Modeling User Interests for Zero-Query Ranking

Proactive search systems like Google Now and Microsoft Cortana have gained increasing popularity with the growth of mobile Internet. Unlike traditional reactive search systems where search engines return results in response to queries issued by the users, proactive systems actively push information cards to the users on mobile devices based on the context around time, location, environment (e.g., weather), and user interests. A proactive system is a zero-query information retrieval system, which makes user modeling critical for understanding user information needs. In this paper, we study user modeling in proactive search systems and propose a learning to rank method for proactive ranking. We explore a variety of ways of modeling user interests, ranging from direct modeling of historical interaction with content types to finer-grained entity-level modeling, and user demographical information. To reduce the feature sparsity problem in entity modeling, we propose semantic similarity features using word embedding and an entity taxonomy in knowledge base. Experiments performed with data from a large commercial proactive search system show that our method significantly outperforms a strong baseline method deployed in the production system.

[1]  Milad Shokouhi,et al.  From Queries to Cards: Re-ranking Proactive Card Recommendations Based on Reactive Search History , 2015, SIGIR.

[2]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  No Noun Phrase Left Behind: Detecting and Typing Unlinkable Entities , 2012, EMNLP.

[3]  Eugene Agichtein,et al.  Mining touch interaction data on mobile devices to predict web search result relevance , 2013, SIGIR.

[4]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  Learning to Rank with Non-Smooth Cost Functions , 2007 .

[5]  Filip Radlinski,et al.  Inferring and using location metadata to personalize web search , 2011, SIGIR.

[6]  Hao Jiang,et al.  Mining User Dwell Time for Personalized Web Search Re-Ranking , 2011, IJCAI.

[7]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  A general language model for information retrieval , 1999, CIKM '99.

[8]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space , 2013, ICLR.

[9]  Steve Fox,et al.  Evaluating implicit measures to improve web search , 2005, TOIS.

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

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

[12]  Wei Chu,et al.  Modeling the impact of short- and long-term behavior on search personalization , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[13]  Wei Chu,et al.  Enhancing personalized search by mining and modeling task behavior , 2013, WWW.

[14]  James Allan,et al.  Frontiers, challenges, and opportunities for information retrieval: Report from SWIRL 2012 the second strategic workshop on information retrieval in Lorne , 2012, SIGF.

[15]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User Behavior Information , 2019, SIGIR Forum.

[16]  Sophie Ahrens,et al.  Recommender Systems , 2012 .

[17]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Just-in-time information retrieval agents , 2000, IBM Syst. J..

[18]  Paul N. Bennett,et al.  Robust ranking models via risk-sensitive optimization , 2012, SIGIR '12.

[19]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality , 2013, NIPS.

[20]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures , 2010, Information Retrieval.

[21]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  A Survey of Collaborative Filtering Techniques , 2009, Adv. Artif. Intell..