sigir 2013 recap
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
SIGIR 2013 Recap

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

SIGIR 2013 Recap - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

SIGIR 2013 Recap. September 25, 2013. Today’s Paper Summaries. Yu Liu Personalized Ranking Model Adaptation for Web Search Nadia V ase Toward Self-Correcting Search Engines: Using Underperforming Queries to Improve Search Riddick Jiang

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' SIGIR 2013 Recap' - haley

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
sigir 2013 recap

SIGIR 2013 Recap

September 25, 2013

today s paper summaries
Today’s Paper Summaries
  • Yu Liu
    • Personalized Ranking Model Adaptation for Web Search
  • Nadia Vase
    • Toward Self-Correcting Search Engines: Using Underperforming Queries to Improve Search
  • Riddick Jiang
    • Fighting Search Engine Amnesia: Reranking Repeated Results

SIGIR 2013 Recap

sigir 2013 reference material
SIGIR 2013 Reference Material
  • Jul 28 – Aug 1, 2013. Dublin, Ireland
  • Proceedings (ACM Digital library):
    • Available free via the eBay intranet
  • Best paper nominations:
  • Papers we liked: SIGIR 2013 Recap Wiki
  • SIGIR 2014: July 6-11, Queensland, Australia

SIGIR 2013 Recap

personalized ranking model adaptation for web search
Personalized Ranking Model Adaptation for Web Search

Hongning Wang (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)Xiaodong He (Microsoft Research)Ming-Wei Chang (Microsoft Research)Yang Song (Microsoft Research)Ryen W. White (Microsoft Research)Wei Chu (Microsoft Bing)

Paper Review by Yu Liu

SIGIR 2013 Recap

  • Searcher’s information needs are diverse
  • Need personalization for web search
  • Existing methods for personalization
    • Extracting user-centric features [Teevan et al. SIGIR’05]
      • Location, gender, click history
      • Require large volume of user history
    • Memory-based personalization [White and Drucker WWW’07, Shen et al. SIGIR’05]
      • Learn direct association between query and URLs
      • Limited coverage, poor generalization
  • Major considerations
    • Accuracy
      • Maximize the search utility for each single user
    • Efficiency
      • Executable on the scale of all the search engine users
      • Adapt to the user’s result preferences quickly
personalized ranking model adaptation
Personalized Ranking Model Adaptation

Adapting the global ranking model for each individual user

Adjusting the generic ranking model’s parameters with respect to each individual user’s ranking preferences

linear regression based model adaptation
Linear Regression Based Model Adaptation

Lose function from any linear learning-to-rank algorithm, e.g., RankNet, LambdaRank, RankSVM

Complexity of adaptation

  • Adapting global ranking model for each individual user

SIGIR 2013 @ Dublin Ireland

ranking feature grouping
Ranking feature grouping
  • Organize the ranking features so that shared transformation is performed on the parameters of features in the same group
  • Maps V original ranking features to K different groups
    • Grouping features by name - Name
      • Exploring informative naming scheme
        • BM25_Body, BM25_Title
      • Clustering by manually crafted patterns
    • Co-clustering of documents and features – SVD [Dhillon KDD’01]
      • SVD on document-feature matrix
      • k-Means clustering to group features
    • Clustering features by importance - Cross
      • Estimate linear ranking model on different splits of data
      • k-Means clustering by feature weights in different splits
  • A general framework for ranking model adaptation
    • Applicable to a majority of existing learning-to-rank algorithms
    • Model-based adaptation, no need to operate on the numerous data from the source domain
    • Within the same optimization complexity as the original ranking model
    • Adaptation sharing across features to reduce the requirement of adaptation data
experimental setup
Experimental Setup
  • Dataset
    • query log: May 27, 2012 – May 31, 2012
    • Manual relevance annotation
      • 5-grade relevance score
    • 1830 ranking features
      • BM25, PageRank, tf*idf and etc.

SIGIR 2013 @ Dublin Ireland

improvement analysis
Improvement analysis
  • User-level improvement
    • Against global model

SIGIR 2013 @ Dublin Ireland

  • Efficient ranking model adaption framework for personalized search
    • Linear transformation for model-based adaptation
    • Transformation sharing within a group-wise manner
  • Future work
    • Joint estimation of feature grouping and model transformation
    • Incorporate user-specific features and profiles
    • Extend to non-linear models

SIGIR 2013 @ Dublin Ireland

toward self correcting search engines using underperforming queries to improve search

Ahmed Hassan (Microsoft)Ryen W. White (Microsoft Research)Yi-Min Wang (Microsoft Research)

Paper Review by Nadia Vase

SIGIR 2013 Recap

  • What to do with a dissatisfying query?
    • Why is it bad? New features to fix it?
    • If the same problem recurs, can find a pattern
  • Identify dissatisfying (DSAT) queries
  • Cluster them
  • Train specialized rankers+general ranker

SIGIR 2013 Recap

identifying dissatisfying queries
Identifying dissatisfying queries
  • Use toolbar data
  • Based on search engine switching events
    • 60% of switching events: DSAT search
  • Trained classifier to predict switch cause
    • Logistic regression, 562 labeled, 107 users
    • Binary classifier

SIGIR 2013 Recap

clustering dsat queries
Clustering DSAT Queries
  • What to do with DSAT queries
  • DSAT instance has 140 binary features
    • Query: length, language, “phrase (NP, VP) type”, ODP category
    • SERP: direct answer/feature, query suggestion shown, spell correction, etc
    • Search instance: market (US, UK, etc), query vertical (Web, News, etc), search engine, temporal attributes
  • Use Weka’s implementation of FP-Growth to cluster

SIGIR 2013 Recap

clustering fp growth
Clustering: FP-Growth

filter and order features &create the FP-tree

bottom-up algorithm to find attribute clusters

SIGIR 2013 Recap

building modified rankers
Building Modified Rankers
  • 2nd round ranker per each DSAT group
    • Trained DSAT data, general ranker’s output score

SIGIR 2013 Recap

experiment results
Experiment results

SIGIR 2013 Recap

fighting search engine amnesia reranking repeated results
Fighting Search Engine Amnesia: Reranking Repeated Results

MiladShokouhi(Microsoft)Ryen W. White (Microsoft Research)Paul Bennett (Microsoft Research)FilipRadlinski(Microsoft)

Paper Review by Riddick Jiang

SIGIR 2013 Recap


40%-60% sessions have two queries or more

16- 44% of sessions (depending on the search engine) with two queries have at least one repeated result

Repetition increases to almost all sessions with ten or more queries

SIGIR 2013 Recap

  • Promote new results (previously missed or new)
  • Demote previously skipped results
  • Demote previously clicked results
    • Promote previously clicked results if clicked >= 2 (personal nav)

SIGIR 2013 Recap

ctr for skipped results
CTR for skipped results

SIGIR 2013 Recap

ctr for clicked results
CTR for clicked results

SIGIR 2013 Recap

ranking features
Ranking features

SIGIR 2013 Recap


Personal Nav: Score, Position, and a Personal Navigation feature- counts the number of times a particular result has been clicked for the same query previously in the session

ClickHistory: Score, Position, and Click-history - click counts for each result on a per query basis

SIGIR 2013 Recap

a b testing
A/B testing

Interleave results from R-cube and control

randomly allocating each result position to R-cube or the baseline

Credit click to the corresponding ranker

Five days in June, 2012

370,000 queries

R-cube ranker was preferred for 53.8% of queries

statistically significant

SIGIR 2013 Recap