Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015186245 = product of:
  0.03037249 = sum of:
    0.03037249 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=2752,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2752,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2752, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2752)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We report data fusion experiments carried out on the four best-performing retrieval models from TREC 5. Three were conceptually/algorithmically very different from one another; one was algorithmically similar to one of the former. The objective of the test was to observe the performance of the 11 logical data fusion combinations compared to the performance of the four individual models and their intermediate fusions when following the principle of polyrepresentation. This principle is based on cognitive IR perspective (Ingwersen & Järvelin, 2005) and implies that each retrieval model is regarded as a representation of a unique interpretation of information retrieval (IR). It predicts that only fusions of very different, but equally good, IR models may outperform each constituent as well as their intermediate fusions. Two kinds of experiments were carried out. One tested restricted fusions, which entails that only the inner disjoint overlap documents between fused models are ranked. The second set of experiments was based on traditional data fusion methods. The experiments involved the 30 TREC 5 topics that contain more than 44 relevant documents. In all tests, the Borda and CombSUM scoring methods were used. Performance was measured by precision and recall, with document cutoff values (DCVs) at 100 and 15 documents, respectively. Results show that restricted fusions made of two, three, or four cognitively/algorithmically very different retrieval models perform significantly better than do the individual models at DCV100. At DCV15, however, the results of polyrepresentative fusion were less predictable. The traditional fusion method based on polyrepresentation principles demonstrates a clear picture of performance at both DCV levels and verifies the polyrepresentation predictions for data fusion in IR. Data fusion improves retrieval performance over their constituent IR models only if the models all are quite conceptually/algorithmically dissimilar and equally and well performing, in that order of importance.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:48:28

Type

a

0.0028703054 = product of:
  0.005740611 = sum of:
    0.005740611 = product of:
      0.011481222 = sum of:
        0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 4175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011481222 = score(doc=4175,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 4175, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=629,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The principle of polyrepresentation, proposed more than 10 years ago, provides a holistic and explicitly cognitive framework for understanding the processes involved in Information Retrieval (IR). While readily applicable to the phenomena encountered in mainstream algorithmic IR research, the main strength of the principle is that it can also be applied simultaneously to the cognitive space of the user-thus integrating the two perspectives into one coherent cognitive framework. The main idea in the principle is that document overlaps generated from representations of different cognitive and functional origins can improve performance in IR systems. This kind of overlaps we entitle "cognitive overlaps". This chapter outlines the principle of polyrepresentation with a focus on the representations involved. The potentials and problems of the principle are discussed in the light of recent empirical studies, and challenges and opportunities for future research are identified along a polyrepresentation continuum.

Source

New directions in cognitive information retrieval. Eds.: A. Spink, C. Cole

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=2117,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The principle of polyrepresentation offers a theoretical framework for handling multiple contexts in information retrieval (IR). This paper presents an empirical laboratory study of polyrepresentation in restricted mode of the information space with focus on inter and intra-document features. The Cystic Fibrosis test collection indexed in the best match system InQuery constitutes the experimental setting. Overlaps between five functionally and/or cognitively different document representations are identified. Supporting the principle of polyrepresentation, results show that in general overlaps generated by three or four representations of different nature have higher precision than those generated from two representations or the single fields. This result pertains to both structured and unstructured query mode in best match retrieval, however, with the latter query mode demonstrating higher performance. The retrieval overlaps containing search keys from the bibliographic references provide the best retrieval performance and minor MeSH terms the worst. It is concluded that a highly structured query language is necessary when implementing the principle of polyrepresentation in a best match IR system because the principle is inherently Boolean. Finally a re-ranking test shows promising results when search results are re-ranked according to precision obtained in the overlaps whilst re-ranking by citations seems less useful when integrated into polyrepresentative applications.

Type

a