nach oben

Erschienen in:

2023 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results

verfasst von : Tim Draws, Nirmal Roy, Oana Inel, Alisa Rieger, Rishav Hada, Mehmet Orcun Yalcin, Benjamin Timmermans, Nava Tintarev

Erschienen in: Advances in Information Retrieval

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Adverse phenomena such as the search engine manipulation effect (SEME), where web search users change their attitude on a topic following whatever most highly-ranked search results promote, represent crucial challenges for research and industry. However, the current lack of automatic methods to comprehensively measure or increase viewpoint diversity in search results complicates the understanding and mitigation of such effects. This paper proposes a viewpoint bias metric that evaluates the divergence from a pre-defined scenario of ideal viewpoint diversity considering two essential viewpoint dimensions (i.e., stance and logic of evaluation). In a case study, we apply this metric to actual search results and find considerable viewpoint bias in search results across queries, topics, and search engines that could lead to adverse effects such as SEME. We subsequently demonstrate that viewpoint diversity in search results can be dramatically increased using existing diversification algorithms. The methods proposed in this paper can assist researchers and practitioners in evaluating and improving viewpoint diversity in search results.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel CoLISA: Inner Interaction via Contrastive Learning for Multi-choice Reading Comprehension

Nächstes Kapitel COILcr: Efficient Semantic Matching in Contextualized Exact Match Retrieval

Due to error, we used the \(2^{nd}\) most common supporting query for the IPR topic.

The retrieval took place on December 12th, 2021 in the Netherlands.

Note that viewpoint labels do not refer to specific web search queries, but always to the topic (or claim) at hand. For example, a search result supporting the idea that students should have to wear school uniforms always receives a positive stance label (i.e., 1, 2, or 3), no matter what query was used to retrieve it.

Abid, A., et al.: A survey on search results diversification techniques. Neural Comput. Appl. 27(5), 1207–1229 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1945-5CrossRef

Agrawal, R., Gollapudi, S., Halverson, A., Ieong, S.: Diversifying search results. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM 2009, p. 5. ACM Press, Barcelona, Spain (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498766, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1498759.1498766

Ajjour, Y., Alshomary, M., Wachsmuth, H., Stein, B.: Modeling frames in argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2922–2932. Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China (Nov 2019). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1290, https://aclanthology.org/D19-1290

Ajjour, Y., et al.: Visualization of the topic space of argument search results in args. me. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pp. 60–65 (2018)

Allam, A., Schulz, P.J., Nakamoto, K.: The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating google output. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(4), e100 (Apr 2014). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2642, http://www.jmir.org/2014/4/e100/

Azzopardi, L.: Cognitive Biases in Search: a review and reflection of cognitive biases in information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 27–37. ACM, Canberra ACT Australia (Mar 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446023, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3406522.3446023

Baden, C., Springer, N.: Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: the contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. Euro. J. Commun. 29(5), 529–548 (Oct 2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323114538724

Baden, C., Springer, N.: Conceptualizing viewpoint diversity in news discourse. Journalism 18(2), 176–194 (Feb 2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915605028, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884915605028

Biega, A.J., Gummadi, K.P., Weikum, G.: Equity of Attention: amortizing individual fairness in rankings. In: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 405–414. ACM, Ann Arbor MI USA (Jun 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210063, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3209978.3210063

10.

Bink, M., Zimmerman, S., Elsweiler, D.: Featured snippets and their influence on users’ credibility judgements. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 113–122. CHIIR ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505766, https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505766

11.

Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L.: On justification: economies of worth, vol. 27. Princeton University Press (2006)

12.

Bondarenko, A., Ajjour, Y., Dittmar, V., Homann, N., Braslavski, P., Hagen, M.: Towards understanding and answering comparative questions. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 66–74 (2022)

13.

Bondarenko, A., et al.: Overview of touché 2021: argument retrieval. In: International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages, pp. 450–467. Springer (2021)

14.

Boykoff, M.T., Boykoff, J.M.: Balance as bias: global warming and the us prestige press. Glob. Environ. Chang. 14(2), 125–136 (2004)CrossRef

15.

Burscher, B., Odijk, D., Vliegenthart, R., De Rijke, M., De Vreese, C.H.: Teaching the computer to code frames in news: comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Commun. Methods Measures 8(3), 190–206 (2014)CrossRef

16.

Carroll, N.: In Search We Trust: exploring how search engines are shaping society. Int. J. Knowl. Soc. Res. 5(1), 12–27 (Jan 2014). https://doi.org/10.4018/ijksr.2014010102, http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/ijksr.2014010102

17.

Chamberlain, J., Kruschwitz, U., Hoeber, O.: Scalable visualisation of sentiment and stance. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Miyazaki, Japan (May 2018), https://aclanthology.org/L18-1660

18.

Chen, S., Khashabi, D., Yin, W., Callison-Burch, C., Roth, D.: Seeing things from a different angle: discovering diverse perspectives about claims. In: Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pp. 542–557 (2019)

19.

Clarke, C.L., et al.: Novelty and diversity in information retrieval evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR 2008, p. 659. ACM Press, Singapore, Singapore (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1390334.1390446, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1390334.1390446

20.

Draws, T., Inel, O., Tintarev, N., Baden, C., Timmermans, B.: Comprehensive viewpoint representations for a deeper understanding of user interactions with debated topics. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 135–145 (2022)

21.

Draws, T., Liu, J., Tintarev, N.: Helping users discover perspectives: enhancing opinion mining with joint topic models. In: 2020 International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), pp. 23–30. IEEE, Sorrento, Italy (Nov 2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW51313.2020.00013, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9346407/

22.

Draws, T., et al.: Explainable cross-topic stance detection for search results. In: CHIIR 2023: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. CHIIR 2023, ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (2023)

23.

Draws, T., Tintarev, N., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A., Timmermans, B.: Assessing viewpoint diversity in search results using ranking fairness metrics. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 23(1), 50–58 (May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3468507.3468515, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3468507.3468515

24.

Draws, T., Tintarev, N., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A., Timmermans, B.: This is not what we ordered: exploring why biased search result rankings affect user attitudes on debated topics. In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 295–305. ACM, Virtual Event Canada (Jul 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462851, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3404835.3462851

25.

Drosou, M., Pitoura, E.: Search result diversification. SIGMOD Record 39(1), 7 (2010)CrossRefMATH

26.

Dumani, L., Neumann, P.J., Schenkel, R.: A framework for argument retrieval. In: Jose, J.M., et al. (eds.) ECIR 2020. LNCS, vol. 12035, pp. 431–445. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45439-5_29CrossRef

27.

Epstein, R., Robertson, R.E.: The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33), E4512–E4521 (Aug 2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112, http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419828112

28.

Epstein, R., Robertson, R.E., Lazer, D., Wilson, C.: Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1(CSCW), 1–22 (Dec 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3134677

29.

Fuglede, B., Topsoe, F.: Jensen-shannon divergence and hilbert space embedding. In: International Symposium on Information Theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings, p. 31. IEEE (2004)

30.

Gao, R., Shah, C.: Toward creating a fairer ranking in search engine results. Inf. Process. Manag. 57(1), 102138 (Jan 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102138, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306457319304121

31.

Gevelber, L.: It’s all about ‘me’-how people are taking search personally. Tech. rep. (2018). https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/search/personal-needs-search-trends/

32.

Gezici, G., Lipani, A., Saygin, Y., Yilmaz, E.: Evaluation metrics for measuring bias in search engine results. Inf. Retrieval J. 24(2), 85–113 (Apr 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-020-09386-w, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10791-020-09386-w

33.

Ghenai, A., Smucker, M.D., Clarke, C.L.: A think-aloud study to understand factors affecting online health search. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 273–282. ACM, Vancouver BC Canada (Mar 2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377961, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3343413.3377961

34.

Grady, C., Lease, M.: Crowdsourcing document relevance assessment with mechanical turk. In: NAACL HLT Workshop on Creating Speech and Language Data with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, pp. 172–179 (2010)

35.

Gretz, S., et al.: A large-scale dataset for argument quality ranking: construction and analysis. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 34, 7805–7813 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6285CrossRef

36.

Han, B., Shah, C., Saelid, D.: Users’ perception of search-engine biases and satisfaction. In: Boratto, L., Faralli, S., Marras, M., Stilo, G. (eds.) BIAS 2021. CCIS, vol. 1418, pp. 14–24. Springer, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78818-6_3CrossRef

37.

Helberger, N.: On the democratic role of news recommenders. Digital Journalism 7(8), 993–1012 (Sep 2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700

38.

Hu, S., Dou, Z., Wang, X., Sakai, T., Wen, J.R.: Search result diversification based on hierarchical intents. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 63–72. ACM, Melbourne Australia (Oct 2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806455, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2806416.2806455

39.

Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Gay, G.: Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. ACM SIGIR Forum 51(1), 8 (2016)

40.

Kaya, M., Bridge, D.: Subprofile-aware diversification of recommendations. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29(3), 661–700 (Jul 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09235-6, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11257-019-09235-6

41.

Küçük, D., Can, F.: Stance detection: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 53(1), 1–37 (2020)CrossRef

42.

Kulshrestha, J., et al.: Quantifying search bias: investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 417–432. ACM, Portland Oregon USA (Feb 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998321, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998181.2998321

43.

Kulshrestha, J., et al.: Search bias quantification: investigating political bias in social media and web search. Information Retrieval Journal 22(1–2), 188–227 (Apr 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-018-9341-2, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10791-018-9341-2

44.

Ludolph, R., Allam, A., Schulz, P.J.: Manipulating google’s knowledge graph box to counter biased information processing during an online search on vaccination: application of a technological debiasing strategy. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(6), e137 (Jun 2016). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5430, http://www.jmir.org/2016/6/e137/

45.

McKay, D., et al.: We are the change that we seek: information interactions during a change of viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 173–182 (2020)

46.

