Bridging Gaps: Predicting User and Task Characteristics from Partial User Information

Interactive information retrieval (IIR) researchers often conduct laboratory studies to understand the relationship between people seeking information and information retrieval systems. They develop extensive data collection methods and tools create new understanding about the relationship between observable behaviors, searcher context, and underlying cognition, to better support people's information seeking. Yet aside from the problems of data size, realism, and demographics, laboratory studies are limited in the number and nature of phenomena they can study. Hence, data collected in laboratories contains different searcher populations and collects non-overlapping user and task characteristics. While research analyses and collection methods are isolated, how can we further IIR's mission of broad understanding? We approach this as a structure learning problem on incomplete data, determining the extent to which incomplete data can be used to predict user and task characteristics from interactions. In particular, we examine whether combining heterogeneous data sets is more effective than using a single data set alone in prediction. Our results indicate that adding external data significantly improves predictions of searcher characteristics, task characteristics, and behaviors, even when the data does not contain identical information about searchers.

[1]  Rostislav Khlebnikov,et al.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 2016 .

[2]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Supporting Complex Search Tasks , 2014, CIKM.

[3]  Emine Yilmaz,et al.  User Behaviour and Task Characteristics: A Field Study of Daily Information Behaviour , 2017, CHIIR.

[4]  Soohyung Joo,et al.  Effects of topic familiarity and search skills on query reformulation behavior , 2013, ASIST.

[5]  Omid Kalatpour,et al.  Constructing a Bayesian network model for improving safety behavior of employees at workplaces. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  Haytham Elghazel,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Hybrid Algorithms for Bayesian Network Structure Learning , 2012, ECML/PKDD.

[7]  Chirag Shah,et al.  The Broad View of Task Type Using Path Analysis , 2018, ICTIR.

[8]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Predicting task difficulty for different task types , 2010, ASIST.

[9]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The development of a method for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems , 1997, J. Documentation.

[10]  Chirag Shah,et al.  The Paradox of Personalization: Does Task Prediction Require Individualized Models? , 2018, CHIIR.

[11]  Robert G. Capra,et al.  The Effects of Search Task Determinability on Search Behavior , 2017, ECIR.

[12]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Learning Belief Networks in the Presence of Missing Values and Hidden Variables , 1997, ICML.

[13]  Daqing He,et al.  Searching, browsing, and clicking in a search session: changes in user behavior by task and over time , 2014, SIGIR.

[14]  Emine Yilmaz,et al.  Category Oriented Task Extraction , 2016, CHIIR.

[15]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[16]  Ryen W. White,et al.  A study on the effects of personalization and task information on implicit feedback performance , 2006, CIKM '06.

[17]  Chang Liu,et al.  The impacts of time constraint on users' search strategy during search process , 2016, ASIST.

[18]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Analysis of Query Reformulation Types on Different Search Tasks , 2010 .

[19]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on web search behavior , 2009, WSDM '09.

[20]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Structure Learning in Human Causal Induction , 2000, NIPS.

[21]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Task Effects on Interactive Search: The Query Factor , 2008, INEX.

[22]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Search behaviors in different task types , 2010, JCDL '10.

[23]  Jacek Gwizdka,et al.  Inferring user knowledge level from eye movement patterns , 2013, Inf. Process. Manag..

[24]  Leif Azzopardi,et al.  Time Pressure and System Delays in Information Search , 2015, SIGIR.

[25]  Emine Yilmaz,et al.  Terms, Topics & Tasks: Enhanced User Modelling for Better Personalization , 2015, ICTIR.

[26]  Bruce Kaplan,et al.  A Primer on Bayesian Decision Analysis With an Application to a Kidney Transplant Decision , 2016, Transplantation.

[27]  B. Sitohang,et al.  Hybrid algorithm for learning structure of Bayesian network from incomplete databases , 2005, IEEE International Symposium on Communications and Information Technology, 2005. ISCIT 2005..

[28]  Fabrizio Silvestri,et al.  Identifying task-based sessions in search engine query logs , 2011, WSDM '11.

[29]  Hongbo Deng,et al.  Identifying and labeling search tasks via query-based hawkes processes , 2014, KDD.

[30]  Chirag Shah,et al.  The Role of the Task Topic in Web Search of Different Task Types , 2018, CHIIR.

[31]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Task difficulty and domain knowledge effects on information search behaviors , 2012, ASIST.

[32]  Hong Xie,et al.  Patterns between interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies , 2002, Inf. Process. Manag..

[33]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  A Theoretical Framework for Conversational Search , 2017, CHIIR.

[34]  T. Kadir,et al.  Bayesian Networks for Clinical Decision Support in Lung Cancer Care , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  D. Campbell Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[36]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Personalization of search results using interaction behaviors in search sessions , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[37]  Pia Borlund,et al.  Reconsideration of the simulated work task situation: a context instrument for evaluation of information retrieval interaction , 2010, IIiX.

[38]  Gary Marchionini Information-seeking strategies of novices using a full-text electronic encyclopedia , 1989 .