这是我找到的最好的答案，由谷歌的研究总监Peter Norvig实施和描述的拼写纠正器。

如果你想了解更多这背后的理论，你可以阅读他书中的章节。

该算法的思想基于统计机器学习。

关于你的问题，如何在没有大量数据的情况下模仿行为——为什么不使用谷歌收集的大量数据呢?下载谷歌的sarch结果拼写错误的单词，并搜索“Did you mean:”在HTML中。

我猜现在这叫做混搭:-)

我的猜测是，他们使用了Levenshtein距离算法和他们收集的大量关于正在运行的搜索数据的组合。他们可以提取一组与输入的搜索字符串的Levenshtein距离最短的搜索，然后选择结果最多的搜索。

除了上面的答案，如果你想自己快速实现一些东西，这里有一个建议-

算法

你可以在GitHub上找到该算法的实现和详细文档。

创建带有比较器的优先级队列。 创建一个Ternay搜索树，插入所有英语单词(来自Norvig的帖子)及其频率。 开始遍历TST，对于TST中遇到的每个单词，计算它与input_word之间的Levenshtein Distance(LD) 如果LD≤3，则将其置于优先队列中。 最后从优先队列中提取10个单词并显示。

通常，产品拼写纠正器会使用几种方法来提供拼写建议。一些人:

Decide on a way to determine whether spelling correction is required. These may include insufficient results, results which are not specific or accurate enough (according to some measure), etc. Then: Use a large body of text or a dictionary, where all, or most are known to be correctly spelled. These are easily found online, in places such as LingPipe. Then to determine the best suggestion you look for a word which is the closest match based on several measures. The most intuitive one is similar characters. What has been shown through research and experimentation is that two or three character sequence matches work better. (bigrams and trigrams). To further improve results, weigh a higher score upon a match at the beginning, or end of the word. For performance reasons, index all these words as trigrams or bigrams, so that when you are performing a lookup, you convert to n-gram, and lookup via hashtable or trie. Use heuristics related to potential keyboard mistakes based on character location. So that "hwllo" should be "hello" because 'w' is close to 'e'. Use a phonetic key (Soundex, Metaphone) to index the words and lookup possible corrections. In practice this normally returns worse results than using n-gram indexing, as described above. In each case you must select the best correction from a list. This may be a distance metric such as levenshtein, the keyboard metric, etc. For a multi-word phrase, only one word may be misspelled, in which case you can use the remaining words as context in determining a best match.

几年前我在这方面看到过一些东西，所以可能已经改变了，但显然他们是通过分析相同用户在短时间内提交非常相似的查询的日志开始的，并根据用户如何纠正自己使用机器学习。