
(6)DCG, Discounted Cumulative Gain (Equation (6)), defines the user’s gain as a measure that grows as he/she goes from the top of the ranking to lower positions. Under NDCG, the gain produced by each ranked document depends on its position. Gains obtained by relevant documents at higher positions are greater than those from relevant documents at lower ones. For example, a highly relevant document at a low-rank position is substantially penalised. To that end, each gain is penalised by a discounting factor (
\begin{equation} DCG = \sum_{p=1}^n\frac{2^{\text{rel}}_p-1}{log_2(p+1)} \end{equation}
$log_2(p+1)$
). The DCG values are normalised by dividing the DCG scores by the ideal DCG (IDCG, which represents the gains obtained by an oracle system that ranks documents by decreasing order of their actual relevance). The
$NDCG@n$
score represents the accumulated gain that the user obtained from examining the top n results.
All these metrics are computed for each available query and the reported figures represent the mean value across all queries. To analyse the statistical significance of the performance difference between two results, we employ the Wilcoxon test on the paired values (one from each query). Parapar et al. (Reference Parapar, Losada and Barreiro2021, Reference Parapar, Losada, Presedo-Quindimil and Barreiro2020) showed that the Wilcoxon test is a highly reliable test to compare retrieval systems (yields more statistical power and fewer type I errors). The significance tests help to determine whether or not each observed difference is anecdotal.
For evaluating classification performance, the F1 score (harmonic mean between precision and recall) for each class and macro average F1 (unweighted mean of F1 per class) are reported.
In this study, we also aim at improving computational efficiency, and, thus, we report here some time measures, storage improvements and an estimate of carbon savings (Lacoste et al. Reference Lacoste, Luccioni, Schmidt and Dandres2019). The elimination of noisy document’s parts has a potential to reduce time or space complexity, and it is important to quantify these improvements.
For the CleanEval shared task, the effectiveness metric measures the similarity between a cleaned version of the file (produced by a given cleaning algorithm, for example, our perplexity-based method) and the gold standard (produced from human annotators). To that end, the task considers Levenshtein edit distance as the main scoring method. It computes the distance between two strings given the fewest operations required to transform one into the other. The final measure is the percentage of misalignment between files (in our case, considering only text; HTML labels are skipped).
4.3 Search and classification models
For the retrieval experiments, the collection was indexed using the Anserini search engine (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Fang and Lin2018), and the retrieval model utilised was the query likelihood model (QL) (Ponte and Croft Reference Ponte and Croft2017). This is a well-known probabilistic retrieval approach that assumes that the query is generated by sampling words from the document and that each query term is independent, meaning that the probability of the query is a product of the probability of each term. Equation (7) presents the QL document relevance score, where
$p(q|d)$
is the conditional probability of the query q given the document d. To account for query terms that do not appear in the document, probability values need to be smoothed using a reference language model or corpus. In our experiments, we utilised Dirichlet Smoothing (Equation (8)). A full description of probabilistic language models for IR, which shows the advantages of QL with Dirichlet smoothing and its solid length normalisation abilities, is available at Losada and Azzopardi (Reference Losada and Azzopardi2008).
\begin{equation} \text{QL_score}(q,d) = \log p(q|d)\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \text{QL_score}_{\text{DIR}}(q,d) = \sum_{w\in q,d}c(w,q) \cdot \log \left(1+\frac{c(w,d)}{\mu \cdot p(w|C)}\right) + |q| \cdot \log \frac{\mu}{\mu + |d|}\end{equation}
c(w, q) (c(w, d)) is the number of occurrences of word w in the query (document).
$p(w|C)$
is the probability of the word in the background corpus, and
$|q|$
and
$|d|$
are the lengths of the query and document, respectively.
$\mu$
is the smoothing parameter, which was set to 2000 in our experiments.
