skip to main content
10.1145/2396761.2396782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Incorporating variability in user behavior into systems based evaluation

Published:29 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Click logs present a wealth of evidence about how users interact with a search system. This evidence has been used for many things: learning rankings, personalizing, evaluating effectiveness, and more. But it is almost always distilled into point estimates of feature or parameter values, ignoring what may be the most salient feature of users---their variability. No two users interact with a system in exactly the same way, and even a single user may interact with results for the same query differently depending on information need, mood, time of day, and a host of other factors. We present a Bayesian approach to using logs to compute posterior distributions for probabilistic models of user interactions. Since they are distributions rather than point estimates, they naturally capture variability in the population. We show how to cluster posterior distributions to discover patterns of user interactions in logs, and discuss how to use the clusters to evaluate search engines according to a user model. Because the approach is Bayesian, our methods can be applied to very large logs (such as those possessed by Web search engines) as well as very small (such as those found in almost any other setting).

References

  1. Doug Beeferman and Adam Berger. Agglomerative clustering of a search engine query log. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, KDD '00, pages 407--416, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ben Carterette, Evangelos Kanoulas, and Emine Yilmaz. Simulating simple user behavior for system effectiveness evaluation. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM '11, pages 611--620, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Olivier Chapelle, Donald Metzler, Ya Zhang, and Pierre Grinspan. Expceted reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Proceedings of CIKM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. William S. Cooper. On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness. Part I. Readings in Information Retrieval, pages 191--204, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nick Craswell, Onno Zoeter, Michael Taylor, and Bill Ramsey. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining, WSDM '08, pages 87--94, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Natasa Kejzar, Simona Korenjak-Cerne, and Vladimir Batagelj. Clustering of distributions: A case of patent citations. Journal of Classification, 28(2):156--183, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ron Kohavi, Thomas Crook, and Roger Longbotham. Online experimentation at microsoft, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lyes Limam, David Coquil, Harald Kosch, and Lionel Brunie. Extracting user interests from search query logs: A clustering approach. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshops on Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA '10, pages 5--9, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Yury Logachev, Lidia Grauer, and Pavel Serdyukov. Tuning parameters of the expected reciprocal rank. In Alain Mille, Fabien L. Gandon, Jacques Misselis, Michael Rabinovich, and Steffen Staab, editors, WWW, pages 571--572. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Alistair Moffat and Justin Zobel. Rank-biased precision for measurement of retrieval effectiveness. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 27(1):1--27, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Filip Radlinski, Madhu Kurup, and Thorsten Joachims. How does clickthrough data reflect retrieval quality? In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM '08, pages 43--52, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Stephen Robertson. A new interpretation of average precision. In Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR '08, pages 689--690, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eldar Sadikov, Jayant Madhavan, Lu Wang, and Alon Halevy. Clustering query refinements by user intent. In WWW 2010, pages 841--850. Stanford InfoLab, April 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ji-Rong Wen, Jian-Yun Nie, and Hong-Jiang Zhang. Query clustering using user logs. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 20:59--81, January 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Emine Yilmaz, Milad Shokouhi, Nick Craswell, and Stephen Robertson. Expected browsing utility for web search evaluation. In Proceedings of CIKM, pages 1561--1564, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Yuye Zhang, Laurence A. Park, and Alistair Moffat. Click-based evidence for decaying weight distributions in search effectiveness metrics. Inf. Retr., 13:46--69, Feb 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yuye Zhang, Laurence A. F. Park, and Alistair Moffat. Parameter sensitivity in rank-biased precision. In Proceedings of ADCS, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Incorporating variability in user behavior into systems based evaluation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '12: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
      October 2012
      2840 pages
      ISBN:9781450311564
      DOI:10.1145/2396761

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 29 October 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader