skip to main content
10.1145/2484028.2484055acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Utilizing query change for session search

Published:28 July 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Session search is the Information Retrieval (IR) task that performs document retrieval for a search session. During a session, a user constantly modifies queries in order to find relevant documents that fulfill the information need. This paper proposes a novel query change retrieval model (QCM), which utilizes syntactic editing changes between adjacent queries as well as the relationship between query change and previously retrieved documents to enhance session search. We propose to model session search as a Markov Decision Process (MDP). We consider two agents in this MDP: the user agent and the search engine agent. The user agent's actions are query changes that we observe and the search agent's actions are proposed in this paper. Experiments show that our approach is highly effective and outperforms top session search systems in TREC 2011 and 2012.

References

  1. P. Boldi, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, and S. Vigna. The query flow graph: model and applications. In CIKM '08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. I. Bordino, C. Castillo, D. Donato, and A. Gionis. Query similarity by projecting the query-flow graph. In SIGIR '10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Bruza, R. McArthur, and S. Dennis. Interactive internet search: keyword, directory and query reformulation mechanisms compared. In SIGIR '00. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. Carterette, E. Kanoulas, and E. Yilmaz. Simulating simple user behavior for system effectiveness evaluation. In CIKM '11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M.-A. Cartright, R. W. White, and E. Horvitz. Intentions and attention in exploratory health search. In SIGIR'11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. G. V. Cormack, M. D. Smucker, and C. L. Clarke. Efficient and effective spam filtering and re-ranking for large web datasets. Inf. Retr., 14(5), Oct. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Guan and H. Yang. Increasing stability of result organization for session search. In ECIR '13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. D. Guan, H. Yang, and N. Goharian. Effective structured query formulation for session search. In TREC '12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Guo, G. Xu, H. Li, and X. Cheng. A unified and discriminative model for query refinement. In SIGIR '08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Q. Guo and E. Agichtein. Ready to buy or just browsing?: detecting web searcher goals from interaction data. In SIGIR '10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. D. S. Hirschberg. Algorithms for the longest common subsequence problem. J. ACM, 24(4), Oct. 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Huang and E. N. Efthimiadis. Analyzing and evaluating query reformulation strategies in web search logs. In CIKM'09. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Jiang, S. Han, J. Wu, and D. He. Pitt at trec 2011 session track. In TREC '11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Jiang, D. He, and S. Han. Pitt at trec 2012 session track. In TREC '12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. Jones and K. L. Klinkner. Beyond the session timeout: automatic hierarchical segmentation of search topics in query logs. In CIKM '08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. W. Moore. Reinforcement learning: a survey. J. Artif. Int. Res., 4(1), May 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer. Ontology mapping: the state of the art. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(1), Jan. 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. Kanoulas, B. Carterette, M. Hall, P. Clough, and M. Sanderson. Overview of the trec 2011 session track. In TREC'11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Kanoulas, B. Carterette, M. Hall, P. Clough, and M. Sanderson. Overview of the trec 2012 session track. In TREC'12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. E. Kanoulas, P. D. Clough, B. Carterette, and M. Sanderson. Session track at trec 2010. In TREC'10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemur Search Engine. http://www.lemurproject.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. C. Liu, N. J. Belkin, and M. J. Cole. Personalization of search results using interaction behaviors in search sessions. In SIGIR '12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. C. Liu, M. Cole, E. Baik, and J. N. Belkin. Rutgers at the trec 2012 session track. In TREC'12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Liu, J. Gwizdka, J. Liu, T. Xu, and N. J. Belkin. Analysis and evaluation of query reformulations in different task types. In ASIST '10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Liu and N. J. Belkin. Personalizing information retrieval for multi-session tasks: the roles of task stage and task type. In SIGIR '10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. M-Dyaa, K. Udo, N. Nikolaos, N. Brendan, L. Deirdre, and F. Maria. University of essex at the trec 2011 session track. In TREC '11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. D. Metzler and W. B. Croft. Combining the language model and inference network approaches to retrieval. Inf. Process. Manage., 40(5), Sept. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. S. P. Singh. Learning to solve markovian decision processes. Technical report, Amherst, MA, USA, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Y. Song and L.-w. He. Optimal rare query suggestion with implicit user feedback. In WWW '10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Y. Song, D. Zhou, and L.-w. He. Query suggestion by constructing term-transition graphs. In WSDM '12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Teevan, S. T. Dumais, and D. J. Liebling. To personalize or not to personalize: modeling queries with variation in user intent. In SIGIR '08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. R. W. White, I. Ruthven, J. M. Jose, and C. J. V. Rijsbergen. Evaluating implicit feedback models using searcher simulations. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 23(3), July 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 22(2):179{214, Apr. 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Utilizing query change for session search

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '13: Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
      July 2013
      1188 pages
      ISBN:9781450320344
      DOI:10.1145/2484028

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 July 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR '13 Paper Acceptance Rate73of366submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader