Relevance feedback on the web
9.1 Relevance feedback and pseudo relevance feedback
185 Relevance feedback is not necessarily popular with users. Users are often reluctant to provide explicit feedback, or in general do not wish to prolong the search interaction. Furthermore, it is often harder to understand why a particular document was retrieved after relevance feedback is applied. Relevance feedback can also have practical problems. The long queries that are generated by straightforward application of relevance feedback tech- niques are inefficient for a typical IR system. This results in a high computing cost for the retrieval and potentially long response times for the user. A par- tial solution to this is to only reweight certain prominent terms in the relevant documents, such as perhaps the top 20 terms by term frequency. Some ex- perimental results have also suggested that using a limited number of terms like this may give better results Harman 1992 though other work has sug- gested that using more terms is better in terms of retrieved document quality Buckley et al. 1994b .9.1.4 Relevance feedback on the web
Some web search engines offer a similarrelated pages feature: the user in- dicates a document in the results set as exemplary from the standpoint of meeting his information need and requests more documents like it. This can be viewed as a particular simple form of relevance feedback. However, in general relevance feedback has been little used in web search. One exception was the Excite web search engine, which initially provided full relevance feedback. However, the feature was in time dropped, due to lack of use. On the web, few people use advanced search interfaces and most would like to complete their search in a single interaction. But the lack of uptake also prob- ably reflects two other factors: relevance feedback is hard to explain to the average user, and relevance feedback is mainly a recall enhancing strategy, and web search users are only rarely concerned with getting sufficient recall. Spink et al. 2000 present results from the use of relevance feedback in the Excite search engine. Only about 4 of user query sessions used the relevance feedback option, and these were usually exploiting the “More like this” link next to each result. About 70 of users only looked at the first page of results and did not pursue things any further. For people who used relevance feedback, results were improved about two thirds of the time. An important more recent thread of work is the use of clickstream data what links a user clicks on to provide indirect relevance feedback. Use of this data is studied in detail in Joachims 2002b , Joachims et al. 2005 . The very successful use of web link structure see Chapter 21 can also be viewed as implicit feedback, but provided by page authors rather than read- ers though in practice most authors are also readers. Preliminary draft c 2008 Cambridge UP 186 9 Relevance feedback and query expansion ? Exercise 9.1 In Rocchio’s algorithm, what weight setting for αβγ does a “Find pages like this one” search correspond to? Exercise 9.2 [ ⋆ ] Give three reasons why relevance feedback has been little used in web search.9.1.5 Evaluation of relevance feedback strategies
Parts
» cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» An example information retrieval problem
» A first take at building an inverted index
» Processing Boolean queries cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» The extended Boolean model versus ranked retrieval
» References and further reading
» Obtaining the character sequence in a document
» Tokenization Determining the vocabulary of terms
» Dropping common terms: stop words
» Normalization equivalence classing of terms
» Stemming and lemmatization Determining the vocabulary of terms
» Faster postings list intersection via skip pointers
» Biword indexes Positional postings and phrase queries
» Positional indexes Positional postings and phrase queries
» Combination schemes Positional postings and phrase queries
» Search structures for dictionaries
» General wildcard queries Wildcard queries
» k-gram indexes for wildcard queries
» Implementing spelling correction Spelling correction
» Forms of spelling correction Edit distance
» k-gram indexes for spelling correction
» Context sensitive spelling correction
» Phonetic correction cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Hardware basics Blocked sort-based indexing
» Single-pass in-memory indexing cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Distributed indexing cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Dynamic indexing cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» References and further reading Exercises
» Heaps’ law: Estimating the number of terms Zipf’s law: Modeling the distribution of terms
» Blocked storage Dictionary compression
» Variable byte codes γ Postings file compression
» Exercises cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Weighted zone scoring Parametric and zone indexes
» Learning weights Parametric and zone indexes
» The optimal weight Parametric and zone indexes
» Inverse document frequency Term frequency and weighting
» Tf-idf weighting Term frequency and weighting
» Dot products The vector space model for scoring
» Queries as vectors Computing vector scores
» Sublinear tf scaling Maximum tf normalization
» Document and query weighting schemes Pivoted normalized document length
» Inexact top Efficient scoring and ranking
» Index elimination Champion lists
» Static quality scores and ordering
» Impact ordering Efficient scoring and ranking
» Cluster pruning Efficient scoring and ranking
» Tiered indexes Query-term proximity
» Designing parsing and scoring functions
» Vector space scoring and query operator interaction
» Information retrieval system evaluation
» Standard test collections cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Evaluation of unranked retrieval sets
» Evaluation of ranked retrieval results
» Critiques and justifications of the concept of relevance
» Results snippets cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» The Rocchio algorithm for relevance feedback
» Probabilistic relevance feedback When does relevance feedback work?
» Relevance feedback on the web
» Evaluation of relevance feedback strategies
» Pseudo relevance feedback Indirect relevance feedback
» Vocabulary tools for query reformulation Query expansion
» Basic XML concepts cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» A vector space model for XML retrieval
» Text-centric vs. data-centric XML retrieval
» Review of basic probability theory
» The 10 loss case The Probability Ranking Principle
» Deriving a ranking function for query terms
» Probability estimates in theory
» Probability estimates in practice
» Probabilistic approaches to relevance feedback
» An appraisal of probabilistic models
» Tree-structured dependencies between terms Okapi BM25: a non-binary model
» Finite automata and language models
» Multinomial distributions over words
» Using query likelihood language models in IR
» Estimating the query generation probability
» Ponte and Croft’s Experiments
» Language modeling versus other approaches in IR
» Extended language modeling approaches
» The text classification problem
» The Bernoulli model cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Mutual information Feature selection
» Frequency-based feature selection Feature selection for multiple classifiers
» Evaluation of text classification
» Document representations and measures of relatedness in vec-
» Rocchio classification cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Time complexity and optimality of kNN
» Linear versus nonlinear classifiers
» Classification with more than two classes
» The bias-variance tradeoff cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Support vector machines: The linearly separable case
» Soft margin classification Extensions to the SVM model
» Multiclass SVMs Nonlinear SVMs
» Experimental results Extensions to the SVM model
» Choosing what kind of classifier to use
» Improving classifier performance Issues in the classification of text documents
» A simple example of machine-learned scoring
» Result ranking by machine learning
» Clustering in information retrieval
» Evaluation of clustering cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Cluster cardinality in K-means
» Model-based clustering cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Centroid clustering cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Optimality of HAC cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Divisive clustering cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Cluster labeling cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Implementation notes cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Term-document matrices and singular value decompositions
» Low-rank approximations cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Latent semantic indexing cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Background and history cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» The web graph Web characteristics
» Advertising as the economic model
» Near-duplicates and shingling cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Features a crawler Features a crawler
» Distributing indexes cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Connectivity servers cambridge introductiontoinformationretrieval2008 readingversion
» Anchor text and the web graph
» The PageRank computation PageRank
Show more