For document classification, state-of-the-art Transformers models were used (Vaswani et al. Reference Vaswani, Shazeer, Parmar, Uszkoreit, Jones, Gomez, Kaiser and Polosukhin2017). More specifically, we evaluated and compared BERT (Devlin et al. Reference Devlin, Chang, Lee and Toutanova2018) and RoBERTa (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Ott, Goyal, Du, Joshi, Chen, Levy, Lewis, Zettlemoyer and Stoyanov2019) models. These models consist only of an encoder architecture and have proven ability in outperforming traditional classifiers. We experimented with the base and large configurations of both models. To that end, ErnieFootnote f , the open-source library, was utilised.
Following Sun et al. (Reference Sun, Lim and Ng2002), we did cross-validation by always leaving the webpages from one of the universities out. The classification collection is highly imbalanced, and, thus, we followed standard practise to set the error weights from the proportion of cases in each class.
4.4 Hardware platform
Different hardware configurations were used, depending on the task. The tag removal and perplexity computation for the ClueWeb dataset (which corresponds to TREC 2019 Decision Track and TREC 2013 Web Track tasks) was carried out in a Big Data computing cluster. This cluster is formed by 15 nodes, each one with two Intel Xeon E5-2630 v4 and 384GB of RAM, for a total of 20 cores per node. The computing load for these tasks was distributed across the 300 available cores using data parallelism. Once the tag removal and perplexity computation for the dataset was completed, indexing and search (supported by Anserini) were run in one node of the cluster.
The classification task required a GPU-powered server. For this reason, experiments were conducted in a single server with two Intel Xeon Gold 5220, 192GB of RAM and two Nvidia Tesla V100S. These GPUs efficiently support the training processes required by BERT and RoBERTa classification models.
Finally, the cleaning task was computed on a single node with an Intel i7-9700K CPU @ 3.60GHz, 32GB of RAM and no GPU capabilities.
5. Results
5.1 Search experiments
5.1.1 TREC 2019 decision track
The first part of the experiments was conducted with queries and relevance assessments from the TREC 2019 Decision Track (DT19). This test collection consists of search topics related to the medical domain and documents crawled from the web (ClueWeb dataset).
The DT19 collection was used for optimising the only hyperparameter of the boilerplate removal method: the perplexity cut-off value. The higher the perplexity cut-of,f the fewer sentences are removed. We experimented with the following perplexity cut-off values: 1K, 2K, 4K, 6K, 8K, 10K, 12K and 14K.
Table 2 shows the results by comparing the effectiveness of different levels of removal against the retrieval baseline, which does not remove any sentence. Most of the tested models and thresholds outperform the baseline and in some cases the improvements are statistically significant. The improvements are solid for high-precision metrics (P@5 and P@10) but also for AP and NDCG, which take into account the entire ranking of documents. Only a couple of instances lead to performance decreases that are statistically significant (and this only happens for AP). This is reasonable since AP is a recall-oriented measure. Our cleaning technique eliminates malformed text but the method is not perfect, and, thus, some pruned sentences might be actually relevant. This affects AP in some of the tested configurations. In contrast, the removal method proves to be powerful for the three precision-oriented metrics (P@5, P@10 and NDCG@10).
Table 2. TREC 2019 Decision Track. Effect of different perplexity cut-off values (reported in brackets) on retrieval performance. The
$\uparrow$
/
$\downarrow$
symbols indicate whether the method significantly improves or not (Wilcoxon test,
$\alpha=0.05$
) over the baseline (no perplexity-based removal)
This exploration of the perplexity cut-off suggests that we can safely find a cut-off configuration that is robust and works well for precision-oriented and recall-oriented metrics. The reader should also bear in mind that it is important to keep (or even improve) retrieval effectiveness, but space savings and other efficiency-oriented factors are other important aspects associated to perplexity-based removal (this will be further discussed in Section 5.1.3).
Not surprisingly, BNC-based models outperform CORD-19 ones. This confirms that the BNC-based approach, which removes noisy sentences based on a general model of language, is more apt to determine which sentences should remain. The DT19 search topics are medical queries and, thus, somehow close to CORD-19 but, still, this more focused language data does not give any added value. Observe that it is convenient that the approach does not require a topic-specific corpus to build the perplexity models. A general language corpus suffices to filter out noisy and off-topic contents, and the BNC-based method would be applicable across general-purpose search tasks and collections.
