maximum personalization: user-centered adaptive information retrieval

Maximum Personalization:Maximum Personalization:User-Centered User-Centered

Adaptive Information Retrieval Adaptive Information Retrieval

ChengXiang (“Cheng”) ZhaiDepartment of Computer Science

Graduate School of Library & Information Science

Department of Statistics

Institute for Genomic Biology

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

1Yahoo! Research, Jan. 12, 2011

Happy Users

Yahoo! Research, Jan. 12, 2011 2

Query: avatar hotel

Sad Users


They’ve got to know the users better!

I work on information retrieval; I searched for similar pages last week; I clicked on AIRS-related pages (including keynote); …

How can search engines better help these users?


Current Search Engines are Document-Centered

Documents

“airs”Search Engine “airs”

...

It’s hard for a search engine to know everyone well!


To maximize personalization, we must put a user in the center!

Search Engine

“airs”

...Personalized search agent

WEB

Search Engine

EmailViewed Web pages

QueryHistory

Search Engine

DesktopFiles

Personalized search agent

“airs”

A search agent knows about a particular user very well


User-Centered Adaptive IR (UCAIR)

• A novel retrieval strategy emphasizing

– user modeling (“user-centered”)

– search context modeling (“adaptive”)

– interactive retrieval

• Implemented as a personalized search agent that

– sits on the client-side (owned by the user)

– integrates information around a user (1 user vs. N sources as opposed to 1 source vs. N users)

– collaborates with each other

– goes beyond search toward task support

Much work has been done on personalization


• Personalized data collection: Haystack [Adar & Karger 99], MyLifeBit [Gemmell et al. 02], Stuff I’ve Seen [Dumais et al. 03] , Total Recall [Cheng et al. 04], Google desktop search, Microsoft desktop search

• Server-side personalization: My Yahoo! [Manber et al. 00], Personalized Google Search

• Capturing user information & search context: SearchPad [Bharat 00], Watson [Budzik & Hammond 00], Intellizap [Finkelstein et

al. 01], Understanding clickthrough data [Joachmis et al. 05]

• Implicit feedback: SVM [Joachims 02] , BM25 [Teevan et al. 05] , Language models [Shen et al. 05]

However, we are far from

unleashing the full power of personalization

UCAIR is unique in emphasizing maximum exploitation of client-side personalization


• Benefit of client-side personalization

• More information about the user, thus more accurate user modeling

– Can exploit the complete interaction history (e.g., can easily capture all click-through information and navigation activities)

– Can exploit user’s other activities (e.g., searching immediately after reading an email)

• Naturally scalable

• Alleviate the problem of privacy

• Can potentially maximize benefit of personalization

Maximum Personalization = Maximum User Information Maximum Exploitation of User Info.

Client-Side Agent

(Frequent + Optimal) Adaptation


Examples of Useful User Information• Textual information

– Current query

– Previous queries in the same search session

– Past queries in the entire search history

• Clicking activities

– Skipped documents

– Viewed/clicked documents

– Navigation traces on non-search results

– Dwelling time

– Scrolling

• Search context

– Time, location, task, …


Examples of Adaptation• Query formulation

– Query completion: provide assistance while a user enters a query

– Query suggestion: suggest useful related queries

– Automatic generation of queries: proactive recommendation

• Dynamic re-ranking of unseen documents

– As a user clicks on the “back” button

– As a user scrolls down on a result list

– As a user clicks on the “next” button to view more results

• Adaptive presentation/summarization of search results

• Adaptive display of a document: display the most relevant part of a document



Challenges for UCAIR• General: how to obtain maximum personalization without

requiring extra user effort?

• Specific challenges

– What’s an appropriate retrieval framework for UCAIR?

– How do we optimize retrieval performance in interactive retrieval?

– How can we capture and manage all user information?

– How can we develop robust and accurate retrieval models to maximally exploit user information and search context?

– How do we evaluate UCAIR methods?

– …


The Rest of the Talk

• Part I: A decision-theoretic framework for UCAIR

• Part II: Algorithms for personalized search

– Optimize initial document ranking

– Dynamic re-ranking of search results

– Personalize search result presentation

• Part III: Summary and open challenges


Part I

A Decision-Theoretic Framework for UCAIR


IR as Sequential Decision Making

User System

A1 : Enter a query Which documents to present?How to present them?

Ri: results (i=1, 2, 3, …)Which documents to view?

A2 : View documentWhich part of the document to show? How?

R’: Document contentView more?

A3 : Click on “Back” button

(Information Need) (Model of Information Need)


Retrieval Decisions

User U: A1 A2 … … At-1 At

System: R1 R2 … … Rt-1

Given U, C, At , and H, choosethe best Rt from all possibleresponses to At

History H={(Ai,Ri)} i=1, …, t-1

DocumentCollection

C

Query=“Jaguar”

All possible rankings of C

The best ranking for the query

Click on “Next” button

All possible rankings of unseen docs

The best ranking of unseen docs

Rt r(At)

Rt =?


A Risk Minimization Framework

User: U Interaction history: HCurrent user action: At

Document collection: C

Observed

All possible responses: r(At)={r1, …, rn}

User Model

M=(S, U,… ) Seen docs

Information need

L(ri,At,M) Loss Function

Optimal response: r* (minimum loss)

( )arg min ( , , ) ( | , , , )tt r r A t tM

R L r A M P M U H A C dM ObservedInferredBayes risk


• Approximate the Bayes risk by the loss at the mode of the posterior distribution

• Two-step procedure

– Step 1: Compute an updated user model M* based on the currently available information

– Step 2: Given M*, choose a response to minimize the loss function

A Simplified Two-Step Decision-Making Procedure

( )

( )

( )

arg min ( , , ) ( | , , , )

arg min ( , , *) ( * | , , , )

arg min ( , , *)

* arg max ( | , , , )

t

t

t

t r r A t tM

r r A t t

r r A t

M t

R L r A M P M U H A C dM

L r A M P M U H A C

L r A M

where M P M U H A C


Approximately Optimal Interactive Retrieval

User

A1

U C

M*1P(M1|U,H,A1,C)

L(r,A1,M*1)

R1A2

L(r,A2,M*2)

R2

M*2P(M2|U,H,A2,C)

A3 …

Collection

IR system

Many possible actions:-type in a query character- scroll down a page- click on any button -…

Many possible responses:-query completion-display relevant passage-recommendation -clarification-…


Refinement of Risk Minimization• r(At): decision space (At dependent)

– r(At) = all possible rankings of docs in C

– r(At) = all possible rankings of unseen docs

– r(At) = all possible summarization strategies

– r(At) = all possible ways to diversify top-ranked documents

• M: user model – Essential component: U = user information need

– S = seen documents

– n = “Topic is new to the user”; r=“reading level of user”

• L(Rt ,At,M): loss function

– Generally measures the utility of Rt for a user modeled as M

– Often encodes retrieval criteria, but may also capture other preferences

• P(M|U, H, At, C): user model inference

– Often involves estimating the unigram language model U

– May involve inference of other variables also (e.g., readability, tolerance of redundancy)


Case 1: Context-Insensitive IR– At=“enter a query Q”


– M= U, unigram language model (word distribution)

– p(M|U,H,At,C)=p(U |Q)

1

1

1 2

( , , ) (( ,..., ), )

( | ) ( || )

( | ) ( | ) ....

( || )

i

i

i t N U

N

i U di

t U d

L r A M L d d

p viewed d D

Since p viewed d p viewed d

the optimal ranking R is given by ranking documents by D


Case 2: Implicit Feedback

– At=“enter a query Q”



– H={previous queries} + {viewed snippets}

– p(M|U,H,At,C)=p(U |Q,H)

1

1

1 2

( , , ) (( ,..., ), )

( | ) ( || )

( | ) ( | ) ....

( || )

i

i

i t N U

N

i U di

t U d

L r A M L d d

p viewed d D




Case 3: General Implicit Feedback

– At=“enter a query Q” or “Back” button, “Next” button

– r(At) = all possible rankings of unseen docs in C

– M= (U, S), S= seen documents



1

1

1 2

( , , ) (( ,..., ), )

( | ) ( || )

( | ) ( | ) ....

