IRIS at TREC-7

In our TREC-5 ad-hoc experiment, we tested two relevance feedback models, an adaptive linear model and a probabilistic model, using massive feedback query expansion (Sumner & Shaw, 1997). For our TREC-6 interactive experiment, we developed an interactive retrieval system called IRIS (Information Retrieval Interactive System), which implemented modified versions of the feedback models with a three-valued scale of relevance and reduced feedback query expansion (Sumner, Yang, Akers & Shaw, 1998). The goal of the IRIS design was to provide users with ample opportunities to interact with the system throughout the search process. For example, users could supplement the initial query by choosing from a list of statistically significant, two-word collocations, or add and delete query terms as well as change their weights at each search iteration. Unfortunately, it was difficult to tell how much effect each IRIS feature had on the retrieval outcome due to such factors as strong searcher effect and major differences between the experimental and control systems. In our TREC-7 interactive experiment, we attempted to isolate the effect of a given system feature by making the experimental and control systems identical, save for the feature we were studying. In one interactive experiment, the difference between the experimental and control systems was the display and modification capability of term weights. In another experiment, the difference was relevance feedback by passage versus document. For the TREC-7 ad-hoc task, we wanted to examine the effectiveness of relevance feedback using a subcollection in order to lay the groundwork for future participation in the Very Large Corpus experiment. Though the pre-test results showed the retrieval effectiveness of a subcollection approach to be competitive with a whole collection approach, we were not able to execute the subcollection retrieval in the actual ad-hoc experiment due to hardware problems. Instead, our ad-hoc experiment consisted of a simple initial retrieval run and a pseudo-relevance feedback run using the top 5 documents as relevant and the 100 document as non-relevant. Though the precision was high in the top few documents, the ad-hoc results were below average by TREC measures as expected. In the interactive experiment, the passage feedback results were better than the document feedback results, and the results of the simple interface system that did not display query term weights were better than that of the more complex interface system that displayed query term weights and allowed users to change these weights. Overall interactive results were about average among participants.

[1]  G. Salton,et al.  A Generalized Term Dependence Model in Information Retrieval , 1983 .

[2]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Improving retrieval performance by relevance feedback , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[3]  S. K. Michael Wong,et al.  Linear structure in information retrieval , 1988, SIGIR '88.

[4]  Peiling Wang A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems , 1994 .

[5]  S. K. Michael Wong,et al.  Adaptive linear information retrieval models , 1987, SIGIR '87.

[6]  Chris Buckley,et al.  New Retrieval Approaches Using SMART: TREC 4 , 1995, TREC.

[7]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Learning Machines: Foundations of Trainable Pattern-Classifying Systems , 1965 .

[8]  Martin F. Porter,et al.  An algorithm for suffix stripping , 1997, Program.

[9]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  The Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[10]  Chris Buckley,et al.  Pivoted Document Length Normalization , 1996, SIGIR Forum.

[11]  Ricardo Baeza-Yates,et al.  Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms , 1992 .

[12]  William M. Shaw,et al.  Interactive Retrieval using IRIS: TREC-6 Experiments , 1997, TREC.

[13]  Jacques Savoy,et al.  Report on the TREC-5 Experiment: Data Fusion and Collection Fusion , 1996, TREC.

[14]  Carol L. Barry User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[15]  Linda Schamber,et al.  Users' Criteria for Evaluation in a Multimedia Environment. , 1991 .

[16]  Martin Phillips,et al.  Aspects of text structure , 1985 .

[17]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Automatic Information Organization And Retrieval , 1968 .

[18]  Chris Buckley,et al.  Using Query Zoning and Correlation Within SMART: TREC 5 , 1996, TREC.

[19]  Donna K. Harman,et al.  Overview of the Fourth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-4) , 1995, TREC.

[20]  Karen Sparck Jones A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval , 1972 .

[21]  Donna Harman,et al.  Overview of the First Text REtrieval Conference. , 1993, SIGIR 1993.

[22]  Donna K. Harman,et al.  Overview of the Sixth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-6) , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[23]  Martin Dillon,et al.  FASIT: A fully automatic syntactically based indexing system , 1983, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[24]  Amanda Spink,et al.  USERS' PARTIAL RELEVANCE JUDGEMENTS DURING ONLINE SEARCHING , 1997 .

[25]  Yiyu Yao,et al.  Query formulation in linear retrieval models , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[26]  R. M. Adelson,et al.  Utility Theory for Decision Making , 1971 .

[27]  Bert J. Dempsey,et al.  An interactive WWW search engine for user-defined collections , 1998, DL '98.

[28]  J. J. Rocchio,et al.  Relevance feedback in information retrieval , 1971 .

[29]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  LSI meets TREC: A Status Report , 1992, TREC.

[30]  Robert Krovetz,et al.  Viewing morphology as an inference process , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  Relevance weighting of search terms , 1976, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[32]  D. K. Harmon,et al.  Overview of the Third Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-3) , 1996 .

[33]  Robert M. Losee Term Dependence: Truncating the Bahadur Lazarsfeld Expansion , 1994, Inf. Process. Manag..

[34]  Carol L. Barry A Preliminary Examination of Clues to Relevance Criteria within Document Representations. , 1993 .

[35]  Yiyu Yao,et al.  Evaluation of an adaptive linear model , 1991, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[36]  Massimo Melucci Passage Retrieval: Aprobabilistic Technique , 1998, Inf. Process. Manag..

[37]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Language‐oriented information retrieval , 1989, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[38]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Information Technology: The Sixth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-6) | NIST , 1998 .

[39]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  The Collection Fusion Problem , 1994, TREC.

[40]  Stephanie W. Haas,et al.  Looking in Text Windows: Their Size and Composition , 1994, Inf. Process. Manag..

[41]  Gerard Salton,et al.  The SMART Retrieval System—Experiments in Automatic Document Processing , 1971 .

[42]  Venkata Subramaniam,et al.  Information Retrieval: Data Structures & Algorithms , 1992 .

[43]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  The fifth text REtrieval conference (TREC-5) , 1997 .

[44]  James Allan,et al.  Automatic Query Expansion Using SMART: TREC 3 , 1994, TREC.

[45]  William M. Shaw,et al.  An Investigation of Relevance Feedback Using Adaptive Linear and Probabilistic Models , 1996, TREC.

[46]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Characteristics of Texts Affecting Relevance Judgments , 1993 .