The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quantifying query ambiguity
Open accessAbstract
We develop a measure of a query with respect to a collection of documents with the aim of quantifying the query's ambiguity with respect to those documents. This measure, the clarity score, is the relative entropy between a query language model and the corresponding collection language model. We substantiate that the clarity score measures the coherence and specificity of the language used in documents likely to satisfy the query. We also argue that it provides a suitable quantification of the (lack of) ambiguity of a query with respect to a collection of documents and has potential applications throughout the field of information retrieval. In particular, the clarity score is shown to correlate positively with average precision in evaluations using TREC test collections. Hence, as one example, the clarity score could serve as a predictor of query performance. Systems would then be able to identify vague information requests and respond differently than they would to clear and specific requests.
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
“As long studied in the IR community, the formulation of an effective query requires deep understanding of the user's intent, and many of the important context information behind a user intent is not explicitly expressed in the words they wrote [115].”
From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [115]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ai, Q., Zhan, J., & Liu, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02842
“As long studied in the IR community, the formulation of an effective query requires deep understanding of the user’s intent, and many of the important context information behind a user intent is not explicitly expressed in the words they wrote [115].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Cronen-Townsend, S., & Croft, W. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- ORCID
- Croft, W. Bruce
- Venue
- Proceedings of the second international conference on Human Language Technology Research -
- Published
- 2002
- Pages
- 104
- OpenAlex
- W2030524533
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Conference on Human Language Technology Research (publishedVersion)
- International Conference on Human Language Technology Research
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9907018)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Theoretical Computer Science › Algorithms and Data Compression
- Keywords
- query ambiguity, Kullback-Leibler divergence, query performance prediction, average precision
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