-
Habernal, I.; Konopík, M.; Rohlík, O.: Question answering (2012)
0.07
0.067072675 = product of:
0.100609004 = sum of:
0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0654609 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
0.03514811 = product of:
0.07029622 = sum of:
0.07029622 = weight(_text_:search in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07029622 = score(doc=101,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Question Answering is an area of information retrieval with the added challenge of applying sophisticated techniques to identify the complex syntactic and semantic relationships present in text in order to provide a more sophisticated and satisfactory response to the user's information needs. For this reason, the authors see question answering as the next step beyond standard information retrieval. In this chapter state of the art question answering is covered focusing on providing an overview of systems, techniques and approaches that are likely to be employed in the next generations of search engines. Special attention is paid to question answering using the World Wide Web as the data source and to question answering exploiting the possibilities of Semantic Web. Considerations about the current issues and prospects for promising future research are also provided.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64431.
- Source
- Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a
-
Back, J.: ¬An evaluation of relevancy ranking techniques used by Internet search engines (2000)
0.06
0.0636099 = product of:
0.19082968 = sum of:
0.19082968 = sum of:
0.0946996 = weight(_text_:search in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0946996 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.5376164 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
0.09613008 = weight(_text_:22 in 3445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09613008 = score(doc=3445,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3445, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3445)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 25. 8.2005 17:42:22
-
Biskri, I.; Rompré, L.: Using association rules for query reformulation (2012)
0.06
0.06277281 = product of:
0.09415921 = sum of:
0.0654609 = weight(_text_:book in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0654609 = score(doc=92,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.29261798 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
0.02869831 = product of:
0.05739662 = sum of:
0.05739662 = weight(_text_:search in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05739662 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.igi-global.com/book/next-generation-search-engines/64430.
- Source
- Next generation search engines: advanced models for information retrieval. Eds.: C. Jouis, u.a
-
Khoo, C.S.G.; Wan, K.-W.: ¬A simple relevancy-ranking strategy for an interface to Boolean OPACs (2004)
0.05
0.04502588 = product of:
0.13507764 = sum of:
0.13507764 = sum of:
0.11104512 = weight(_text_:search in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11104512 = score(doc=2509,freq=44.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.6304111 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
44.0 = termFreq=44.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
0.02403252 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02403252 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- A relevancy-ranking algorithm for a natural language interface to Boolean online public access catalogs (OPACs) was formulated and compared with that currently used in a knowledge-based search interface called the E-Referencer, being developed by the authors. The algorithm makes use of seven weIl-known ranking criteria: breadth of match, section weighting, proximity of query words, variant word forms (stemming), document frequency, term frequency and document length. The algorithm converts a natural language query into a series of increasingly broader Boolean search statements. In a small experiment with ten subjects in which the algorithm was simulated by hand, the algorithm obtained good results with a mean overall precision of 0.42 and mean average precision of 0.62, representing a 27 percent improvement in precision and 41 percent improvement in average precision compared to the E-Referencer. The usefulness of each step in the algorithm was analyzed and suggestions are made for improving the algorithm.
- Content
- "Most Web search engines accept natural language queries, perform some kind of fuzzy matching and produce ranked output, displaying first the documents that are most likely to be relevant. On the other hand, most library online public access catalogs (OPACs) an the Web are still Boolean retrieval systems that perform exact matching, and require users to express their search requests precisely in a Boolean search language and to refine their search statements to improve the search results. It is well-documented that users have difficulty searching Boolean OPACs effectively (e.g. Borgman, 1996; Ensor, 1992; Wallace, 1993). One approach to making OPACs easier to use is to develop a natural language search interface that acts as a middleware between the user's Web browser and the OPAC system. The search interface can accept a natural language query from the user and reformulate it as a series of Boolean search statements that are then submitted to the OPAC. The records retrieved by the OPAC are ranked by the search interface before forwarding them to the user's Web browser. The user, then, does not need to interact directly with the Boolean OPAC but with the natural language search interface or search intermediary. The search interface interacts with the OPAC system an the user's behalf. The advantage of this approach is that no modification to the OPAC or library system is required. Furthermore, the search interface can access multiple OPACs, acting as a meta search engine, and integrate search results from various OPACs before sending them to the user. The search interface needs to incorporate a method for converting the user's natural language query into a series of Boolean search statements, and for ranking the OPAC records retrieved. The purpose of this study was to develop a relevancyranking algorithm for a search interface to Boolean OPAC systems. This is part of an on-going effort to develop a knowledge-based search interface to OPACs called the E-Referencer (Khoo et al., 1998, 1999; Poo et al., 2000). E-Referencer v. 2 that has been implemented applies a repertoire of initial search strategies and reformulation strategies to retrieve records from OPACs using the Z39.50 protocol, and also assists users in mapping query keywords to the Library of Congress subject headings."
- Source
- Electronic library. 22(2004) no.2, S.112-120
-
Shiri, A.A.; Revie, C.: Query expansion behavior within a thesaurus-enhanced search environment : a user-centered evaluation (2006)
0.04
0.041271627 = product of:
0.12381488 = sum of:
0.12381488 = sum of:
0.08948271 = weight(_text_:search in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08948271 = score(doc=56,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.5079997 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 56) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034332175 = score(doc=56,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 56, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=56)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The study reported here investigated the query expansion behavior of end-users interacting with a thesaurus-enhanced search system on the Web. Two groups, namely academic staff and postgraduate students, were recruited into this study. Data were collected from 90 searches performed by 30 users using the OVID interface to the CAB abstracts database. Data-gathering techniques included questionnaires, screen capturing software, and interviews. The results presented here relate to issues of search-topic and search-term characteristics, number and types of expanded queries, usefulness of thesaurus terms, and behavioral differences between academic staff and postgraduate students in their interaction. The key conclusions drawn were that (a) academic staff chose more narrow and synonymous terms than did postgraduate students, who generally selected broader and related terms; (b) topic complexity affected users' interaction with the thesaurus in that complex topics required more query expansion and search term selection; (c) users' prior topic-search experience appeared to have a significant effect on their selection and evaluation of thesaurus terms; (d) in 50% of the searches where additional terms were suggested from the thesaurus, users stated that they had not been aware of the terms at the beginning of the search; this observation was particularly noticeable in the case of postgraduate students.
- Date
- 22. 7.2006 16:32:43
-
Fan, W.; Fox, E.A.; Pathak, P.; Wu, H.: ¬The effects of fitness functions an genetic programming-based ranking discovery for Web search (2004)
0.04
0.03716494 = product of:
0.111494824 = sum of:
0.111494824 = sum of:
0.07029622 = weight(_text_:search in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07029622 = score(doc=2239,freq=6.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.39907667 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041198608 = score(doc=2239,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2239, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2239)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Genetic-based evolutionary learning algorithms, such as genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP), have been applied to information retrieval (IR) since the 1980s. Recently, GP has been applied to a new IR taskdiscovery of ranking functions for Web search-and has achieved very promising results. However, in our prior research, only one fitness function has been used for GP-based learning. It is unclear how other fitness functions may affect ranking function discovery for Web search, especially since it is weIl known that choosing a proper fitness function is very important for the effectiveness and efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. In this article, we report our experience in contrasting different fitness function designs an GP-based learning using a very large Web corpus. Our results indicate that the design of fitness functions is instrumental in performance improvement. We also give recommendations an the design of fitness functions for genetic-based information retrieval experiments.
- Date
- 31. 5.2004 19:22:06
-
Kelledy, F.; Smeaton, A.F.: Signature files and beyond (1996)
0.03
0.032865077 = product of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.05739662 = weight(_text_:search in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05739662 = score(doc=6973,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 6973, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6973)
0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 6973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041198608 = score(doc=6973,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6973, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6973)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Proposes that signature files be used as a viable alternative to other indexing strategies such as inverted files for searching through large volumes of text. Demonstrates through simulation, that search times can be further reduced by enhancing the basic signature file concept using deterministic partitioning algorithms which eliminate the need for an exhaustive search of the entire signature file. Reports research to evaluate the performance of some deterministic partitioning algorithms in a non simulated environment using 276 MB of raw newspaper text (taken from the Wall Street Journal) and real user queries. Presents a selection of results to illustrate trends and highlight important aspects of the performance of these methods under realistic rather than simulated operating conditions. As a result of the research reported here certain aspects of this approach to signature files are shown to be found wanting and require improvement. Suggests lines of future research on the partitioning of signature files
- Source
- Information retrieval: new systems and current research. Proceedings of the 16th Research Colloquium of the British Computer Society Information Retrieval Specialist Group, Drymen, Scotland, 22-23 Mar 94. Ed.: R. Leon
-
Furner, J.: ¬A unifying model of document relatedness for hybrid search engines (2003)
0.03
0.032865077 = product of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.05739662 = weight(_text_:search in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05739662 = score(doc=2717,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041198608 = score(doc=2717,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2717, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2717)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Previous work an search-engine design has indicated that information-seekers may benefit from being given the opportunity to exploit multiple sources of evidence of document relatedness. Few existing systems, however, give users more than minimal control over the selections that may be made among methods of exploitation. By applying the methods of "document network analysis" (DNA), a unifying, graph-theoretic model of content-, collaboration-, and context-based systems (CCC) may be developed in which the nature of the similarities between types of document relatedness and document ranking are clarified. The usefulness of the approach to system design suggested by this model may be tested by constructing and evaluating a prototype system (UCXtra) that allows searchers to maintain control over the multiple ways in which document collections may be ranked and re-ranked.
- Date
- 11. 9.2004 17:32:22
-
Klas, C.-P.; Fuhr, N.; Schaefer, A.: Evaluating strategic support for information access in the DAFFODIL system (2004)
0.03
0.032865077 = product of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.09859523 = sum of:
0.05739662 = weight(_text_:search in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05739662 = score(doc=2419,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.3258447 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2419) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041198608 = score(doc=2419,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2419, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2419)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The digital library system Daffodil is targeted at strategic support of users during the information search process. For searching, exploring and managing digital library objects it provides user-customisable information seeking patterns over a federation of heterogeneous digital libraries. In this paper evaluation results with respect to retrieval effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction are presented. The analysis focuses on strategic support for the scientific work-flow. Daffodil supports the whole work-flow, from data source selection over information seeking to the representation, organisation and reuse of information. By embedding high level search functionality into the scientific work-flow, the user experiences better strategic system support due to a more systematic work process. These ideas have been implemented in Daffodil followed by a qualitative evaluation. The evaluation has been conducted with 28 participants, ranging from information seeking novices to experts. The results are promising, as they support the chosen model.
- Date
- 16.11.2008 16:22:48
-
Chang, C.-H.; Hsu, C.-C.: Integrating query expansion and conceptual relevance feedback for personalized Web information retrieval (1998)
0.03
0.03180495 = product of:
0.09541484 = sum of:
0.09541484 = sum of:
0.0473498 = weight(_text_:search in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0473498 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.2688082 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
0.04806504 = weight(_text_:22 in 1319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04806504 = score(doc=1319,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1319, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1319)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Keyword based querying has been an immediate and efficient way to specify and retrieve related information that the user inquired. However, conventional document ranking based on an automatic assessment of document relevance to the query may not be the best approach when little information is given. Proposes an idea to integrate 2 existing techniques, query expansion and relevance feedback to achieve a concept-based information search for the Web
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:08:06
-
Wartik, S.; Fox, E.; Heath, L.; Chen, Q.-F.: Hashing algorithms (1992)
0.03
0.029093731 = product of:
0.08728119 = sum of:
0.08728119 = weight(_text_:book in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08728119 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.39015728 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses hashing, an information storage and retrieval technique useful for implementing many of the other structures in this book. The concepts underlying hashing are presented, along with 2 implementation strategies. The chapter also contains an extensive discussion of perfect hashing, an important optimization in information retrieval, and an O(n) algorithm to find minimal perfect hash functions for a set of keys
-
Joss, M.W.; Wszola, S.: ¬The engines that can : text search and retrieval software, their strategies, and vendors (1996)
0.03
0.027261382 = product of:
0.081784144 = sum of:
0.081784144 = sum of:
0.04058554 = weight(_text_:search in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04058554 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.230407 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
0.041198608 = weight(_text_:22 in 5123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041198608 = score(doc=5123,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5123, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5123)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Date
- 12. 9.1996 13:56:22
-
Lalmas, M.: XML information retrieval (2009)
0.03
0.025457015 = product of:
0.076371044 = sum of:
0.076371044 = weight(_text_:book in 3880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076371044 = score(doc=3880,freq=2.0), product of:
0.2237077 = queryWeight, product of:
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.34138763 = fieldWeight in 3880, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.414126 = idf(docFreq=1454, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3880)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
-
Zhang, W.; Korf, R.E.: Performance of linear-space search algorithms (1995)
0.03
0.025208896 = product of:
0.075626686 = sum of:
0.075626686 = product of:
0.15125337 = sum of:
0.15125337 = weight(_text_:search in 4744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.15125337 = score(doc=4744,freq=10.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.8586762 = fieldWeight in 4744, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4744)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Search algorithms in artificial intelligence systems that use space linear in the search depth are employed in practice to solve difficult problems optimally, such as planning and scheduling. Studies the average-case performance of linear-space search algorithms, including depth-first branch-and-bound, iterative-deepening, and recursive best-first search
-
Croft, W.B.; Harper, D.J.: Using probabilistic models of document retrieval without relevance information (1979)
0.02
0.023862056 = product of:
0.07158617 = sum of:
0.07158617 = product of:
0.14317234 = sum of:
0.14317234 = weight(_text_:search in 4520) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14317234 = score(doc=4520,freq=14.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.8127996 = fieldWeight in 4520, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4520)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Based on a probablistic model, proposes strategies for the initial search and an intermediate search. Retrieval experiences with the Cranfield collection of 1,400 documents show that this initial search strategy is better than conventional search strategies both in terms of retrieval effectiveness and in terms of the number of queries that retrieve relevant documents. The intermediate search is a useful substitute for a relevance feedback search. A cluster search would be an effective alternative strategy.
-
Burgin, R.: ¬The retrieval effectiveness of 5 clustering algorithms as a function of indexing exhaustivity (1995)
0.02
0.022717819 = product of:
0.068153456 = sum of:
0.068153456 = sum of:
0.033821285 = weight(_text_:search in 3365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033821285 = score(doc=3365,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 3365, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3365)
0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 3365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034332175 = score(doc=3365,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3365, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3365)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The retrieval effectiveness of 5 hierarchical clustering methods (single link, complete link, group average, Ward's method, and weighted average) is examined as a function of indexing exhaustivity with 4 test collections (CR, Cranfield, Medlars, and Time). Evaluations of retrieval effectiveness, based on 3 measures of optimal retrieval performance, confirm earlier findings that the performance of a retrieval system based on single link clustering varies as a function of indexing exhaustivity but fail ti find similar patterns for other clustering methods. The data also confirm earlier findings regarding the poor performance of single link clustering is a retrieval environment. The poor performance of single link clustering appears to derive from that method's tendency to produce a small number of large, ill defined document clusters. By contrast, the data examined here found the retrieval performance of the other clustering methods to be general comparable. The data presented also provides an opportunity to examine the theoretical limits of cluster based retrieval and to compare these theoretical limits to the effectiveness of operational implementations. Performance standards of the 4 document collections examined were found to vary widely, and the effectiveness of operational implementations were found to be in the range defined as unacceptable. Further improvements in search strategies and document representations warrant investigations
- Date
- 22. 2.1996 11:20:06
-
Efthimiadis, E.N.: User choices : a new yardstick for the evaluation of ranking algorithms for interactive query expansion (1995)
0.02
0.022717819 = product of:
0.068153456 = sum of:
0.068153456 = sum of:
0.033821285 = weight(_text_:search in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033821285 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.19200584 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
0.034332175 = weight(_text_:22 in 5697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034332175 = score(doc=5697,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5697, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5697)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- The performance of 8 ranking algorithms was evaluated with respect to their effectiveness in ranking terms for query expansion. The evaluation was conducted within an investigation of interactive query expansion and relevance feedback in a real operational environment. Focuses on the identification of algorithms that most effectively take cognizance of user preferences. user choices (i.e. the terms selected by the searchers for the query expansion search) provided the yardstick for the evaluation of the 8 ranking algorithms. This methodology introduces a user oriented approach in evaluating ranking algorithms for query expansion in contrast to the standard, system oriented approaches. Similarities in the performance of the 8 algorithms and the ways these algorithms rank terms were the main focus of this evaluation. The findings demonstrate that the r-lohi, wpq, enim, and porter algorithms have similar performance in bringing good terms to the top of a ranked list of terms for query expansion. However, further evaluation of the algorithms in different (e.g. full text) environments is needed before these results can be generalized beyond the context of the present study
- Date
- 22. 2.1996 13:14:10
-
Wills, R.S.: Google's PageRank : the math behind the search engine (2006)
0.02
0.021151453 = product of:
0.06345436 = sum of:
0.06345436 = product of:
0.12690872 = sum of:
0.12690872 = weight(_text_:search in 5954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12690872 = score(doc=5954,freq=44.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.72046983 = fieldWeight in 5954, product of:
6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
44.0 = termFreq=44.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5954)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Abstract
- Approximately 91 million American adults use the Internet on a typical day The number-one Internet activity is reading and writing e-mail. Search engine use is next in line and continues to increase in popularity. In fact, survey findings indicate that nearly 60 million American adults use search engines on a given day. Even though there are many Internet search engines, Google, Yahoo!, and MSN receive over 81% of all search requests. Despite claims that the quality of search provided by Yahoo! and MSN now equals that of Google, Google continues to thrive as the search engine of choice, receiving over 46% of all search requests, nearly double the volume of Yahoo! and over four times that of MSN. I use Google's search engine on a daily basis and rarely request information from other search engines. One day, I decided to visit the homepages of Google. Yahoo!, and MSN to compare the quality of search results. Coffee was on my mind that day, so I entered the simple query "coffee" in the search box at each homepage. Table 1 shows the top ten (unsponsored) results returned by each search engine. Although ordered differently, two webpages, www.peets.com and www.coffeegeek.com, appear in all three top ten lists. In addition, each pairing of top ten lists has two additional results in common. Depending on the information I hoped to obtain about coffee by using the search engines, I could argue that any one of the three returned better results: however, I was not looking for a particular webpage, so all three listings of search results seemed of equal quality. Thus, I plan to continue using Google. My decision is indicative of the problem Yahoo!, MSN, and other search engine companies face in the quest to obtain a larger percentage of Internet search volume. Search engine users are loyal to one or a few search engines and are generally happy with search results. Thus, as long as Google continues to provide results deemed high in quality, Google likely will remain the top search engine. But what set Google apart from its competitors in the first place? The answer is PageRank. In this article I explain this simple mathematical algorithm that revolutionized Web search.
-
Voorhees, E.M.: Implementing agglomerative hierarchic clustering algorithms for use in document retrieval (1986)
0.02
0.018310493 = product of:
0.054931477 = sum of:
0.054931477 = product of:
0.10986295 = sum of:
0.10986295 = weight(_text_:22 in 402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10986295 = score(doc=402,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17747258 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 402, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=402)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
- Source
- Information processing and management. 22(1986) no.6, S.465-476
-
Salton, G.; Buckley, C.: Parallel text search methods (1988)
0.02
0.01803802 = product of:
0.054114055 = sum of:
0.054114055 = product of:
0.10822811 = sum of:
0.10822811 = weight(_text_:search in 404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10822811 = score(doc=404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17614716 = queryWeight, product of:
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.050679956 = queryNorm
0.6144187 = fieldWeight in 404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.475677 = idf(docFreq=3718, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
