skip to main content
10.1145/2449396.2449413acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Directing exploratory search: reinforcement learning from user interactions with keywords

Published:19 March 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Techniques for both exploratory and known item search tend to direct only to more specific subtopics or individual documents, as opposed to allowing directing the exploration of the information space. We present an interactive information retrieval system that combines Reinforcement Learning techniques along with a novel user interface design to allow active engagement of users in directing the search. Users can directly manipulate document features (keywords) to indicate their interests and Reinforcement Learning is used to model the user by allowing the system to trade off between exploration and exploitation. This gives users the opportunity to more effectively direct their search nearer, further and following a direction. A task-based user study conducted with 20 participants comparing our system to a traditional query-based baseline indicates that our system significantly improves the effectiveness of information retrieval by providing access to more relevant and novel information without having to spend more time acquiring the information.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

iui0264-file3.mp4

mp4

9.6 MB

References

  1. Alonso, O., Baeza-Yates, R., and Gertz, M. Exploratory search using timelines. In SIGCHI 2007 Workshop on Exploratory Search and HCI Workshop, no. 1 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Auer, P. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2002), 397--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Auer, P., Hussain, Z., Kaski, S., A. Klami, J. Kujala, Laaksonen, J., Leung, A., Pasupa, K., and Shawe-Taylor, J. Pinview: Implicit feedback in content-based image retrieval. In JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings: Workshop on Application of Pattern Analysis, vol. 11 (2010), 51--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Balabanović, M. Exploring versus exploiting when learning user models for text recommendation. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 8 (1998), 71--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Baldonado, M., and Winograd, T. Sensemaker: an information-exploration interface supporting the contextual evolution of a user's interests. In Proc. of SIGCHI (1997), 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brooke, J. Sus - a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry 189 (1996), 194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapelle, O., and Li, L. An empirical evaluation of thompson sampling. In Proc. of NIPS, vol. 25 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chau, D., Kittur, A., Hong, J., and Faloutsos, C. Apolo: making sense of large network data by combining rich user interaction and machine learning. In Proc. of SIGCHI (2011), 167--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Głowacka, D., and Shawe-Taylor, J. Content-based image retrieval with multinomial relevance feedback. In JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings: 2nd Asian Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 13 (2010), 111--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Havre, S., Hetzler, E., Perrine, K., Jurrus, E., and Miller, N. Interactive visualization of multiple query results. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (2001), 105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., and Norman, D. A. Direct manipulation interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, 4 (Dec. 1985), 311--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Joachims, T., Freitag, D., and Mitchell, T. Webwatcher: A tour guide for the world wide web. In Proc. of IJCAI (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Käki, M. Findex: search result categories help users when document ranking fails. In Proc. of SIGCHI (2005), 131--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kelly, D., and Fu, X. Elicitation of term relevance feedback: an investigation of term source and context. In Proc. of SIGIR (2006), 453--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kules, B., Wilson, M., Schraefel, M., and Shneiderman, B. From keyword search to exploration: How result visualization aids discovery on the web. Human-Computer Interaction Lab Technical Report HCIL-2008-06, University of Maryland (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Leide, J., Cole, C., Beheshti, J., Large, A., and Lin, Y. Task-based information retrieval: Structuring undergraduate history essays for better course evaluation using essay-type visualizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 9 (2007), 1227--1241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Li, L., Chu, W., Langford, J., and Schapire, R. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. In Proc. of WWW (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Marchionini, G. Exploratory search: from finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49, 4 (Apr. 2006), 41--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Matejka, J., Grossman, T., and Fitzmaurice, G. Citeology: visualizing paper genealogy. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (2012), 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pandey, S., Agarwal, D., Chakrabarti, D., and Josifovski, V. Bandits for taxonomies: A modelbased approach. In Proc. of ICDM (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Pu, P., Chen, L., and Hu, R. A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In Proc. of RecSys (2011), 157--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Radlinski, F., Kleinberg, R., and Joachims, T. Learning diverse rankings with multi-armed bandits. In Proc. of ICML (2008), 784--791. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Seo, Y., and Zhang, B. A reinforcement learning agent for personalized information filtering. In Proc. of IUI (2000), 248--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Spärck-Jones, K. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation 28, 1 (1972), 11--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Spink, A., Wolfram, D., Jansen, M. B. J., and Saracevic, T. Searching the web: The public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (2001), 226--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Teevan, J., Alvarado, C., Ackerman, M. S., and Karger, D. R. The perfect search engine is not enough: a study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In Proc. of SIGCHI (2004), 415--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Terveen, L., Hill, W., and Amento, B. Constructing, organizing, and visualizing collections of topically related web resources. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 6, 1 (1999), 67--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Tombros, A., and Sanderson, M. Advantages of query biased summaries in information retrieval. In Proc. of SIGIR (1998), 2--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. White, R. W., Bennett, P. N., and Dumais, S. T. Predicting short-term interests using activity-based search context. In Proc. of CIKM (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Yee, K.-P., Swearingen, K., Li, K., and Hearst, M. Faceted metadata for image search and browsing. In Proc. of SIGCHI (2003), 401--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yue, Y., and Joachims, T. Interactively optimizing information retrieval systems as a dueling bandits problem. In Proc. of ICML (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Zhai, C., and Lafferty, J. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 22, 2 (Apr. 2004), 179--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Zhang, B., and Seo, Y. Personalized web-document filtering using reinforcement learning. Applied Artificial Intelligence 15 (2001), 665--685.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Zhang, Y., Xu, W., and Callan, J. Exploration and exploitation in adaptive filtering based on bayesian active learning. In Proc. of ICML (2003), 896--903.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Directing exploratory search: reinforcement learning from user interactions with keywords

    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
      IUI '13: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces
      March 2013
      470 pages
      ISBN:9781450319652
      DOI:10.1145/2449396

      Copyright © 2013 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: 19 March 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      IUI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate43of192submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader