Query-performance prediction and cluster ranking: Two sides of the same coin

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 2459-2462

  Kurland, Oren ^a   Raiber, Fiana ^a   Shtok, Anna ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

cluster ranking; query performance prediction

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER RANKING; QUERY PERFORMANCE PREDICTION; RANKING METHODS; RELEVANCE JUDGMENT; STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODS;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

FORECASTING;

EID: 84871072608     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2396761.2398666     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. G. Amati, C. Carpineto, and G. Romano. Query difficulty, robustness, and selective application of query expansion. In Proc. of ECIR, pages 127-137, 2004.
2. J. A. Aslam and V. Pavlu. Query hardness estimation using Jensen-Shannon divergence among multiple scoring functions. In Proc. of ECIR, pages 198-209, 2007.
3. D. Carmel and E. Yom-Tov. Estimating the Query Difficulty for Information Retrieval. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services. Morgan & Claypool, 2010.
4. D. Carmel, E. Yom-Tov, A. Darlow, and D. Pelleg. What makes a query difficult? In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 390-397, 2006.
5. S. Cronen-Townsend, Y. Zhou, and W. B. Croft. Predicting query performance. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 299-306, 2002.
6. R. Cummins. Predicting query performance directly from score distributions. In Proc. of AIRS, pages 315-326, 2011.
7. R. Cummins, J. M. Jose, and C. O'Riordan. Improved query performance prediction using standard deviation. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 1089-1090, 2011.
8. F. Diaz. Performance prediction using spatial autocorrelation. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 583-590, 2007.
9. N. Fuhr, M. Lechtenfeld, B. Stein, and T. Gollub. The optimum clustering framework: implementing the cluster hypothesis. Informaltion Retrieval, 15(2):93-115, 2012.
10. C. Hauff, L. Azzopardi, and D. Hiemstra. The combination and evaluation of query performance prediction methods. In Proc. of ECIR, pages 301-312, 2009.
11. C. Hauff, V. Murdock, and R. Baeza-Yates. Improved query difficulty prediction for the web. In Proc. of CIKM, pages 439-448, 2008.
12. M. A. Hearst and J. O. Pedersen. Reexamining the cluster hypothesis: Scatter/Gather on retrieval results. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 76-84, 1996.
13. O. Kurland. The opposite of smoothing: A language model approach to ranking query-specific document clusters. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 171-178, 2008.
14. O. Kurland and C. Domshlak. A rank-aggregation approach to searching for optimal query-specific clusters. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 547-554, 2008.
15. O. Kurland and L. Lee. Corpus structure, language models, and ad hoc information retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 194-201, 2004.
16. O. Kurland and L. Lee. Respect my authority! HITS without hyperlinks utilizing cluster-based language models. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 83-90, 2006.
17. J. D. Lafferty and C. Zhai. Document language models, query models, and risk minimization for information retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 111-119, 2001.
18. V. Lavrenko and W. B. Croft. Relevance-based language models. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 120-127, 2001.
19. A. Leuski. Evaluating document clustering for interactive information retrieval. In Proc. of CIKM, pages 33-40, 2001.
20. X. Liu and W. B. Croft. Cluster-based retrieval using language models. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 186-193, 2004.
21. X. Liu and W. B. Croft. Experiments on retrieval of optimal clusters. Technical Report IR-478, Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval (CIIR), University of Massachusetts, 2006.
22. X. Liu and W. B. Croft. Representing clusters for retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 671-672, 2006. Poster.
23. X. Liu and W. B. Croft. Evaluating text representations for retrieval of the best group of documents. In Proc. of ECIR, pages 454-462, 2008.
24. J. Pérez-Iglesias and L. Araujo. Standard deviation as a query hardness estimator. In Proc. of SPIRE, pages 207-212, 2010.
25. J. Seo and W. B. Croft. Geometric representations for multiple documents. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 251-258, 2010.
26. J. G. Shanahan, J. Bennett, D. A. Evans, D. A. Hull, and J. Montgomery. Clairvoyance Corporation experiments in the TREC 2003. High accuracy retrieval from documents (HARD) track. In Proc. of TREC-12, pages 152-160, 2003.
27. A. Shtok, O. Kurland, and D. Carmel. Predicting query performance by query-drift estimation. In Proc. of ICTIR, pages 305-312, 2009.
28. A. Shtok, O. Kurland, and D. Carmel. Using statistical decision theory and relevance models for query-performance prediction. In Proc. of SIGIR, 2010.
29. A. Shtok, O. Kurland, D. Carmel, F. Raiber, and G. Markovits. Predicting query performance by query-drift estimation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 30(2), 2012.
30. A. Tombros, R. Villa, and C. van Rijsbergen. The effectiveness of query-specific hierarchic clustering in information retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 38(4):559-582, 2002.
31. S. Tomlinson. Robust, Web and Terabyte Retrieval with Hummingbird Search Server at TREC 2004. In Proc. of TREC-13, 2004.
32. C. J. van Rijsbergen. Information Retrieval. Butterworths, second edition, 1979.
33. V. Vinay, I. J. Cox, N. Milic-Frayling, and K. R. Wood. On ranking the effectiveness of searches. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 398-404, 2006.
34. E. Yom-Tov, S. Fine, D. Carmel, and A. Darlow. Learning to estimate query difficulty: including applications to missing content detection and distributed information retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 512-519, 2005.
35. C. Zhai and J. D. Lafferty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to ad hoc information retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR, pages 334-342, 2001.
36. Y. Zhou and B. Croft. Ranking robustness: a novel framework to predict query performance. In Proc. of CIKM, pages 567-574, 2006.
37. Y. Zhou and B. Croft. Query performance prediction in web search environments. In Pro. of SIGIR, pages 543-550, 2007.