Regarding bigrams vs trigrams, the latter models yielded slightly better effectiveness. Taking these results into account, we adopted the following models, which constitute a good balance among all the performance metrics: BNC trigram models (8K and 10K), and BNC bigram models (8K and 10K). These variants, which are marked in light grey colour in the table, are not always the best performers but they represent a solid configuration that often leads to statistical significant improvements.
5.1.2 TREC 2013 web track
Next, the selected models were evaluated with another test collection, the TREC 2013 Web Track (WT2013). This dataset has also a large corpus of webpages crawled from the web (ClueWeb12 dataset) and includes search topics that represent general information needs (informational or navigational queries).
The results of this experimentation are shown in Table 3. In most of the cases, the perplexity-based variants lead to higher effectiveness, and the method only yields minor decreases in AP. Note also that AP is not a crucial metric for most web retrieval tasks, where high recall is rarely pursued. This outcome further reinforces the potential of the approach not only to produce lighter and less noisy indexed data but also to maintain and even improve retrieval performance.
Table 3. TREC 2013 Web Track. The
$\uparrow$
/
$\downarrow$
symbols indicate whether the method significantly improves or not (Wilcoxon test,
$\alpha=0.05$
) over the baseline (no perplexity-based removal)
Additionally, there is not a noticeable difference between bigram and trigram models. Both alternatives perform roughly the same. This is another interesting outcome since bigram models are simpler and thus less costly.
5.1.3 Efficiency
Improving effectiveness is an attractive feature of the perplexity-based removal but efficiency is also a major dimension that needs to be taken into account. The first notable advantage of our method is space saving. The sizes of the corresponding indexes are reported in Tables 2 and 3 (last column), while Figure 2 plots the sizes in a graphical way (the leftmost bar represents the baseline situation with no perplexity-based removal). Compared with the original collection, we can save up more than 75% of the storage cost of the indexing structures (e.g., 96 GB vs 382 GB for the BNC-10k model).
Figure 2. Space savings derived from using our model in the IR search task.
This space saving also translates into several time improvements. The reduced size of the collection results in a substantial decrease of the computing time required to index and search (see Table 4). Our method requires two cleaning phases before indexing: the removal of HTML tags from the entire collection and the actual computation and removal of perplexity at sentence level. As stated in Section 4.4, both operations were carried out in parallel in a Big Data cluster. However, with multiple users doing search online, a crucial measure for an IR engine is search time and that is where our method stands out. For example, for the BNC bigrams model with a threshold set at 8K, the search of 10,000 queries is approximately 1.95 times faster than the same search against the original index. Indexing and searching were executed on a single node because of the restrictions of the retrieval library utilised. Nonetheless, these results can generalise to an entire cluster.
Table 4. Time measurements (HH:MM:SS) for the baseline and some perplexity-based variants
Consequently, this translates into important carbon emission reductions. This reduction grows with the number of searches done against the collection. In Table 5, we show the estimated carbon emissions for our system. Carbon emission were estimated following the methodology presented in Lacoste et al. (Reference Lacoste, Luccioni, Schmidt and Dandres2019), while carbon intensity data for our region and energy provider was taken from Moro and Lonza (Reference Moro and Lonza2018). We first calculated the equivalent CPU-hours required for the computation in each step and then derived the estimated carbon emissions with the following relation:
\begin{equation} \text{eq. kg of CO}_2= \frac{t\cdot C_e \cdot W_{\text{cpu}}}{1000}\end{equation}
Table 5. Carbon emissions in kg of CO
$_2$
for the baseline and some perplexity-based variants
where t is the equivalent CPU-hours of computation (taking parallelisation into account),
$C_e=0,341$
is the carbon efficiency coefficient of the grid (measured in kg CO
$_2$
eq/kWh), and
$W_{\text{cpu}}$
is the Thermal Design Power of the CPU in watts.
