skip to main content
10.1145/2396761.2398648acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Hierarchical target type identification for entity-oriented queries

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 October 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

A significant portion of information needs in web search target entities. These may come in different forms or flavours, ranging from short keyword queries to more verbose requests, expressed in natural language. We address the task of automatically annotating queries with target types from an ontology. The identified types can subsequently be used, e.g., for creating semantically more informed query and retrieval models, filtering results, or directing the requests to specific verticals. Our study makes the following contributions. First, we formalise the task of hierarchical target type identification, argue that it is best viewed as a ranking problem, and propose multiple evaluation metrics. Second, we develop a purpose-built test collection by hand-annotating over 300 queries, from various recent entity search benchmarking campaigns, with target types from the DBpedia ontology. Finally, we introduce and examine two baseline models, inspired by federated search techniques. We show that these methods perform surprisingly well when target types are limited to a flat list of top level categories; finding the right level of granularity in the hierarchy, however, is particularly challenging and requires further investigation.

References

  1. J. Arguello, F. Diaz, J. Callan, and J.-F. Crespo. Sources of evidence for vertical selection. In Proc. of SIGIR '09, pages 315--322, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K. Balog, L. Azzopardi, and M. de Rijke. A language modeling framework for expert finding. Inf. Process. Man., 45(1):1--19, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K. Balog, M. Bron, and M. De Rijke. Query modeling for entity search based on terms, categories, and examples. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 29:22:1--22:31, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Balog, P. Serdyukov, and A. P. de Vries. Overview of the TREC 2011 entity track. In Proc. TREC '11, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. M. Beitzel, E. C. Jensen, O. Frieder, D. D. Lewis, A. Chowdhury, and A. Kolcz. Improving automatic query classification via semi-supervised learning. In Proc. of ICDM '05, pages 42--49, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Bendersky, W. B. Croft, and D. A. Smith. Structural annotation of search queries using pseudo-relevance feedback. In Proc. of CIKM '10, pages 1537--1540, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Blanco, H. Halpin, D. M. Herzig, P. Mika, J. Pound, H. S. Thompson, and T. T. Duc. Entity search evaluation over structured web data. In Proc. of EOS '11, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Bron, K. Balog, and M. de Rijke. Ranking related entities: Components and analyses. In Proc. of CIKM '10, pages 1079--1088, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. G. Demartini, T. Iofciu, and A. de Vries. Overview of the inex 2009 entity ranking track. In Focused Retrieval and Evaluation, volume 6203, pages 254--264. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. L. Elsas, J. Arguello, J. Callan, and J. G. Carbonell. Retrieval and feedback models for blog feed search. In Proc. of SIGIR'08, pages 347--354. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Gravano, V. Hatzivassiloglou, and R. Lichtenstein. Categorizing web queries according to geographical locality. In Proc. of CIKM'03, pages 325--333, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Guo, G. Xu, X. Cheng, and H. Li. Named entity recognition in query. In Proc. of SIGIR '09, pages 267--274, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. B. J. Jansen and D. Booth. Classifying web queries by topic and user intent. In Proc. of CHI EA '10, pages 4285--4290, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. I.-H. Kang and G. Kim. Query type classification for web document retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR '03, pages 64--71, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Kaptein, P. Serdyukov, A. De Vries, and J. Kamps. Entity ranking using wikipedia as a pivot. In Proc. of CIKM '10, pages 69--78, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. X. Li, Y.-Y. Wang, and A. Acero. Learning query intent from regularized click graphs. In Proc. of SIGIR '08, pages 339--346, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Y. Li, Z. Zheng, and H. K. Dai. Kdd cup-2005 report: facing a great challenge. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 7(2):91--99, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. . Manshadi and X. Li. Semantic tagging of web search queries. In Proc. of ACL '09, pages 861--869, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Paşca. Weakly-supervised discovery of named entities using web search queries. In Proc. of CIKM '07, pages 683--690, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Pound, P. Mika, and H. Zaragoza. Ad-hoc object retrieval in the web of data. In Proc. of WWW '10, pages 771--780, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Schlobach, M. Olsthoorn, and M. De Rijke. Type checking in open-domain question answering. In Proc. of ECAI '04, pages 398--402, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Seo and W. B. Croft. Blog site search using resource selection. In Proc. of CIKM '08, pages 1053--1062, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Singh and K. Visweswariah. Cqc: classifying questions in cqa websites. In Proc. of CIKM '11, pages 2033--2036, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. B. Tan and F. Peng. Unsupervised query segmentation using generative language models and wikipedia. In Proc. of WWW '08, pages 347--356, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. D. Vallet and H. Zaragoza. Inferring the most important types of a query: a semantic approach. In Proc. of SIGIR '08, pages 857--858, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. Zhou, R. Cummins, M. Halvey, M. Lalmas, and J. M. Jose. Assessing and predicting vertical intent for web queries. In Proc. of ECIR '12, pages 499--502, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hierarchical target type identification for entity-oriented queries

    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
      CIKM '12: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
      October 2012
      2840 pages
      ISBN:9781450311564
      DOI:10.1145/2396761

      Copyright © 2012 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: 29 October 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader