ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Comparing relevance feedback algorithms for web search
Full text PdfPdf (163 KB)
Source International World Wide Web Conference archive
Special interest tracks and posters of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web table of contents
Chiba, Japan
POSTER SESSION: Posters table of contents
Pages: 1052 - 1053  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-59593-051-5
Authors
Vishwa Vinay  University College London, London, UK
Ken Wood  Microsoft Research Ltd., Cambridge, UK
Natasa Milic-Frayling  Microsoft Research Ltd., Cambridge, UK
Ingemar J. Cox  University College London, London, UK
Sponsor
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 95,   Citation Count: 7
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1062745.1062864
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We evaluate three different relevance feedback (RF)algorithms, Rocchio, Robertson/Sparck-Jones (RSJ)and Bayesian, in the context of Web search. We use a target-testing experimental procedure whereby a user must locate a specific document. For user relevance feedback, we consider all possible user choices of indicating zero or more relevant documents from a set of 10 displayed documents. Examination of the effects of each user choice permits us to compute an upper-bound on the performance of each RF algorithm.We ind that there is a significant variation in the upper-bound performance o the three RF algorithms and that the Bayesian algorithm approaches the best possible.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Cox,I. J., Miller, M. L., Minka, T. P., Papathomas, T. V.,and Yianilos, P. N. The Bayesian Image Retrieval System, PicHunter: Theory, Implementation and Psychophysical Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing,9(1): 20--37,2000.
 
2
3
 
4
Jansen,B. J., Spink, A.& Saracevic, T. 1999. The use of relevance eedback on the web:Implications for web IR system design.1999 World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Honolulu, Hawaii
 
5
MSN Search (http://search.msn.com)
 
6
Robertson, S. E., Sparck-Jones, K. Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society or Information Science 27, 1976, pp.129--146.
 
7
Rocchio, J. Relevance feedback informarian retrieval. In Gerard Salton (ed.):The Smart Retrieval System - Experiments in Automatic Document Processing, pp.313--323. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971
 
8
Vinay, V., Cox, I. J., Milic-Frayling, N., Wood, K. Evaluating Relevance Feedback Algorithms for Searching on Small Displays. ECIR 2005.

CITED BY  7

Collaborative Colleagues:
Vishwa Vinay: colleagues
Ken Wood: colleagues
Natasa Milic-Frayling: colleagues
Ingemar J. Cox: colleagues