Searching and Stopping: An Analysis of Stopping Rules and Strategies

Searching naturally involves stopping points, both at a query level (how far down the ranked list should I go?) and at a session level (how many queries should I issue?). Understanding when searchers stop has been of much interest to the community because it is fundamental to how we evaluate search behaviour and performance. Research has shown that searchers find it difficult to formalise stopping criteria, and typically resort to their intuition of what is "good enough". While various heuristics and stopping criteria have been proposed, little work has investigated how well they perform, and whether searchers actually conform to any of these rules. In this paper, we undertake the first large scale study of stopping rules, investigating how they influence overall session performance, and which rules best match actual stopping behaviour. Our work is focused on stopping at the query level in the context of ad-hoc topic retrieval, where searchers undertake search tasks within a fixed time period. We show that stopping strategies based upon the disgust or frustration point rules - both of which capture a searcher's tolerance to non-relevance - typically result in (i) the best overall performance, and (ii) provide the closest approximation to actual searcher behaviour, although a fixed depth approach also performs remarkably well. Findings from this study have implications regarding how we build measures, and how we conduct simulations of search behaviours.

[1]  Marcia J. Bates The Fallacy of the Perfect Thirty-Item Online Search , 2016 .

[2]  Jaana Kekäläinen,et al.  Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques , 2002, TOIS.

[3]  Jimmy J. Lin,et al.  How do users find things with PubMed?: towards automatic utility evaluation with user simulations , 2008, SIGIR '08.

[4]  Alistair Moffat,et al.  Users versus models: what observation tells us about effectiveness metrics , 2013, CIKM.

[5]  Peter Bailey,et al.  Modeling decision points in user search behavior , 2014, IIiX.

[6]  Diane Kelly,et al.  Using information scent and need for cognition to understand online search behavior , 2014, SIGIR.

[7]  Donald H. Kraft,et al.  Stopping rules and their effect on expected search length , 1979, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Wessel Kraaij,et al.  User Simulations for Interactive Search: Evaluating Personalized Query Suggestion , 2015, ECIR.

[9]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Test Collection-Based IR Evaluation Needs Extension toward Sessions - A Case of Extremely Short Queries , 2009, AIRS.

[10]  E. Charnov Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[11]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Stopping Rule Use During Web-Based Search , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[12]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Modeling behavioral factors ininteractive information retrieval , 2013, CIKM.

[13]  Katja Hofmann,et al.  Fast and reliable online learning to rank for information retrieval , 2013, SIGIR Forum.

[14]  Diane Kelly,et al.  Online search stopping behaviors: An investigation of query abandonment and task stopping , 2014, ASIST.

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

[16]  Lisl Zach,et al.  When is “enough” enough? Modeling the information-seeking and stopping behavior of senior arts administrators: Research Articles , 2005 .

[17]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in Web search , 2007, TOIS.

[18]  Chao Liu,et al.  Click chain model in web search , 2009, WWW '09.

[19]  Feza Baskaya,et al.  Simulating Search Sessions in Interactive Information Retrieval Evaluation , 2014 .

[20]  David Maxwell,et al.  Stuck in traffic: how temporal delays affect search behaviour , 2014, IIiX.

[21]  Diane Kelly,et al.  Users' stopping behaviors and estimates of recall , 2009, SIGIR.

[22]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of relevance feedback based on a user simulation model: effects of a user scenario on cumulated gain value , 2008, Information Retrieval.

[23]  Lynn Silipigni Connaway,et al.  What is enough? Satisficing information needs , 2007, J. Documentation.

[24]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Cognitive Stopping Rules for Terminating Information Search in Online Tasks , 2007, MIS Q..

[25]  Leif Azzopardi,et al.  The economics in interactive information retrieval , 2011, SIGIR.

[26]  S. Curley JUDGMENT-BASED AND REASONING-BASED STOPPING RULES IN DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY , 2002 .

[27]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Turn - Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context , 2005, The Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval.

[28]  William S. Cooper The paradoxical role 0f unexamined documents in the evaluation of retrieval effectiveness , 1976, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Elaine Toms,et al.  Predicting stopping behaviour: a preliminary analysis , 2009, SIGIR.

[30]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Time drives interaction: simulating sessions in diverse searching environments , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[31]  Alistair Moffat,et al.  Rank-biased precision for measurement of retrieval effectiveness , 2008, TOIS.

[32]  Peter Pirolli,et al.  Information Foraging , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[33]  David Maxwell,et al.  An Initial Investigation into Fixed and Adaptive Stopping Strategies , 2015, SIGIR.

[34]  Gary Marchionini,et al.  Information Seeking in Electronic Environments , 1995 .

[35]  William S. Cooper,et al.  On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness part II. Implementation of the philosophy , 1973, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[36]  Lisl Zach,et al.  When is enough enough? Modeling the information-seeking and stopping behavior of senior arts administrators , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  M. Smucker An Analysis of User Strategies for Examining and Processing Ranked Lists of Documents , 2011 .