ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
User language model for collaborative personalized search
Full text PdfPdf (396 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) archive
Volume 27 ,  Issue 2  (February 2009) table of contents
Article No. 11  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISSN:1046-8188
Authors
Gui-Rong Xue  Shanghai Jiao-Tong University, Shanghai, China
Jie Han  Shanghai Jiao-Tong University, Shanghai, China
Yong Yu  Shanghai Jiao-Tong University, Shanghai, China
Qiang Yang  Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 69,   Downloads (12 Months): 469,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1462198.1462203
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Traditional personalized search approaches rely solely on individual profiles to construct a user model. They are often confronted by two major problems: data sparseness and cold-start for new individuals. Data sparseness refers to the fact that most users only visit a small portion of Web pages and hence a very sparse user-term relationship matrix is generated, while cold-start for new individuals means that the system cannot conduct any personalization without previous browsing history. Recently, community-based approaches were proposed to use the group's social behaviors as a supplement to personalization. However, these approaches only consider the commonality of a group of users and still cannot satisfy the diverse information needs of different users. In this article, we present a new approach, called collaborative personalized search. It considers not only the commonality factor among users for defining group user profiles and global user profiles, but also the specialties of individuals. Then, a statistical user language model is proposed to integrate the individual model, group user model and global user model together. In this way, the probability that a user will like a Web page is calculated through a two-step smoothing mechanism. First, a global user model is used to smooth the probability of unseen terms in the individual profiles and provide aggregated behavior of global users. Then, in order to precisely describe individual interests by looking at the behaviors of similar users, users are clustered into groups and group-user models are constructed. The group-user models are integrated into an overall model through a cluster-based language model. The behaviors of the group users can be utilized to enhance the performance of personalized search. This model can alleviate the two aforementioned problems and provide a more effective personalized search than previous approaches. Large-scale experimental evaluations are conducted to show that the proposed approach substantially improves the relevance of a search over several competitive methods.


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
 
2
Allan, J., Carbonell, J., Doddington, G., Yamron, J., and Yang, Y. 1998. Topic detection and tracking pilot study: Final report. In Proceedings of the ARPA Broadcast News Transcription and Understanding Workshop, 194--218.
3
 
4
Anand, S. S. and Mobasher, B. 2005. Intelligent techniques for web personalization. In Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization. Bamshad Mobasher and Sarabjot Singh Anand (Eds), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (3169), Springer, 1--37.
5
6
 
7
Beaulieu, M., Thien, D., Payne, A., and Jones, S. 1996. Enquire okapi project. British Library Resear. Innov. Rep. 17, 103.
 
8
Belkin, N., Cool, C., Koenemann, J., NG, K. B., and Park, S. 1996. Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching. In Proceedings of 4th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-4). Harman, D.K., ed. NIST, 181--188.
 
9
Bharat, K. and Kamba, T. 1995. An interactive personalized newspaper on the WWW. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM Press, New York, NY, 159--170.
 
10
 
11
Breese, J. S., Heckerman, D., and Kadie, C. 1998. Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 43--52.
 
12
13
 
14
Chen, S. and Goodman, J. 1998. An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling. Tech. Rep. TR-10-98, Computer Science Group, Harvard University.
15
16
 
17
Dempster, A., Laird, N., and Rubin, D. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Royal Stat. Soc. 39, 1, Series B, 1--38.
18
19
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
Hartigan, J. A. and Wong, M. A. 1979. A K-means clustering algorithm. Appl. Statist. 28, 100--108.
24
 
25
26
27
28
29
 
30
Kerschberg, L., Kim, W., and Scime, A. 2001. WebSifer: Personalizable meta-search agent based on semantic weighted taxonomy tree. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Computing. 14--20.
31
32
 
33
Kritikopoulos, A. and Sideri, M. 2003. The compass filter: Search engine results personalization using web communities. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization (ITWP'03), 229--240.
 
34
Krulwich, B. 1997. Lifestyle finder—Intelligent user profiling using large-scale demographic data. AI Mag. 18, 2, 37--45.
35
36
37
 
38
Lieberman, H. 1995. Letizia: An agent that assists Web browsing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 924--929.
39
40
41
 
42
McLachlan, G. J. and Basford, K. E. 1988. Mixture Models: Inference and Applications to Clustering. Marcel Dekker, New York.
 
43
 
44
Mladenic, D. 1996. Personal Webwatcher: Design and implementation, Tech. Rep. ijs-dp-7472, School of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
45
 
46
 
47
Pazzani, M., Muramatsu, J., and Billsus, D. 1996. Syskill & Webert: Identifying interesting Web sites. In Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 54--61.
48
49
50
 
51
 
52
53
 
54
Sarwar, B. M., Karypis, G., Konstan, J. A., and Riedl, J. T. 2000. Application of dimensionality reduction in recommender system—A case study. In Proceedings of the ACM WebKDD Web Mining for E-Commerce Workshop, 82--90.
55
 
56
Shahabi, C. and Chen, Y. S. 2003. Web information personalization: Challenges and approaches. In Proceedings of Databases in Networked Information Systems. 5--15.
57
 
58
Smyth, B., Balfe, E., Briggs, P., Coyle, M., and Freyne, J. 2003. Collaborative Web search. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'03).
 
59
Spitters, M. and Kraaij, W. 2001. TNO at TDT2001: Language model-based topic detection. In Topic Detection and Tracking Workshop Report.
60
 
61
Sullivan, D. 2004. Eurekster launches personalized social search. Search engine watch. http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3301481.
 
62
63
 
64
Wang, J., de Vries, A. P., and Reinders, M. J. 2006. A user-item relevance model for log-based collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of 28th European Conference on Information Retrieval. 37--48.
65
66
 
67
Yamron, J. P., Carp, I., Gillick, L., Lowe, S. A., and van Mulbregt, P. 1999. Topic tracking in a news stream. In Proceedings of the DARPA Broadcast News Workshop, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
68
69
70

Collaborative Colleagues:
Gui-Rong Xue: colleagues
Jie Han: colleagues
Yong Yu: colleagues
Qiang Yang: colleagues