Your search
Results 6 resources
-
The Probabilistic Relevance Framework (PRF) is a formal framework for document retrieval, grounded in work done in the 1970–1980s, which led to the development of one of the most successful text-retrieval algorithms, BM25. In recent years, research in the PRF has yielded new retrieval models capable of taking into account document meta-data (especially structure and link-graph information). Again, this has led to one of the most successful Web-search and corporate-search algorithms, BM25F. This work presents the PRF from a conceptual point of view, describing the probabilistic modelling assumptions behind the framework and the different ranking algorithms that result from its application: the binary independence model, relevance feedback models, BM25 and BM25F. It also discusses the relation between the PRF and other statistical models for IR, and covers some related topics, such as the use of non-textual features, and parameter optimisation for models with free parameters.
-
The goal of the Redundancy, Diversity, and Interdependent Document Relevance workshop was to explore how ranking, performance assessment and learning to rank can move beyond the assumption that the relevance of a document is independent of other documents. In particular, the workshop focussed on three themes: the effect of redundancy on information retrieval utility (for example, minimizing the wasted effort of users who must skip redundant information), the role of diversity (for example, for mitigating the risk of misinterpreting ambiguous queries), and algorithms for set-level optimization (where the quality of a set of retrieved documents is not simply the sum of its parts). This workshop built directly upon the Beyond Binary Relevance: Preferences, Diversity and Set-Level Judgments workshop at SIGIR 2008 [3], shifting focus to address the questions left open by the discussions and results from that workshop. As such, it was the first workshop to explicitly focus on the related research challenges of redundancy, diversity, and interdependent relevance – all of which require novel performance measures, learning methods, and evaluation techniques. The workshop program committee consisted of 15 researchers from academia and industry, with experience in IR evaluation, machine learning, and IR algorithmic design. Over 40 people attended the workshop. This report aims to summarize the workshop, and also to systematize common themes and key concepts so as to encourage research in the three workshop themes. It contains our attempt to summarize and organize the topics that came up in presentations as well as in discussions, pulling out common elements. Many audience members contributed, yet due to the free-flowing discussion, attributing all the observations to particular audience members is unfortunately impossible. Not all audience members would necessarily agree with the views presented, but we do attempt to present a consensus view as far as possible.
-
Learning to rank for Information Retrieval (IR) is a task to automatically construct a ranking model using training data, such that the model can sort new objects according to their degrees of relevance, preference, or importance. Many IR problems are by nature ranking problems, and many IR technologies can be potentially enhanced by using learning-to-rank techniques. The objective of this tutorial is to give an introduction to this research direction. Specifically, the existing learning-to-rank algorithms are reviewed and categorized into three approaches: the pointwise, pairwise, and listwise approaches. The advantages and disadvantages with each approach are analyzed, and the relationships between the loss functions used in these approaches and IR evaluation measures are discussed. Then the empirical evaluations on typical learning-to-rank methods are shown, with the LETOR collection as a benchmark dataset, which seems to suggest that the listwise approach be the most effective one among all the approaches. After that, a statistical ranking theory is introduced, which can describe different learning-to-rank algorithms, and be used to analyze their query-level generalization abilities. At the end of the tutorial, we provide a summary and discuss potential future work on learning to rank.
-
We study the problem of answering ambiguous web queries in a setting where there exists a taxonomy of information, and that both queries and documents may belong to more than one category according to this taxonomy. We present a systematic approach to diversifying results that aims to minimize the risk of dissatisfaction of the average user. We propose an algorithm that well approximates this objective in general, and is provably optimal for a natural special case. Furthermore, we generalize several classical IR metrics, including NDCG, MRR, and MAP, to explicitly account for the value of diversification. We demonstrate empirically that our algorithm scores higher in these generalized metrics compared to results produced by commercial search engines.
-
Understanding user intent is key to designing an effective ranking system in a search engine. In the absence of any explicit knowledge of user intent, search engines want to diversify results to improve user satisfaction. In such a setting, the probability ranking principle-based approach of presenting the most relevant results on top can be sub-optimal, and hence the search engine would like to trade-off relevance for diversity in the results. In analogy to prior work on ranking and clustering systems, we use the axiomatic approach to characterize and design diversification systems. We develop a set of natural axioms that a diversification system is expected to satisfy, and show that no diversification function can satisfy all the axioms simultaneously. We illustrate the use of the axiomatic framework by providing three example diversification objectives that satisfy different subsets of the axioms. We also uncover a rich link to the facility dispersion problem that results in algorithms for a number of diversification objectives. Finally, we propose an evaluation methodology to characterize the objectives and the underlying axioms. We conduct a large scale evaluation of our objectives based on two data sets: a data set derived from the Wikipedia disambiguation pages and a product database.
Explore
Topic
Field of study
Contribution
- Algorithm (2)
- Conceptual model (2)
- Empirical study (3)
- Evaluation model (1)
- Primer (1)
Resource type
- Book (1)
- Conference Paper (2)
- Journal Article (3)