( || )

i

i

i t N U

N

i U di

t U d

L r A M L d d

p viewed d D




Case 4: User-Specific Result Summary – At=“enter a query Q”

– r(At) = {(D,)}, DC, |D|=k, {“snippet”,”overview”}

– M= (U, n), n{0,1} “topic is new to the user”

– p(M|U,H,At,C)=p(U, n|Q,H), M*=(*, n*)

( , , ) ( , , *, *)

( , *) ( , *)

( * || ) ( , *)i

i t i i

i i

d id D

L r A M L D n

L D L n

D L n

n*=1 n*=0

i=snippet 1 0i=overview 0 1

( , *)iL n

Choose k most relevant docs If a new topic (n*=1), give an overview summary;otherwise, a regular snippet summary


Part II. Algorithms for personalized search

- Optimize initial document ranking - Dynamic re-ranking of search results - Personalize search result presentation

Scenario 1: After a user types in a query, how to exploit long-term search history to

optimize initial results?



Case 2: Implicit Feedback






1

1

1 2

( , , ) (( ,..., ), )

( | ) ( || )

( | ) ( | ) ....

( || )

i

i

i t N U

N

i U di

t U d

L r A M L d d

p viewed d D



28

Long-term Implicit Feedback from Personal Search Log

Search interests:user interested in X(champaign, luxury car)

consistent & distinct

Most useful forambiguous queries

Search preferences:For Y, user prefers Xquotes → newcars.com

Most useful forrecurring queries

session

query champaign map......query jaguarquery champaign jaguarclick champaign.il.auto.comquery jaguar quotesclick newcars.com......query yahoo mail......query jaguar quotesclick newcars.com

noise

recurringquery

avg 80 queries / mo

Yahoo! Research, Jan. 12, 2011

29

Estimate Query Language Model using the Entire Search History

q1D1C1

S1

θS1

q2D2C2

S2

θS2

... qt-1Dt-1Ct-1

St-1

θSt-1

θH

qtDt

St

θq

θq,H

λ1?λ2?

λq?

How can we optimize λkand λq?

-Need to distinguish informative/noisy past searches-Need to distinguish queries with strong vs. weak support from history

1-λq

λt-1?


30

Adaptive Weighting withMixture Model [Tan et al. 06]

θS1θS2

θSt-1...

θH

θq,H

λ1

λ2λt-1

λqθB

1-λq

θq

λB 1-λB

<d1>jaguar car official site racing<d2>jaguar is a big cat...<d3>local jaguar dealerin champaign...

querypast jaguar searchespast champaign searchesbackground

θmix

select {λ} to maximize P(Dt | θmix)

Dt

EM algorithm


31

Sample Results: improving initial ranking with long-term implicit feedback

recurring fresh≫

combination ≈ clickthrough > docs > query, contextless


Scenario 2: The user is examining search results, how can we further dynamically optimize search

results based on clickthroughs?



Case 3: General Implicit Feedback

– At=“enter a query Q” or “Back” button, “Next” button

– r(At) = all possible rankings of unseen docs in C

– M= (U, S), S= seen documents



1

1

1 2

( , , ) (( ,..., ), )

( | ) ( || )

( | ) ( | ) ....

( || )

i

i

i t N U

N

i U di

t U d

L r A M L d d

p viewed d D




Estimate a Context-Sensitive LM

Q2

C2={C2,1 , C2,2 ,C2,3 ,… }…

C1={C1,1 , C1,2 ,C1,3 ,…} User Clickthrough

Qk

Q1 User Query e.g., Apple software

e.g., Apple - Mac OS X The Apple Mac OS X product page. Describes features in the current version of Mac OS X, …

e.g., Jaguar

1 1 1 1,...,( | ,) ( | ,...,, ) ?k kk kp w p Q CQ Q Cw User Model:

Query History Clickthrough


Method1: Fixed Coeff. Interpolation (FixInt)

Qk

Q1

Qk-1

…

C1

Ck-1

…

Average user query history and clickthrough

CH

QH1

11

1

( | ) ( | )k

Q iki

p w H p w Q

11

11

( | ) ( | )k

C iki

p w H p w C

1

HLinearly interpolate history models

( | ) ( | ) (1 ) ( | )C Qp w H p w H p w H

k

1

Linearly interpolate current queryand history model

( | ) ( | ) (1 ) ( | )k kp w p w Q p w H


Method 2: Bayesian Interpolation (BayesInt)

Q1

Qk-1

…

C1

Ck-1

…

Average user query andclickthrough history

CH

QH1

11

1

( | ) ( | )i k

Q iki

p w H p w Q

11

11

( | ) ( | )i k

C iki

p w H p w C

Intuition: trust the current query Qk more if it’s longer

Qk

Dirichlet Prior

( , ) ( | ) ( | )

| |( | ) k Q C

k

c w Q p w H p w H

k Qp w

k


Method 3: Online Bayesian Updating (OnlineUp)