With the 8K BNC bigrams model, the answer to 10,000 searches requires approximately half carbon emissions of the baseline. Consider, for example, the case of a real-world IR system. Google reported more than 2 million searches per minute in 2012, its latest statistics availableFootnote
g
. Taking all the perplexity computing, indexing and inference emissions into account, our method reduces on average 5.58kg of CO
$_2$
per million queries, which translates into more than 22 tons of CO
$_2$
saved each day.
5.2 Classification experiments: WebKB
Let us evaluate now the performance of the perplexity-based models for another text-related challenge, a document classification task. To that goal, we adopted the experimental methodology and collection utilised in Sun et al. (Reference Sun, Lim and Ng2002), but we worked with newer classifiers based on transformers (instead of traditional SVMs).
The results are shown in Table 6. The first row corresponds with the baseline that, in this case, takes the webpages and only removes the HTML tags. This is a standard pre-processing approach in web classification. Our cleaning methods allowed the classifier to perform better in many cases. The bigrams models (and, particularly, the ones with the threshold set to 8K) are the best performers. Another interesting outcome is the low performance obtained by the baseline with the BERT large model. A plausible explanation for this is that BERT large is a model with a huge number of parameters, and it would need a larger amount of training data to generalise better. In any case, the BERT large model also benefits from our pre-processing methods, which only keep useful information and remove boilerplate. This difference is not as noticeable with RoBERTa large, as it is an improved and robust model to avoid such problems.
Table 6. Classification results for WebKB dataset. For each block, the top performer (F1 macro) is bolded
Overall, these results suggest that a base model with perplexity-based removal of noisy sentences is comparable to (or better than) more sophisticated (and more inefficient) models based on a larger set of parameters. As a matter of fact, the highest F1 macro (
$0.6350$
) is obtained by combining the RoBERTa base model with perplexity-based pre-processing (bigrams, 8k threshold).
5.2.1 Efficiency
In terms of efficiency, there is again a saving in space by reducing the size of the dataset. However, for this task the space reduction is less significant as it is a collection of a few megabytes. As stated before, our boilerplate removal method permits the utilisation of less expensive models, such as RoBERTa base which, together with the perplexity-based pre-processing, overcomes more complex models. This results in direct savings in training time. For instance, in our experiments the RoBERTa base model was more than 3 times faster than RoBERTa large.
On the other hand, perplexity-based pruning leads to smaller representations of the webpages and, potentially, to lower prediction times. However, the state-of-the-art classification models described above, based on transformer technologies, do not analyse the entire input documents but are limited to a 512 token limit. In practice, even after removal of noisy sentences, most documents are above the 512 token limit, and, thus, the improvement in prediction time was not noticeable. However, the decrease in prediction time would be observable under other classification models that make predictions based on the whole page.
5.3 Cleaning experiments: CleanEval
As stated before, our method goes one step further than simply removing boilerplate. Its main goal is to identify useful and well-formed text to enhance the performance of downstream tasks. However, we also wanted to demonstrate its validity for cleaning webpages. To this end, we selected the best performers for the previous tasks (both BNC-based bigrams models with thresholds set to 8k and 10k) and compared them with the jusText algorithm. As can be seen in Table 7, our models outperform jusText for the CleanEval shared-task.
Table 7. CleanEval shared task results for two perplexity-based methods and the jusText algorithm. The percentage scores represent the average similarity between the webpages cleaned automatically and the ground truth webpages
6. Discussion
Our unsupervised cleaning method improved performance for most of the evaluation measures under the search task. However, it should be noticed that the perplexity-based removal works as a precision-oriented technique, and it was less effective in terms of recall (particularly in terms of AP). This occurs because our cleaning technique eliminates not only boilerplate, but also malformed or noisy sentences and some of them might be actually relevant.
Another important outcome is that for both tasks BNC-based models outperformed their CORD-19 counterparts. We wanted to test how the topicality of the background corpus influences performance. The results suggest that the most general model, in terms of content, yields the best results. This happened for both tasks (search and classification).
