While numerous metrics for information retrieval are available in the case of binary relevance, there is only one commonly used metric for graded relevance, namely the Discounted Cumulative Gain (DCG). A drawback of DCG is its additive nature and the underlying independence assumption: a document in a given position has always the same gain and discount independently of the documents shown above it. Inspired by the “cascade ” user model, we present a new editorial metric for graded relevance which overcomes this difficulty and implicitly discounts documents which are shown below very relevant documents. More precisely, this new metric is defined as the expected reciprocal length of time that the user will take to find a relevant document. This can be seen as an extension of the classical reciprocal rank to the graded relevance case and we call this metric Expected Reciprocal Rank (ERR). We conduct an extensive evaluation on the query logs of a commercial search engine and show that ERR correlates better with clicks metrics than other editorial metrics.

Understanding user intent is key to designing an effective ranking system in a search engine. In the absence of any explicit knowledge of user intent, search engines want to diversify results to improve user satisfaction. In such a setting, the probability ranking principle-based approach of presenting the most relevant results on top can be sub-optimal, and hence the search engine would like to trade-off relevance for diversity in the results. In analogy to prior work on ranking and clustering systems, we use the axiomatic approach to characterize and design diversification systems. We develop a set of natural axioms that a diversification system is expected to satisfy, and show that no diversification function can satisfy all the axioms simultaneously. We illustrate the use of the axiomatic framework by providing three example diversification objectives that satisfy different subsets of the axioms. We also uncover a rich link to the facility dispersion problem that results in algorithms for a number of diversification objectives. Finally, we propose an evaluation methodology to characterize the objectives and the underlying axioms. We conduct a large scale evaluation of our objectives based on two data sets: a data set derived from the Wikipedia disambiguation pages and a product database.

Abstract not found

Abstract. Queries submitted to a retrieval system are often ambiguous. In such a situation, a sensible strategy is to diversify the ranking of results to be retrieved, in the hope that users will find at least one of these results to be relevant to their information need. In this paper, we introduce xQuAD, a novel framework for search result diversification that builds such a diversified ranking by explicitly accounting for the relationship between documents retrieved for the original query and the possible aspects underlying this query, in the form of sub-queries. We evaluate the effectiveness of xQuAD using a standard TREC collection. The results show that our framework markedly outperforms state-ofthe-art diversification approaches under a simulated best-case scenario. Moreover, we show that its effectiveness can be further improved by estimating the relative importance of each identified sub-query. Finally, we show that our framework can still outperform the simulated bestcase scenario of the state-of-the-art diversification approaches using subqueries automatically derived from the baseline document ranking itself. 1

Search queries are often ambiguous and/or underspecified. To accomodate different user needs, search result diversification has received attention in the past few years. Accordingly, several new metrics for evaluating diversification have been proposed, but their properties are little understood. We compare the properties of existing metrics given the premises that (1) queries may have multiple intents; (2) the likelihood of each intent given a query is available; and (3) graded relevance assessments are available for each intent. We compare a wide range of traditional and diversified IR metrics after adding graded relevance assessments to the TREC 2009 Web track diversity task test collection which originally had binary relevance assessments. Our primary criterion is discriminative power, which represents the reliability of a metric in an experiment. Our results show that diversified IR experiments with a given number of topics can be as reliable as traditional IR experiments with the same number of topics, provided that the right metrics are used. Moreover, we compare the intuitiveness of diversified IR metrics by closely examining the actual ranked lists from TREC. We show that a family of metrics called D♯-measures have several advantages over other metrics such as α-nDCG and Intent-Aware metrics.

Result diversity is a topic of great importance as more facets of queries are discovered and users expect to find their desired facets in the first page of the results. However, the underlying questions of how ‘diversity ’ interplays with ‘quality’ and when preference should be given to one or both are not well-understood. In this work, we model the problem as expectation maximization and study the challenges of estimating the model parameters and reaching an equilibrium. One model parameter, for example, is correlations between pages which we estimate using textual contents of pages and click data (when available). We conduct experiments on diversifying randomly selected queries from a query log and the queries chosen from the disambiguation topics of Wikipedia. Our algorithm improves upon Google in terms of the diversity of random queries, retrieving 14 % to 38% more aspects of queries in top 5, while maintaining a precision very close to Google. On a more selective set of queries that are expected to benefit from diversification, our algorithm improves upon Google in terms of precision and diversity of the results, and significantly outperforms another baseline system for result diversification.

The Blog track explores the information seeking behaviour in the blogosphere. Thus far, since its inception in 2006 [9], the Blog track addressed two main search tasks based on the analysis of a commercial blog search engine: the opinion-finding task (i˙e˙‘‘What

Search result diversification has gained momentum as a way to tackle ambiguous queries. An effective approach to this problem is to explicitly model the possible aspects underlying a query, in order to maximise the estimated relevance of the retrieved documents with respect to the different aspects. However, such aspects themselves may represent information needs with rather distinct intents (e.g., informational or navigational). Hence, a diverse ranking could benefit from applying intent-aware retrieval models when estimating the relevance of documents to different aspects. In this paper, we propose to diversify the results retrieved for a given query, by learning the appropriateness of different retrieval models for each of the aspects underlying this query. Thorough experiments within the evaluation framework provided by the diversity task of the TREC 2009 and 2010 Web tracks show that the proposed approach can significantly improve state-of-the-art diversification approaches.

This paper presents results comparing user preference for search engine rankings with measures of effectiveness computed from a test collection. It establishes that preferences and evaluation measures correlate: systems measured as better on a test collection are preferred by users. This correlation is established for both “conventional web retrieval ” and for retrieval that emphasizes diverse results. The nDCG and ERR measures were found to correlate best with user preferences compared to a selection of other well known measures. Unlike previous studies in this area, this examination involved a large population of users, gathered through crowd sourcing, exposed to a wide range of retrieval systems, test collections and search tasks. Reasons for user preferences were also gathered and analyzed. The work revealed a number of new results, but also showed that there is much scope for future work refining effectiveness measures to better capture user preferences.

We present a theoretically well-founded retrieval model for dynamically generating rankings based on interactive user feedback. Unlike conventional rankings that remain static after the query was issued, dynamic rankings allow and anticipate user activity, thus providing a way to combine the otherwise contradictory goals of result diversification and high recall. We develop a decision-theoretic framework to guide the design and evaluation of algorithms for this interactive retrieval setting. Furthermore, we propose two dynamic ranking algorithms, both of which are computationally efficient. We prove that these algorithms provide retrieval performance that is guaranteed to be at least as good as the optimal static ranking algorithm. In empirical evaluations, dynamic ranking shows substantial improvements in retrieval performance over conventional static rankings.