Document clustering has not been well received as an information retrieval tool. Objections to its use fall into two main categories: first, that clustering is too slow for large corpora (with running time often quadratic in the number of documents); and second, that clustering does not appreciably improve retrieval. We argue that these problems arise only when clustering is used in an attempt to improve conventional search techniques. However, looking at clustering as an information access tool in its own right obviates these objections, and provides a powerful new access paradigm. We present a document browsing technique that employs document clustering as its primary operation. We also present fast (linear time) clustering algorithms which support this interactive browsing paradigm. 1 Introduction Document clustering has been extensively investigated as a methodology for improving document search and retrieval (see [15] for an excellent review). The general assumption is that mutua...

We present Scatter/Gather, a cluster-based document browsing method, as an alternative to ranked titles for the organization and viewing of retrieval results. We systematically evaluate Scatter/Gather in this context and find significant improvements over similarity search ranking alone. This result provides evidence validating the cluster hypothesis which states that relevant documents tend to be more similar to each other than to non-relevant documents. We describe a system employing Scatter/Gather and demonstrate that users are able to use this system close to its full potential. 1 Introduction An important service offered by an information access system is the organization of retrieval results. Conventional systems rank results based on an automatic assessment of relevance to the query [20]. Alternatives include graphical displays of interdocument similarity (e.g., [1, 22, 7]), relationship to fixed attributes (e.g., [21, 14]), and query term distribution patterns (e.g., [12]). I...

Previous research on cluster-based retrieval has been inconclusive as to whether it does bring improved retrieval effectiveness over document-based retrieval. Recent developments in the language modeling approach to IR have motivated us to re-examine this problem within this new retrieval framework. We propose two new models for cluster-based retrieval and evaluate them on several TREC collections. We show that cluster-based retrieval can perform consistently across collections of realistic size, and significant improvements over document-based retrieval can be obtained in a fully automatic manner and without relevance information provided by human.

Clustering is increasing in importance, but linear- and even constant-time clustering algorithms are often too slow for real-time applications. A simple way to speed up clustering is to speed up the distance calculations at the heart of clustering routines. We study two techniques for improving the cost of distance calculations, LSI and truncation, and determine both how much these techniques speed up clustering and how much they affect the quality of the resulting clusters. We find that the speed increase is significant while --- surprisingly --- the quality of clustering is not adversely affected. We conclude that truncation yields clusters as good as those produced by full-profile clustering while offering a significant speed advantage.

Term cooccurrence data has been extensively used in document retrieval systems for the identification of indexing terms that are similar to those that have been specified in a user query: these similar terms can then be used to augment the original query statement. Despite the plausibility of this approach to query expan-sion, the retrieval effectiveness of the expanded que-ries is often no greater than, or even less than, the effectiveness of the unexpanded queries. This article demonstrates that the similar terms identified by cooc-currence data in a query expansion system tend to occur very frequently in the database that is being searched. Unfortunately, frequent terms tend to discrimi-nate poorly between relevant and nonrelevant docu-ments, and the general effect of query expansion is thus to add terms that do little or nothing to improve the dis-criminatory power of the original query.

We investigate three issues in distributed information retrieval, considering both TREC data and U.S. Patents: (1) topical organization of large text collections, (2) collection ranking and selection with topically organized collections (3) results merging, particularly document score normalization, with topically organized collections. We find that it is better to organize collections topically, and that topical collections can be well ranked using either INQUERY’s CORI algorithm, or the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL), but KL is far worse than CORI for non-topically organized collections. For results merging, collections organized by topic require global idfs for the best performance. Contrary to results found elsewhere, normalized scores are not as good as global idfs for merging when the collections are topically organized.

We present an approach to improving the precision of an initial document ranking wherein we utilize cluster information within a graph-based framework. The main idea is to perform re-ranking based on centrality within bipartite graphs of documents (on one side) and clusters (on the other side), on the premise that these are mutually reinforcing entities. Links between entities are created via consideration of language models induced from them. We find that our cluster-document graphs give rise to much better retrieval performance than previously proposed document-only graphs do. For example, authority-based re-ranking of documents via a HITS-style cluster-based approach outperforms a previously-proposed PageRank-inspired algorithm applied to solely-document graphs. Moreover, we also show that computing authority scores for clusters constitutes an effective method for identifying clusters containing a large percentage of relevant documents.

Hierarchic document clustering has been widely applied to Information Retrieval (IR) on the grounds of its potential improved effectiveness over inverted file search. However, previous research has been inconclusive as to whether clustering does bring improvements. In this paper we take the view that if hierarchic clustering is applied to search results (query-specific clustering), then it has the potential to increase the retrieval effectiveness compared both to that of static clustering and of conventional inverted file search. We conducted a number of experiments using five document collections and four hierarchic clustering methods. Our results show that the effectiveness of query-specific clustering is indeed higher, and suggest that there is scope for its application to IR.

Abstract not found

Current best-match ranking (BMR) systems perform well but cannot handle word mismatch between a query and a document. The best known alternative ranking method, hierarchical clustering-based ranking (HCR), seems to be more robust than BMR with respect to this problem, but it is hampered by theoretical and practical limitations. We present an approach to document ranking that explicitly addresses the word mismatch problem by exploiting interdocument similarity information in a novel way. Document ranking is seen as a querydocument transformation driven by a conceptual representation of the whole document collection, into which the query is merged. Our approach is based on the theory of concept (or Galois) lattices, which, we argue, provides a powerful, well-founded, and computationallytractable framework to model the space in which documents and query are represented and to compute such a transformation. We compared information retrieval using concept lattice-based ranking (CLR) to BMR and HCR. The results showed that HCR was outperformed by CLR as well as by BMR, and suggested that, of the two best methods, BMR achieved better performance than CLR on the whole document set while CLR compared more favorably when only the first retrieved documents were used for evaluation. We also evaluated the three methods' specific ability to rank documents that did not match the query, in which case the superiority of CLR over BMR and HCR (and that of HCR over BMR) was apparent.