McKay, D., Owyong, K., Makri, S., Gutierrez Lopez, M.: Turn and face the strange: investigating filter bubble bursting information interactions. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 233–242. CHIIR ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505822

47.

Mulder, M., Inel, O., Oosterman, J., Tintarev, N.: Operationalizing framing to support multiperspective recommendations of opinion pieces. In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 478–488. ACM, Virtual Event Canada (Mar 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445911, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445911

48.

Munson, S.A., Resnick, P.: Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1457–1466. CHI 2010, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753543

49.

Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., Granka, L.. In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 12(3), 801–823 (Apr 2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x, https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/12/3/801-823/4582975

50.

Pathiyan Cherumanal, S., Spina, D., Scholer, F., Croft, W.B.: Evaluating fairness in argument retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pp. 3363–3367 (2021)

51.

Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (Jul 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001002771830163X

52.

Pogacar, F.A., Ghenai, A., Smucker, M.D., Clarke, C.L.: The positive and negative influence of search results on people’s decisions about the efficacy of medical treatments. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, pp. 209–216. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands (Oct 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3121050.3121074, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3121050.3121074

53.

Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Brenner, J.: Search engine use 2012 (2012)

54.

Puschmann, C.: Beyond the bubble: assessing the diversity of political search results. Digital Journalism 7(6), 824–843 (Jul 2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626

55.

Radlinski, F., Craswell, N.: Comparing the sensitivity of information retrieval metrics. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 667–674 (2010)

56.

Reimer, J.H., Huck, J., Bondarenko, A.: Grimjack at touché 2022: axiomatic re-ranking and query reformulation. Working Notes Papers of the CLEF (2022)

57.

Rieger, A., Draws, T., Theune, M., Tintarev, N.: This item might reinforce your opinion: obfuscation and labeling of search results to mitigate confirmation bias. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, pp. 189–199 (2021)

58.

Sakai, T., Craswell, N., Song, R., Robertson, S., Dou, Z., Lin, C.Y.: Simple evaluation metrics for diversified search results, p. 9 (2010)

59.

Santos, R.L., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I.: Exploiting query reformulations for web search result diversification. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pp. 881–890 (2010)

60.

Stab, C., et al.: ArgumenText: searching for arguments in heterogeneous sources. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations, pp. 21–25 (2018)

61.

Tintarev, N., Sullivan, E., Guldin, D., Qiu, S., Odjik, D.: Same, same, but different: algorithmic diversification of viewpoints in news. In: Adjunct Publication of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 7–13. ACM, Singapore Singapore (Jul 2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3213586.3226203, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3213586.3226203

62.

Voorhees, E.M.: Variations in relevance judgments and the measurement of retrieval effectiveness. Inf. Process. Manag. 36(5), 697–716 (2000)CrossRef

63.

Vrijenhoek, S., Bénédict, G., Gutierrez Granada, M., Odijk, D., De Rijke, M.: Radio-rank-aware divergence metrics to measure normative diversity in news recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. pp. 208–219 (2022)

64.

Vrijenhoek, S., Kaya, M., Metoui, N., Möller, J., Odijk, D., Helberger, N.: Recommenders with a mission: Assessing diversity in news recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 173–183. CHIIR 2021, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446019

65.

White, R.: Beliefs and biases in web search. In: Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 3–12. ACM, Dublin Ireland (Jul 2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484053, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2484028.2484053

66.

White, R.W., Hassan, A.: Content bias in online health search. ACM Transactions on the Web 8(4), 1–33 (Nov 2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2663355, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2663355

67.

White, R.W., Horvitz, E.: Belief dynamics and biases in web search. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 33(4), 1–46 (May 2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2746229, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2746229

68.

Xu, L., Zhuang, M., Gadiraju, U.: How do user opinions influence their interaction with web search results?, pp. 240–244. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2021), https://doi.org/10.1145/3450613.3456824

69.

Yamamoto, Y., Shimada, S.: Can disputed topic suggestion enhance user consideration of information credibility in web search? In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, pp. 169–177. ACM, Halifax Nova Scotia Canada (Jul 2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2914586.2914592, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2914586.2914592

70.

Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J.: Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, pp. 1–6. ACM, Chicago IL USA (Jun 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3085504.3085526, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3085504.3085526

71.

Yom-Tov, E., Dumais, S., Guo, Q.: Promoting civil discourse through search engine diversity. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 32(2), 145–154 (Apr 2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313506838, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439313506838

72.

Zehlike, M., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Hajian, S., Megahed, M., Baeza-Yates, R.: FA*IR: A Fair Top-k ranking algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1569–1578. ACM, Singapore Singapore (Nov 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3132847.3132938, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3132847.3132938

73.

Zehlike, M., Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J.: Fairness in ranking, part i: score-based ranking. ACM Comput. Surv. 55(6), 1–36 (2022)

Titel: Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results
verfasst von: Tim Draws
Nirmal Roy
Oana Inel
Alisa Rieger
Rishav Hada
Mehmet Orcun Yalcin
Benjamin Timmermans
Nava Tintarev
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: Advances in Information Retrieval
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28243-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-28244-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28244-7_18

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"