The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Learning to rank search results for time-sensitive queries
Abstract
Retrieval effectiveness of temporal queries can be improved by taking into account the time dimension. Existing temporal ranking models follow one of two main approaches: 1) a mixture model linearly combining textual similarity and temporal similarity, and 2) a probabilistic model generating a query from the textual and temporal part of document independently. In this paper, we propose a novel time-aware ranking model based on learning-to-rank techniques. We employ two classes of features for learning a ranking model, entity-based and temporal features, which are derived from annotation data. Entity-based features are aimed at capturing the semantic similarity between a query and a document, whereas temporal features measure the temporal similarity. Through extensive experiments we show that our ranking model significantly improves the retrieval effectiveness over existing time-aware ranking models.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“[Kanhabua and Nørvåg 2012] proposed a new approach by applying a time-senstive ranking model based on learning-to-rank techniques for explicit temporal queries.”
From Survey of Temporal Information Retrieval and Related Applications (2015) · cites this paper as Kanhabua and Nørvåg 2012
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.1145/1645953.1645968 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-12275-0_5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5555/1248547.1248566 · DOI
- 10.1145/2009916.2009933 · DOI
- 10.1145/1458082.1458320 · DOI
- 10.1145/1871437.1871661 · DOI
- 10.1145/1008992.1008998 · DOI
- 10.1145/1772690.1772725 · DOI
- 10.1145/1718487.1718489 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/11581062_4 · DOI
- 10.1145/775047.775067 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.01.002 · DOI
- 10.1145/2009916.2010018 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5555/1887759.1887796 · DOI
- 10.1145/1935826.1935862 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/956863.956951 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1561/1500000016 · DOI
- 10.1145/1571941.1572085 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5555/1793274.1793347 · DOI
- 10.1145/1273496.1273598 · DOI
- 10.1145/2009916.2010104 · DOI
- 10.1145/1277741.1277790 · DOI
- 10.1145/1015330.1015332 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey of Temporal Information Retrieval and Related Applications
Campos, R., Dias, G., Jorge, A. M., & Jatowt, A. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2619088 · Cited by 262
Metadata
- Authors
- Kanhabua, N., & Nørvåg, K.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-10-29
- Pages
- 2463-2466
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review