Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 2084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=2084,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2084, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation about how to automatically formulate effective queries using full or partial relevance information (i.e., the terms that are in relevant documents) in the context of relevance feedback (RF). The effects of adding relevance information in the RF environment are studied via controlled experiments. The conditions of these controlled experiments are formalized into a set of assumptions that form the framework of our study. This framework is called idealized relevance feedback (IRF) framework. In our IRF settings, we confirm the previous findings of relevance feedback studies. In addition, our experiments show that better retrieval effectiveness can be obtained when (i) we normalize the term weights by their ranks, (ii) we select weighted terms in the top K retrieved documents, (iii) we include terms in the initial title queries, and (iv) we use the best query sizes for each topic instead of the average best query size where they produce at most five percentage points improvement in the mean average precision (MAP) value. We have also achieved a new level of retrieval effectiveness which is about 55-60% MAP instead of 40+% in the previous findings. This new level of retrieval effectiveness was found to be similar to a level using a TREC ad hoc test collection that is about double the number of documents in the TREC-3 test collection used in previous works.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.3, S.1086-1116

3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 4120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=4120,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4120, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

We studied the effectiveness of a new class of context-dependent term weights for information retrieval. Unlike the traditional term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), the new weighting of a term t in a document d depends not only on the occurrence statistics of t alone but also on the terms found within a text window (or "document-context") centered on t. We introduce a Boost and Discount (B&D) procedure which utilizes partial relevance information to compute the context-dependent term weights of query terms according to a logistic regression model. We investigate the effectiveness of the new term weights compared with the context-independent BM25 weights in the setting of relevance feedback. We performed experiments with title queries of the TREC-6, -7, -8, and 2005 collections, comparing the residual Mean Average Precision (MAP) measures obtained using B&D term weights and those obtained by a baseline using BM25 weights. Given either 10 or 20 relevance judgments of the top retrieved documents, using the new term weights yields improvement over the baseline for all collections tested. The MAP obtained with the new weights has relative improvement over the baseline by 3.3 to 15.2%, with statistical significance at the 95% confidence level across all four collections.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.12, S.2514-2530

2.6310782E-4 = product of:
  0.0039466172 = sum of:
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 6539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=6539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Information processing and management. 29(1993) no.5, S.647-669

2.6310782E-4 = product of:
  0.0039466172 = sum of:
    0.0039466172 = product of:
      0.0078932345 = sum of:
        0.0078932345 = weight(_text_:information in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0078932345 = score(doc=4075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Information processing and management. 31(1995) no.6, S.815-830

2.3255666E-4 = product of:
  0.0034883497 = sum of:
    0.0034883497 = product of:
      0.0069766995 = sum of:
        0.0069766995 = weight(_text_:information in 3321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0069766995 = score(doc=3321,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3321, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The Basic Vector Space Model (BVSM) is well known in information retrieval. Unfortunately, its retrieval effectiveness is limited because it is based on literal term matching. The Generalized Vector Space Model (GVSM) and Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) are two prominent semantic retrieval methods, both of which assume there is some underlying latent semantic structure in a dataset that can be used to improve retrieval performance. However, while this structure may be derived from both the term space and the document space, GVSM exploits only the former and LSI the latter. In this article, the latent semantic structure of a dataset is examined from a dual perspective; namely, we consider the term space and the document space simultaneously. This new viewpoint has a natural connection to the notion of kernels. Specifically, a unified kernel function can be derived for a class of vector space models. The dual perspective provides a deeper understanding of the semantic space and makes transparent the geometrical meaning of the unified kernel function. New semantic analysis methods based on the unified kernel function are developed, which combine the advantages of LSI and GVSM. We also prove that the new methods are stable because although the selected rank of the truncated Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is far from the optimum, the retrieval performance will not be degraded significantly. Experiments performed on standard test collections show that our methods are promising.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.1, S.175-189

2.3021935E-4 = product of:
  0.00345329 = sum of:
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 7657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=7657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 7657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.7, S.443-464

2.3021935E-4 = product of:
  0.00345329 = sum of:
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

ACM transactions on information systems. 14(1996) no.2, S.109-137

2.3021935E-4 = product of:
  0.00345329 = sum of:
    0.00345329 = product of:
      0.00690658 = sum of:
        0.00690658 = weight(_text_:information in 1367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00690658 = score(doc=1367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1367, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.3, S.390-406