A probability ranking principle for interactive information retrieval

Information Retrieval

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 251-265

  Fuhr, Norbert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Interactive retrieval; Optimum retrieval rule; Probabilistic retrieval

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149103173     PISSN: 13864564     EISSN: 15737659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10791-008-9045-0     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review 13(5), 407-424. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html.
2. Belkin, N., Oddy, R., & Brooks, H. (1982). ASK for information retrieval: Part I. Background and theory. The Journal of Documentation, 38(2), 61-71.
3. Bookstein, A. (1983). Outline of a general probabilistic retrieval model. The Journal of Documentation, 39(2), 63-72.
4. Borlund, P., & Ingwersen, P. (1998). Measures of relative relevance and ranked half-life: Performance indicators for interactive IR. In SIGIR '98: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 324-331). New York, NY: ACM Press.
5. Campbell, I. (2000). Interactive evaluation of the ostensive model using a new test collection of images with multiple relevance assessments. Information Retrieval, 2(1), 89-114.
6. Carbonell, J., & Goldstein, J. (1998). The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In W. B. Croft, A. Moffat, C. J. van Rijsbergen, R. Wilkinson, & Zobel, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 335-336). New York: ACM.
7. Chen, H., & Karger, D. R. (2006). Less is more: Probabilistic models for retrieving fewer relevant documents. In E. N. Efthimiadis, S. T. Dumais, D. Hawking, & K. Järvelin (Eds.), SIGIR 2006: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 6-11, 2006 (pp. 429-436). ACM.
8. Fuhr, N. (1992). Probabilistic models in information retrieval. The Computer Journal, 35(3), 243-255.
9. Goldin, D. Q., Smolka, S. A., & Wegner, P. (2006). Interactive computation. The new paradigm. Springer.
10. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval. The Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3-50.
11. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Radlinski, F., & Gay, G. (2007). Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in Web search. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 25(2), 7.
12. Malik, S., Klas, C.-P., Fuhr, N., Larsen, B., & Tombros, A. (2006). Designing a user interface for interactive retrieval of structured documents-Lessons learned from the INEX interactive track. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Digital Libraries.
13. Nottelmann, H., & Fuhr, N. (2003a). Evaluating different methods of estimating retrieval quality for resource selection. In J. Callan, G. Cormack, C. Clarke, D. Hawking, & A. Smeaton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. New York: ACM.
14. Nottelmann, H., & Fuhr, N. (2003b). From retrieval status values to probabilities of relevance for advanced IR applications. Information Retrieval 6(4), 263-388.
15. O'Day, V. L., & Jeffries, R. (1993). Orienting in an information landscape: How information seekers get from here to there. In Proceedings of the INTERCHI '93 (pp. 438-445). IOS Press.
16. Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1998). The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project.
17. Robertson, S. E. (1977). The probability ranking principle in IR. The Journal of Documentation, 33, 294-304.
18. Stirling, K. H. (1975). The effect of document ranking on retrieval system performance: A search for an optimal ranking rule. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 12 (pp. 105-106).
19. Turpin, A. H., & Hersh, W. (2001). Why batch and user evaluations do not give the same results. In W. B. Croft, D. Harper, D. H. Kraft, & J. Zobel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 225-231). New York: ACM Press.
20. Turpin, A., & Scholer, F. (2006). User performance versus precision measures for simple search tasks. In E. N. Efthimiadis, S. T. Dumais, D. Hawking, & K. Järvelin (Eds.), SIGIR 2006: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 6-11, 2006 (pp. 11-18). ACM.
21. Voorhees, E., & Harman, D. (2000). Overview of the Eighth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-8). In The Eighth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-8) (pp. 1-24). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
22. White, R., & Drucker, S. (2007). Investigating behavioral variability in web search. In Proceedings of WWW (pp. 21-30).
23. White, R. W., Jose, J. M., Ruthven, I., & van Risjbergen, C. J. (2005). Evaluating implicit feedback models using searcher simulations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 23(3), 325-361.
24. Williamson, J. (2006). Continuous uncertain interaction. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, Computer Science.
25. Williamson, J., & Murray-Smith, R. (2004). Granular synthesis for the display of time-varying probability densities. In Int. Workshop on Interactive Sonification, Bielefeld. http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/jhw/ison.pdf.