skip to main content
10.1145/1076034.1076139acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Surrogate scoring for improved metasearch precision

Published:15 August 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

We describe a method for improving the precision of metasearch results based upon scoring the visual features of documents' surrogate representations. These surrogate scores are used during fusion in place of the original scores or ranks provided by the underlying search engines. Visual features are extracted from typical search result surrogate information, such as title, snippet, URL, and rank. This approach specifically avoids the use of search engine-specific scores and collection statistics that are required by most traditional fusion strategies. This restriction correctly reflects the use of metasearch in practice, in which knowledge of the underlying search engines' strategies cannot be assumed. We evaluate our approach using a precision-oriented test collection of manually-constructed binary relevance judgments for the top ten results from ten web search engines over 896 queries. We show that our visual fusion approach significantly outperforms the rCombMNZ fusion algorithm by 5.71%, with 99% confidence, and the best individual web search engine by 10.9%, with 99% confidence.

References

  1. Fox, E. and Shaw, J.A. Combination of Multiple Searches. NIST, TREC-2, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Beitzel, S., et. al. Fusion of Effective Retrieval Strategies in the Same Information Retrieval System. JASIST, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Montague, M. and J. Aslam. Condorcet Fusion for Improved Retrieval. ACM-CIKM, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chowdhury, A. and G. Pass. Operational Requirements for Scalable Search Systems. ACM-CIKM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jensen, E., et. al. A Framework for Determining Necessary Query Set Sizes to Evaluate Web Search Effectiveness. WWW, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Platt. Fast Training of Support Vector Machines using Sequential Minimal Optimization. Advances in Kernel Methods, Support Vector Learning. MIT Press, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Buckley, C. and E. Voorhees. Evaluating Evaluation Measure Stability. ACM-SIGIR, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Surrogate scoring for improved metasearch precision

      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 '05: Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
        August 2005
        708 pages
        ISBN:1595930345
        DOI:10.1145/1076034

        Copyright © 2005 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: 15 August 2005

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader