skip to main content
10.1145/584792.584846acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Query association for effective retrieval

Published:04 November 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

We introduce a novel technique for document summarisation which we call query association. Query association is based on the notion that a query that is highly similar to a document is a good descriptor of that document. For example, the user query "richmond football club" is likely to be a good summary of the content of a document that is ranked highly in response to the query. We describe this process of defining, maintaining, and presenting the relationship between a user query and the documents that are retrieved in response to that query. We show that associated queries are an excellent technique for describing a document: for relevance judgement, associated queries are as effective as a simple online query-biased summarisation technique. As future work, we suggest additional uses for query association including relevance feedback and query expansion.

References

  1. N. Alexander, C. Brown, J. Jose, I. Ruthven, and A. Tombros. Question answering, relevance feedback and summarisation: TREC-9 interactive track report. In E. Voorhees and D. Harman, editors, Proc. Text Retrieval Conference (TREC), pages 523--550, Washington, 2000. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Bruza and T.H. van~der Weide. Stratified information disclosure. Computer Journal, 35(3):208--220, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Buckley, G. Salton, and J. Allan. The effect of adding relevance information in a relevance feedback environment. In W.B. Croft and C.J. van Rijsbergen, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 292--300, Dublin, Ireland, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J.P. Callan. Passage-level evidence in document retrieval. In W.B. Croft and C.J. van Rijsbergen, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 302--309, Dublin, Ireland, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W.T. Chuang and J. Yang. Extracting sentence segments for text summarization: A machine learning approach. In N. Belkin, P. Ingwersen, and M-K. Leong, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 152--159, Athens, Greece, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Dennis and P. Bruza. Query re-formulation on the Internet: Empirical data and the hyperindex search engine. In Recherche D'Information Assistee par Ordinateur sur Internet, pages 488--499, Montreal, Quebec, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Dennis, P. Bruza, and R. McArthur. Web searching: A process-oriented experimental study of three interactive search paradigms. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2):120--133, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Dennis, R. McArthur, and P. Bruza. Searching the world wide web made easy? the cognitive load imposed by query refinement mechanisms. In J. Kay and M. Milosavljevic, editors, Proc. Australian Document Computing Conference, pages 65--71, Sydney, Australia, 1998. University of Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. Fitzpatrick and M. Dent. Automatic feedback using past queries: Social searching? In N.J. Belkin, A.D. Narasimhalu, and P. Willett, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 306--313, Philadelphia, PA, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. G.W. Furnas. Experience with an adaptive indexing scheme. In L. Borman and W. Curtis, editors, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 131--135, San Francisco, CA, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Hardy, N. Shimizu, T. Strzalkowski, L. Ting, G.B. Wise, and X. Zhang. Cross-document summarization by concept classification. In M. Beaulieu, R. Baeza-Yates, S.H. Myaeng, and K. Järvelin, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 121--128, Tampere, Finland, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. D. Harman. Overview of the second text retrieval conference (TREC-2). Information Processing & Management, 31(3):271--289, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Hawking, N. Creswell, and P. Thistlewaite. Overview of TREC-7 very large collection track. In E. Voorhees and D.K. Harman, editors, Proc. Text Retrieval Conference (TREC), pages 91--104, Washington, 1999. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 500-242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Hearst. TileBars: Visualization of term distribution information in full text information access. In I.R. Katz, R.L. Mack, L. Marks, M.B. Rosson, and J. Nielsen, editors, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 59--66, Denver, CO, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Kaszkiel and J. Zobel. Effective ranking with arbitrary passages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(4):344--364, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. McKeown and D.R. Radev. Generating summaries of multiple news articles. In E.A. Fox, P. Ingwersen, and R. Fidel, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 74--82, Seattle, Washington, July 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C.D. Paice. Constructing literature abstracts by computer: techniques and prospects. Information Processing & Management, 26(1):171--186, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. V.V. Raghavan and H. Sever. On the reuse of past optimal queries. In E.A. Fox, P. Ingwersen, and R. Fidel, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 344--350, Seattle, WA, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S.E. Robertson and S. Walker. Okapi/keenbow at TREC-8. In E.M Voorhees and D. Harman, editors, Proc. Text Retrieval Conference (TREC), pages 151--162, Washington, 1999. National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Spink, D. Wolfram, B. J. Jansen, and T. Saracevic. Searching the web: The public and their queries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52(3):226--234, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Tombros and M. Sanderson. Advantages of query biased summaries in information retrieval. In R. Wilkinson, B. Croft, K. van Rijsbergen, A. Moffat, and J. Zobel, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2--10, Melbourne, Australia, July 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J-R. Wen, J-Y. Nie, and H-J. Zhang. Query clustering using user logs. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(1):59--81, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. H.E. Williams and J. Zobel. Searchable words on the web. International Journal of Digital Libraries. To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. I.H. Witten, A. Moffat, and T.C. Bell. Managing Gigabytes: Compressing and Indexing Documents and Images. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos, CA 94022, USA, second edition, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Woodruff, R. Rosenholtz, J.B. Morrison, A. Faulring, and P. Pirolli. A comparison of the use of text summaries, plain thumbnails, and enhanced thumbnails for web search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2):172--185, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Zobel. How reliable are the results of large-scale information retrieval experiments? In R. Wilkinson, B. Croft, K. van Rijsbergen, A. Moffat, and J. Zobel, editors, Proc. ACM-SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 307--314, Melbourne, Australia, July 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Query association for effective retrieval

      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 '02: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management
        November 2002
        704 pages
        ISBN:1581134924
        DOI:10.1145/584792

        Copyright © 2002 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: 4 November 2002

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        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