The proposed perplexity models consisted of simple bigrams and trigrams under a probabilistic approach. Experiments demonstrate that the bigram variants, which are less complex and thus more efficient, are also the top performers for most of the evaluated metrics. This saving was also one of the main objectives of the study, as stated at the beginning.
Therefore, not only effectiveness but also efficiency was taken into account in our study. As detailed in Section 5.1.3, our models substantially reduce carbon emissions, when a sufficient number of searches are performed over the collection (Lacoste et al. Reference Lacoste, Luccioni, Schmidt and Dandres2019). We estimate that our method could reduce in average 5.58kg of CO
$_2$
per million queries. To put this result in perspective, this CO
$_2$
weight is equivalent to 24.13 km driven by an average carFootnote
h
, 3.09 kg of coal burnedFootnote
i
or 0.1 tree seedlings consuming carbon for 10 yearsFootnote
j
.
Finally, we have done a special effort to make the perplexity-based technology available to the community. We anticipate multiple uses of perplexity as a pre-processing mechanism in a wide range of text mining projects. To facilitate new applications of perplexity, we have created a Python package and a web demo that implement the boilerplate removal methods detailed in this study. This is described in the next section.
7. Python package and Web demo
Along with this publication, we provide PyPlexitya, a Python package available at the PyPiFootnote k repository. We also release with the package the source code required to train and utilise the models. This library serves two purposes: on one hand, it allows end-users to utilise our models from any python programme, with just a single line of code. On the other hand, it offers a command-line interface that provides straightforward perplexity computation.
There are three main commands that can be run from console. The simplest one is perplexity, which calculates the perplexity score for a sentence and a given model. The tag-remover command processes a raw HTML file or input directory of files and removes any tags and other non-text components. Finally, the bulk-perplexity processor computes perplexity for a batch of files and removes any sentence above the perplexity limit provided by the user (set by default to 8K). These two latter commands also have distributed computing capabilities, allowing efficient processing of large collections of documents in a computing clusterFootnote l .
The Python interface allows integrating these computations into Python code. To demonstrate some of these capabilities, Figure 3 is provided, in which we utilise our tool to compute the perplexity score of a sentence and clean a line of text from Python code. Please refer to the documentationFootnote m for further details.
Figure 3. Some of the Pyplexity capabilities shown up and running in a Jupyter Notebook.
Additionally, we are publishing a web appb to make some small tests on how to directly clean raw and html texts or cleaning directly from an URL. A screenshot of the demo is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Demo webpage that showcases the capabilities of the methodology presented in this study.
8. Conclusion and future work
In this paper, we have proposed an unsupervised method for extracting useful content from scraped webpages. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first perplexity-based approach adopted for this kind of text pre-preprocessing.
A thorough experimentation process has been performed. This included evaluation with different test collections and tasks. With perplexity-based removal of sentences, we have managed to improve performance under several web-related tasks, in some cases even significantly.
In addition, our models also follow Green AI principles and seek to maximise energy efficiency. The pre-processing requirements of our method are compensated for the advantages associated with the resulting noise-free web contents when they are used in the test tasks.
Furthermore, we provide an easy-to-use library and web tool, which facilitate the adoption of this technology to support the removal of noisy textual extracts. We are convinced that perplexity-based removal might play a role in multiple application domains and text mining tasks.
As future work, we intend to explore other tokenisation techniques and work with different textual granularities (besides sentence level) to see the impact on recall-oriented measures. Moreover, we also plan to test the helpfulness of these cleaning techniques in other areas, such as health misinformation detection, and continue expanding the open-source tools which accompany this study.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the support obtained from i) project PLEC2021-007662 (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Agencia Estatal de Investigación, Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia, Unión Europea-Next GenerationEU), and ii) Consellería de Educación, Universidade e Formación Profesional (accreditation 2019-2022 ED431G-2019/04, ED431C 2022/19) and the European Regional Development Fund, which acknowledges the CiTIUS-Research Center in Intelligent Technologies of the University of Santiago de Compostela as a Research Center of the Galician University System.
Competing interests declaration
The author(s) declare none.
Open access
