User Satisfaction Prediction with Mouse Movement Information in Heterogeneous Search Environment

Satisfaction prediction is one of the prime concerns in search performance evaluation. It is a non-trivial task for three major reasons: (1) The definition of satisfaction is subjective and different users may have different opinions in the process of satisfaction judgment. (2) Most existing studies on satisfaction prediction mainly rely on users’ click-through or query reformulation behaviors but there are many sessions without such interactions. (3) Most existing works primarily rely on the hypothesis that all results on search result pages (SERPs) are homogeneous, but a variety of heterogeneous search results have been aggregated into SERPs to improve the diversity and quality of search results recently. To shed light on these research questions, we construct an experimental search engine that could collect users’ satisfaction feedback as well as mouse click-through/movement data. Inspired by recent studies in predicting search result relevance based on mouse movement patterns (namely, motifs), we propose to estimate search satisfaction with motifs extracted from mouse movement data on SERPs. Besides the existing frequency-based motif selection method, two novel selection strategies (distance-based and distribution-based) are also adopted to extract high-quality motifs for satisfaction prediction. Experimental results show that the proposed strategies outperform existing methods and have promising generalization capability for unseen users and queries in both a homogeneous and heterogeneous search environment.

[1]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Discovering common motifs in cursor movement data for improving web search , 2014, WSDM.

[2]  Meng Wang,et al.  Does Vertical Bring more Satisfaction?: Predicting Search Satisfaction in a Heterogeneous Environment , 2015, CIKM.

[3]  Yiqun Liu,et al.  Different Users, Different Opinions: Predicting Search Satisfaction with Mouse Movement Information , 2015, SIGIR.

[4]  Charles L. A. Clarke,et al.  Novelty and diversity in information retrieval evaluation , 2008, SIGIR '08.

[5]  Haibo He,et al.  Learning from Imbalanced Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[6]  Ahmed Hassan Awadallah,et al.  Beyond DCG: user behavior as a predictor of a successful search , 2010, WSDM '10.

[7]  Yiqun Liu,et al.  Influence of Vertical Result in Web Search Examination , 2015, SIGIR.

[8]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Predicting query performance using query, result, and user interaction features , 2010, RIAO.

[9]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Robust models of mouse movement on dynamic web search results pages , 2013, CIKM.

[10]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Understanding User Attention and Engagement in Online News Reading , 2016, WSDM.

[11]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Integration of news content into web results , 2009, WSDM '09.

[12]  Jane Li,et al.  Good abandonment in mobile and PC internet search , 2009, SIGIR.

[13]  George Valkanas,et al.  Understanding Within-Content Engagement through Pattern Analysis of Mouse Gestures , 2014, CIKM.

[14]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Incorporating Clicks, Attention and Satisfaction into a Search Engine Result Page Evaluation Model , 2016, CIKM.

[15]  Ryen W. White,et al.  No clicks, no problem: using cursor movements to understand and improve search , 2011, CHI.

[16]  Luis A. Leiva,et al.  Predicting User Engagement with Direct Displays Using Mouse Cursor Information , 2016, SIGIR.

[17]  James Allan,et al.  Predicting searcher frustration , 2010, SIGIR.

[18]  Yiqun Liu,et al.  Incorporating vertical results into search click models , 2013, SIGIR.

[19]  Alexander J. Smola,et al.  Measurement and modeling of eye-mouse behavior in the presence of nonlinear page layouts , 2013, WWW.

[20]  Eamonn J. Keogh,et al.  Searching and Mining Trillions of Time Series Subsequences under Dynamic Time Warping , 2012, KDD.

[21]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[22]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. , 1968 .

[23]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  Evaluating aggregated search pages , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[24]  Diane Kelly,et al.  Methods for Evaluating Interactive Information Retrieval Systems with Users , 2009, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[25]  Andrea Lockerd Thomaz,et al.  Cheese: tracking mouse movement activity on websites, a tool for user modeling , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[26]  Olivier Chapelle,et al.  Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance , 2009, CIKM.

[27]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Exploring mouse movements for inferring query intent , 2008, SIGIR '08.

[28]  Scott B. Huffman,et al.  How well does result relevance predict session satisfaction? , 2007, SIGIR.

[29]  Dmitry Lagun,et al.  Improving Relevance Prediction by Addressing Biases and Sparsity in Web Search Click Data , 2012 .

[30]  Wessel Kraaij,et al.  Reliability and Validity of Query Intent Assessments , 2013, DIR.

[31]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Beyond dwell time: estimating document relevance from cursor movements and other post-click searcher behavior , 2012, WWW.

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

[33]  Mark D. Smucker,et al.  Mouse movement during relevance judging: implications for determining user attention , 2014, SIGIR.

[34]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Predicting web search success with fine-grained interaction data , 2012, CIKM.

[35]  Elizabeth F. Churchill,et al.  Mouse tracking: measuring and predicting users' experience of web-based content , 2012, CHI.

[36]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Find it if you can: a game for modeling different types of web search success using interaction data , 2011, SIGIR.

[37]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Text selections as implicit relevance feedback , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[38]  Kerry Rodden,et al.  Eye-mouse coordination patterns on web search results pages , 2008, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[39]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Understanding and Predicting Graded Search Satisfaction , 2015, WSDM.

[40]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Improving search result summaries by using searcher behavior data , 2013, SIGIR.

[41]  Ryen W. White,et al.  User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search , 2012, CHI.

[42]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Towards predicting web searcher gaze position from mouse movements , 2010, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[43]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[44]  Maarten de Rijke,et al.  Vertical-Aware Click Model-Based Effectiveness Metrics , 2014, CIKM.

[45]  Louise T. Su Evaluation Measures for Interactive Information Retrieval , 1992, Inf. Process. Manag..

[46]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Sources of evidence for vertical selection , 2009, SIGIR.

[47]  Eamonn J. Keogh,et al.  Exact indexing of dynamic time warping , 2002, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[48]  Tetsuya Sakai,et al.  Evaluating diversified search results using per-intent graded relevance , 2011, SIGIR.

[49]  Yiqun Liu,et al.  From Skimming to Reading: A Two-stage Examination Model for Web Search , 2014, CIKM.

[50]  Fernando Diaz,et al.  Vertical selection in the presence of unlabeled verticals , 2010, SIGIR '10.

[51]  S. Chiba,et al.  Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition , 1978 .

[52]  Yiqun Liu,et al.  Overview of the NTCIR-11 IMine Task , 2014, NTCIR.

[53]  Chih-Hung Hsieh,et al.  Towards better measurement of attention and satisfaction in mobile search , 2014, SIGIR.

[54]  Joemon M. Jose,et al.  Evaluating reward and risk for vertical selection , 2012, CIKM '12.