Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Learning to rank search results for time-sensitive queries

Kanhabua, Nattiya, Nørvåg, Kjetil·2012·Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management

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

Crossref · 10.1145/2396761.2398667

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 10.1145/1645953.1645968 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/978-3-642-12275-0_5 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.5555/1248547.1248566 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/2009916.2009933 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/1458082.1458320 · DOI
  6. 10.1145/1871437.1871661 · DOI
  7. 10.1145/1008992.1008998 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1772690.1772725 · DOI
  9. 10.1145/1718487.1718489 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1007/11581062_4 · DOI
  11. 10.1145/775047.775067 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ipm.2004.01.002 · DOI
  13. 10.1145/2009916.2010018 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.5555/1887759.1887796 · DOI
  15. 10.1145/1935826.1935862 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1145/956863.956951 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1561/1500000016 · DOI
  18. 10.1145/1571941.1572085 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.5555/1793274.1793347 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/1273496.1273598 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/2009916.2010104 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/1277741.1277790 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/1015330.1015332 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

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