skip to main content
10.1145/2009916.2010025acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Post-ranking query suggestion by diversifying search results

Published:24 July 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Query suggestion refers to the process of suggesting related queries to search engine users. Most existing researches have focused on improving the relevance of suggested queries. In this paper, we introduce the concept of diversifying the content of the search results from suggested queries while keeping the suggestion relevant. Our framework first retrieves a set of query candidates from search engine logs using random walk and other techniques. We then re-rank the suggested queries by ranking them in the order which maximizes the diversification function that measures the difference between the original search results and the results from suggested queries. The diversification function we proposed includes features like ODP category, URL and domain similarity and so on. One important outcome from our research which contradicts with most existing researches is that, with the increase of suggestion relevance, the similarity between the queries actually decreases. Experiments are conducted on a large set of human-labeled data, which is randomly sampled from a commercial search engine's log. Results indicate that the post-ranking framework significantly improves the relevance of suggested queries by comparing to existing models.

References

  1. R. Agrawal, S. Gollapudi, A. Halverson, and S. Ieong. Diversifying search results. In Proceedings of WSDM '09, pages 5--14, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Baeza-yates, C. Hurtado, and M. Mendoza. Query recommendation using query logs in search engines. In In International Workshop on Clustering Information over the Web (ClustWeb, in conjunction with EDBT), Creete, pages 588--596. Springer, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Baeza-Yates and A. Tiberi. Extracting semantic relations from query logs. In Proceedings of KDD '07, pages 76--85, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. N. Bennett and N. Nguyen. Refined experts: improving classification in large taxonomies. In SIGIR '09, pages 11--18, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Carbonell and J. Goldstein. The use of mmr, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Proceedings of SIGIR '98, pages 335--336, New York, NY, USA, 1998. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. W. Chu and S. S. Keerthi. New approaches to support vector ordinal regression. In Proceedings of ICML '05, pages 145--152, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Crammer, Y. Singer, N. Cristianini, J. Shawe-taylor, and B. Williamson. On the algorithmic implementation of multiclass kernel-based vector machines. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:2001, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Deng, I. King, and M. R. Lyu. Entropy-biased models for query representation on the click graph. In SIGIR '09, pages 339--346, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. H. Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Annals of Statistics, 29:1189--1232, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. K. Järvelin and J. Kekäläinen. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 20:422--446, October 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Joachims, L. Granka, B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, and G. Gay. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In SIGIR '05, pages 154--161, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. G. Kendall. A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, 30(1/2):81--93, June 1938.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. P. Li, C. J. C. Burges, and Q. Wu. Mcrank: Learning to rank using multiple classification and gradient boosting. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, and S. T. Roweis, editors, NIPS. MIT Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. T.-Y. Liu. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Found. Trends Inf. Retr., 3:225--331, March 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. H. Ma, M. R. Lyu, and I. King. Diversifying query suggestion results. In AAAI, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. H. Ma, H. Yang, I. King, and M. R. Lyu. Learning latent semantic relations from clickthrough data for query suggestion. In CIKM '08, pages 709--718, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Q. Mei, D. Zhou, and K. Church. Query suggestion using hitting time. In CIKM '08, pages 469--478, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Pearson. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine, 302:157--175, 1900.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Song and L. He. Optimal rare query suggestion with implicit user feedback. In WWW '10, pages 901--910, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. Tong, C. Faloutsos, and J.-Y. Pan. Random walk with restart: fast solutions and applications. Knowl. Inf. Syst., 14:327--346, March 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. I. Tsochantaridis. Support vector machine learning for interdependent and structured output spaces. PhD thesis, Providence, RI, USA, 2005. AAI3174684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. X. Wang, H. Fang, and C. Zhai. Improve retrieval accuracy for difficult queries using negative feedback. In CIKM '07, pages 991--994, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Q. Wu, C. J. Burges, K. M. Svore, and J. Gao. Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures. Inf. Retr., 13:254--270, June 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. Model-based feedback in the language modeling approach to information retrieval. In CIKM '01, pages 403--410, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. A risk minimization framework for information retrieval. Inf. Process. Manage., 42:31--55, January 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Post-ranking query suggestion by diversifying search results

    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
      SIGIR '11: Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Information Retrieval
      July 2011
      1374 pages
      ISBN:9781450307574
      DOI:10.1145/2009916

      Copyright © 2011 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: 24 July 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader