Cited by 11

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How fresh do you want your search results?

Cheng, Shiwen, Arvanitis, Anastasios, Hristidis, Vagelis·2013·Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management

Abstract

Researchers have recognized the importance of utilizing temporal features for improving the performance of information retrieval systems. Specifically, the timeliness of a web document can be a significant factor for determining whether it is relevant for a search query. Previous works have proposed time-aware retrieval models with particular focus on news queries, where recent web documents related with a real-world event are generally preferable. These queries typically exhibit bursts in the volume of published documents or submitted queries. However, no work has studied the role of time in queries such as "credit card overdraft fees" that have no major spikes in either document or query volumes over time, yet they still favor more recently published documents. In this work, we focus on this class of queries that we refer to as "timely queries". We show that the change in the terms distribution of results of timely queries over time is strongly correlated with the users' perception of time sensitivity. Based on this observation, we propose a method to estimate the query timeliness requirements and we propose principled ways to incorporate document freshness into the ranking model. Our study shows that our method yields a more accurate estimation of timeliness compared to volume-based approaches. We experimentally compare our ranking strategy with other time-sensitive and non time-sensitive ranking algorithms and we show that it improves the results' retrieval quality for ti…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2505515.2505696

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1145/956863.956951 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1145/1247715.1247720 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1145/2009916.2009984 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1109/TKDE.2010.187 · DOI
  5. F. Diaz "Integration of news content into web results " in WSDM pp. 182--191 2009. 10.1145/1498759.1498825 · DOI
  6. 10.1145/1718487.1718490 · DOI
  7. 10.1145/1772690.1772725 · DOI
  8. 10.1145/1935826.1935862 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1145/2009916.2009933 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/2063576.2063862 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1145/2414425.2414429 · DOI
  12. 10.1145/1571941.1572002 · DOI
  13. 10.1145/1718487.1718489 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.5555/1763653.1763660 · DOI
  16. 10.1145/290941.291008 · DOI · Paper page
  17. J. Pérez-Iglesias, J. R. Pérez-Agüera, V. Fresno, and Y. Z. Feinstein, "Integrating the probabilistic models BM25/BM25F into Lucene," CoRR, vol. abs/0911.5046, 2009. · arXiv
  18. 10.1145/1645953.1645968 · DOI
  19. 10.1145/2009916.2010182 · DOI
  20. 10.1007/978-3-642-28997-2_40 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/1718487.1718542 · DOI
  22. 10.1145/290941.290956 · DOI
  23. 10.1145/1008992.1009030 · DOI
  24. 10.1145/1277741.1277907 · DOI
  25. 10.1145/582415.582418 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.5555/1121636 · DOI
  27. I. Soboroff "A comparison of pooled and sampled relevance judgments " in SIGIR pp. 785--786 2007. 10.1145/1277741.1277908 · DOI
  28. 10.1137/S0895480102412856 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 11

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, S., Arvanitis, A., & Hristidis, V.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-10-27
Pages
1271-1280
Cited by
11
References
2

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