skip to main content
10.1145/2808194.2809491acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Condensed List Relevance Models

Published:27 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Pseudo-relevance feedback has traditionally been implemented as an expensive re-retrieval of documents from the target corpus. In this work, we demonstrate that, for high precision metrics, re-ranking the original feedback set provides nearly identical performance to re-retrieval with significantly lower latency.

References

  1. R. Attar and A. S. Fraenkel. Local feedback in full-text retrieval systems. J. ACM, 24(3):397--417, July 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Bendersky, D. Metzler, and W. B. Croft. Effective query formulation with multiple information sources. In WSDM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Z. Broder, D. Carmel, M. Herscovici, A. Soffer, and J. Zien. Efficient query evaluation using a two-level retrieval process. In CIKM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M.-A. Cartright, J. Allan, V. Lavrenko, and A. McGregor. Fast query expansion using approximations of relevance models. In CIKM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W. B. Croft and D. J. Harper. Using probabilistic models of document retrieval without relevance information. Journal of Documentation, 35(4):285--295, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. F. Diaz. Regularizing query-based retrieval scores. Information Retrieval, 10(6):531--562, December 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. V. Lavrenko. A Generative Theory of Relevance. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. W.-H. Lin, R. Jin, and A. Hauptmann. Web image retrieval re-ranking with relevance model. In Web Intelligence, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Macdonald, N. Tonellotto, and I. Ounis. Effect of dynamic pruning safety on learning to rank effectiveness. In SIGIR, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. D. Metzler and W. B. Croft. Latent concept expansion using markov random fields. In SIGIR, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Sakai. Alternatives to bpref. In SIGIR, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Wu and H. Fang. An incremental approach to efficient pseudo-relevance feedback. In SIGIR, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Condensed List Relevance Models

      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
        ICTIR '15: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on The Theory of Information Retrieval
        September 2015
        402 pages
        ISBN:9781450338332
        DOI:10.1145/2808194

        Copyright © 2015 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: 27 September 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        ICTIR '15 Paper Acceptance Rate29of57submissions,51%Overall Acceptance Rate209of482submissions,43%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader