Zhang, Peng; Song, Dawei; Zhao, Xiaochao and Hou, Yuexian
(2010).
|
PDF (Accepted Manuscript)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (198Kb) | Preview |
| URL: | http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/ai... |
|---|---|
| Google Scholar: | Look up in Google Scholar |
Abstract
In pseudo relevance feedback (PRF), the document weight which indicates how important a document is for the PRF model, plays a key role. In this paper, we investigate the smoothness issue of the document weights in PRF. The term smoothness means that the document weights decrease smoothly (i.e. gradually) along the document ranking list, and the weights are smooth (i.e. similar) within topically similar documents. We postulate that a reasonably smooth document-weighting function can benefit the PRF performance. This hypothesis is tested under a typical PRF model, namely the Relevance Model (RM). We propose a two-step document weight smoothing method, the different
instantiations of which have different effects on weight smoothing. Experiments on three TREC collections show that the instantiated methods with better smoothing effects generally lead to better PRF performance. In addition, the proposed method can significantly improve the RM's
performance and outperform various alternative methods which can also be used to smooth the document weights.
| Item Type: | Conference Item |
|---|---|
| Copyright Holders: | 2010 AIRS |
| Keywords: | Pseudo relevance feedback, Document weight smoothness, Query language model, Relevance Model |
| Academic Unit/Department: | Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) > Computing and Communications Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) |
| Related URLs: | |
| Item ID: | 35014 |
| Depositing User: | Danielle Lilly |
| Date Deposited: | 31 Oct 2012 11:43 |
| Last Modified: | 03 Aug 2016 07:58 |
| URI: | http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/35014 |
| Share this page: |     |
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.