skip to main content
10.1145/1871437.1871656acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Modeling reformulation using passage analysis

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 October 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Query reformulation modifies the original query with the aim of better matching the vocabulary of the relevant documents, and consequently improving ranking effectiveness. Previous techniques typically generate words and phrases related to the original query, but do not consider how these words and phrases would fit together in new queries. In this paper, we focus on an implementation of an approach that models reformulation as a distribution of queries, where each query is a variation of the original query. This approach considers a query as a basic unit and can capture important dependencies between words and phrases in the query. The implementation discussed here is based on passage analysis of the target corpus. Experiments on the TREC collection show that the proposed model for query reformulation significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

References

  1. M. Bendersky, D. A. Smith, and W. B. Croft. Two-stage query segmentation for information retrieval. In SIGIR'09, pages 810--811, Boston, MA, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Bergsma and Q. I. Wang. Learning noun phrase query segmentation. In EMNLP-CoNLL07, pages 819--826, Prague, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G. Cao, J. Y. Nie, J. Gao, and S. Robertson. Selecting good expansion terms for pseudo-relevance feedback. In SIGIR'08, pages 243--250, Singapore, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. V. Dang and W. B. Croft. Query reformulation using anchor text. In WSDM'10, New York, NY, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Guo, G. Xu, H. Li, and X. Cheng. A unified and discriminative model for query refinement. In SIGIR'08, pages 379--386, Singapore, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Jones, B. Rey, O. Madani, and W. Greiner. Generating query substitutions. In WWW'06, pages 387--396, Ediburgh, Scotland, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. V. Lavrenko and W. B. Croft. Relevance based language models. In SIGIR'01, pages 120--127, New Orleans, LA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. X. Liu and W. B. Croft. Passage retrieval based on language models. In CIKM'02, pages 375--382, McLean, VA, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. D. Metzler and W. B. Croft. A markov random field model for term dependencies. In SIGIR'05, pages 472--479, Salvador,Brazil, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Metzler and W. B. Croft. Latent concept expansion using markov random fields. In SIGIR'07, pages 311--318, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. G. Mishne and M. de Rijke. Boosting web retrieval through query operations. In ECIR'05, pages 502--516, Spain, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. F. Peng, N. Ahmed, X. Li, and Y. Lu. Context sensitive stemming for web search. In SIGIR'07, pages 639--646, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. M. Ponte and W. B. Croft. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In SIGIR'98, pages 275--281, Melbourne, Australia, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Tan and F. Peng. Unsupervised query segmentation using generative language models and Wikipedia. In WWW'08, pages 347--356, Beijing, China, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. X. Wang and C. Zhai. Mining term association patterns from search logs for effective query reformulation. In CIKM'08, pages 479--488, Napa Valley, CA, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Xu and W. B. Croft. Improving the effectiveness of information retrieval with local context analysis. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 18(1):79--112, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. X. Xue and W. B. Croft. Representing queries as distributions. In SIGIR'10 Workshop on Query Representation and Understanding, pages 9--12, Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to ad hoc information retrieval. In SIGIR'01, pages 334--342, New Orleans, LA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Modeling reformulation using passage analysis

    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
      CIKM '10: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
      October 2010
      2036 pages
      ISBN:9781450300995
      DOI:10.1145/1871437

      Copyright © 2010 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: 26 October 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader