Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Retrievalalgorithmen"
  • × theme_ss:"Semantisches Umfeld in Indexierung u. Retrieval"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Jindal, V.; Bawa, S.; Batra, S.: ¬A review of ranking approaches for semantic search on Web (2014) 0.02
    0.020983625 = product of:
      0.12590174 = sum of:
        0.12590174 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2799) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12590174 = score(doc=2799,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.62106377 = fieldWeight in 2799, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2799)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    With ever increasing information being available to the end users, search engines have become the most powerful tools for obtaining useful information scattered on the Web. However, it is very common that even most renowned search engines return result sets with not so useful pages to the user. Research on semantic search aims to improve traditional information search and retrieval methods where the basic relevance criteria rely primarily on the presence of query keywords within the returned pages. This work is an attempt to explore different relevancy ranking approaches based on semantics which are considered appropriate for the retrieval of relevant information. In this paper, various pilot projects and their corresponding outcomes have been investigated based on methodologies adopted and their most distinctive characteristics towards ranking. An overview of selected approaches and their comparison by means of the classification criteria has been presented. With the help of this comparison, some common concepts and outstanding features have been identified.
  2. Bhansali, D.; Desai, H.; Deulkar, K.: ¬A study of different ranking approaches for semantic search (2015) 0.02
    0.020191502 = product of:
      0.121149 = sum of:
        0.121149 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.121149 = score(doc=2696,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.5976189 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.
  3. Xu, B.; Lin, H.; Lin, Y.: Assessment of learning to rank methods for query expansion (2016) 0.01
    0.014277548 = product of:
      0.085665286 = sum of:
        0.085665286 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085665286 = score(doc=2929,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.42258036 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    
    Abstract
    Pseudo relevance feedback, as an effective query expansion method, can significantly improve information retrieval performance. However, the method may negatively impact the retrieval performance when some irrelevant terms are used in the expanded query. Therefore, it is necessary to refine the expansion terms. Learning to rank methods have proven effective in information retrieval to solve ranking problems by ranking the most relevant documents at the top of the returned list, but few attempts have been made to employ learning to rank methods for term refinement in pseudo relevance feedback. This article proposes a novel framework to explore the feasibility of using learning to rank to optimize pseudo relevance feedback by means of reranking the candidate expansion terms. We investigate some learning approaches to choose the candidate terms and introduce some state-of-the-art learning to rank methods to refine the expansion terms. In addition, we propose two term labeling strategies and examine the usefulness of various term features to optimize the framework. Experimental results with three TREC collections show that our framework can effectively improve retrieval performance.
  4. Liu, X.; Zheng, W.; Fang, H.: ¬An exploration of ranking models and feedback method for related entity finding (2013) 0.01
    0.010095751 = product of:
      0.0605745 = sum of:
        0.0605745 = weight(_text_:ranking in 2714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0605745 = score(doc=2714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20271951 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03747799 = queryNorm
            0.29880944 = fieldWeight in 2714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4090285 = idf(docFreq=537, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2714)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)