Relevance feedback and inference networks

ABSTRACT

Relevance feedback, which modifies queries using judgements of the relevance of a few, highly-ranked documents, has historically been an important method for increasing the performance of information retrieval systems. In this paper, we extend the inference network model introduced by Turtle and Croft to include relevance feedback techniques. The difference between relevance feedback on text abstracts and full text collections is studied. Preliminary results for relevance feedback on the structured queries supported by the inference net model are also reported.

REFERENCES

• 1: Y. K. Chang, C. Cirillo, and j. Razon. Eval~'~ation of Feedback Retrieval using Modified Freezing, Residual Collection, and Test and Control Groups, chapter 17, pages 355-370. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1971. in The SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing.
• 2: W. Bruce Croft , Howard R. Turtle , David D. Lewis, The use of phrases and structured queries in information retrieval, Proceedings of the 14th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.32-45, October 13-16, 1991, Chicago, Illinois, United States [doi>10.1145/122860.122864]
• 3: M. E. Frisse , S. B. Cousins, Information retrieval from hypertext: update on the dynamic medical handbook project, Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Hypertext, p.199-212, November 1989, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/74224.74241]
• 4: Donna Harman, Relevance feedback and other query modification techniques, Information retrieval: data structures and algorithms, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1992
• 5: Donna Harman, Relevance feedback revisited, Proceedings of the 15th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.1-10, June 21-24, 1992, Copenhagen, Denmark [doi>10.1145/133160.133167]
• 6: D. J. Harper. Relevance Feedback in Document Retrieval Systems: An Evaluation of Probablistic Strategies. PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1980.
• 7: Judea Pearl, Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1988
• 8: J. R. Quinlan, Induction of Decision Trees, Machine Learning, v.1 n.1, p.81-106 [doi>10.1023/A:1022643204877]
• 9: Tadeusz Radecki, Incorporation of relevance feedback into Boolean retrieval systems, Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.133-150, May 18-20, 1982, West Berlin, Germany
• 10: Tadeusz Radecki, Probabilistic methods for ranking output documents in conventional Boolean retrieval systems, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.24 n.3, p.281-302, May 1988 [doi>10.1016/0306-4573(88)90095-7]
• 11: S. E. Robertson. The probability ranking principle in IR. Journal of Documentation, 33(4):294-304, 1977.
• 12: S. E. Robertson and Karen Sparck-Jones. Relevance weighting of search terms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27:129-146, 1976.
• 13: J.J. Rocchio. Relevance Feedback in Information Retrieval, chapter 14, pages 313-323. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1971. in The SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing.
• 14: Gerard Salton, Automatic text processing: the transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1989
• 15: Gerald Salton and Chris Buckley. Improving retrieval performance by relevance feedback. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(4):288- 297, 1990.
• 16: Gerard Salton , Michael J. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1986
• 17: G. Salton , E. Voorhees , E. A. Fox, A comparison of two methods for Boolean query relevancy feedback, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.20 n.5-6, p.637-651, 1984 [doi>10.1016/0306-4573(84)90080-3]
• 18: Howard R. Tut~e. Inference Networks for Document Retrieval. PIaD thesis, University of Massachusetts, October 1990.
• 19: H. Turtle , W. B. Croft, Inference networks for document retrieval, Proceedings of the 13th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, p.1-24, September 05-07, 1990, Brussels, Belgium [doi>10.1145/96749.98006]
• 20: Howard R. Turtle , W. Bruce Croft, A comparison of text retrieval models, The Computer Journal, v.35 n.3, p.279-290, June 1992 [doi>10.1093/comjnl/35.3.279]
• 21: C. J. Van Rijsbergen, Information Retrieval, Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, 1979

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.3 Information Search and Retrieval
          Subjects: Retrieval models

Additional Classification:
  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.3 PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
      Subjects: Probabilistic algorithms (including Monte Carlo)

  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.3 Information Search and Retrieval
          Subjects: Query formulation

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving
          Subjects: Uncertainty, "fuzzy," and probabilistic reasoning

General Terms:
Algorithms, Documentation, Experimentation, Performance