'1k

Qk k

C2'2

v

Q1 1Intuition: incremental updating of the language model

C1

v'

1( , )

|| )' (

|( | ) i

i

ic p ww Ci C vp w

Q2 2 '

1( ,|

))|

( |( | ) i

i

ic w Q p wi Qp w


Method 4: Batch Bayesian Update (BatchUp)

C2

1k

…Ck-1

'k

1

1

1

1

( , ) ( | )'

| |( | )

ij kj

ijj

c w C p w

k Cp w

Intuition: all clickthrough data are equally useful

Qk k

Q1 1

C1

1( , ) ( | )| |( | ) i i

i

c w Q p wi Qp w

Q2 2


Overall Effect of Search Context [Shen et al. 05b]

Query

FixInt

(=0.1,=1.0)

BayesInt

(=0.2,=5.0)

OnlineUp

(=5.0,=15.0)

BatchUp

(=2.0,=15.0)

MAP pr@20 MAP pr@20 MAP pr@20 MAP pr@20

Q3 0.0421 0.1483 0.0421 0.1483 0.0421 0.1483 0.0421 0.1483

Q3+HQ+HC 0.0726 0.1967 0.0816 0.2067 0.0706 0.1783 0.0810 0.2067

Improve 72.4% 32.6% 93.8% 39.4% 67.7% 20.2% 92.4% 39.4%

Q4 0.0536 0.1933 0.0536 0.1933 0.0536 0.1933 0.0536 0.1933

Q4+HQ+HC 0.0891 0.2233 0.0955 0.2317 0.0792 0.2067 0.0950 0.2250

Improve 66.2% 15.5% 78.2% 19.9% 47.8% 6.9% 77.2% 16.4%

• Short-term context helps system improve retrieval accuracy

• BayesInt better than FixInt; BatchUp better than OnlineUp


Using Clickthrough Data Only

Query MAP pr@20

Q3 0.0421 0.1483

Q3+HC 0.0766 0.2033

Improve 81.9% 37.1%

Q4 0.0536 0.1930

Q4+HC 0.0925 0.2283

Improve 72.6% 18.1%BayesInt (=0.0,=5.0)

Clickthrough is the major contributor

13.9% 67.2%Improve

0.1880.0739Q4+HC

0.1650.0442Q4

42.4%99.7%Improve

0.1780.0661Q3+HC

0.1250.0331Q3

pr@20MAPQuery

Performance on unseen docs

-4.1%15.7%Improve

0.18500.0620Q4+HC

0.19300.0536Q4

23.0%23.8%Improve

0.18200.0521Q3+HC

0.14830.0421Q3

pr@20MAPQuery

Snippets for non-relevant docs are still useful!


UCAIR Outperforms Google [Shen et al. 05]

PR Curve

Scenario 3: The user has not viewed any document on the first result page and is now clicking on “Next” to view more: how can we

optimize the search results on the next page?


Problem Formulation

Query: Q

Collection C

1st page

Results

L1

L2

…Lf

Search Engine

N

2nd page Lf+1

Lf+2

…

Lf+r

How to rerank these unseen docs?

…

101st page

U

Seen, Negative

Unseen, To be Reranked


Strategy I: Query Modification

Q

Qnew

Q Qnew

N = {L1, …, L10}

D11

D12

D13

D14

D15

…D1010

D’11

D’12

D’13

D’14

D’15

…D’1010

NΝ D

new DQQ

||

1

parameter


Strategy II: Score Combination

),( DQS neg

),( DQS

),(),( DQSDQS neg

D11 0.05D12 0.04D13 0.04D14 0.03 D15 0.03…D1010 0.01

D11 0.03D12 0.05D13 0.02D14 0.01 D15 0.01…D1010 0.01

D’11 0.04D’12 0.03D’13 0.03D’14 0.01 D’15 0.01…D’1010 0.01

QQneg parameter


Multiple Negative Models

• Negative feedback examples may be quite diverse

– They may distract in totally different ways

– A single negative model is not optimal

• Multiple negative models

– Learn multiple models from N

– Score function for negative query

)),((),(1

k

i

inegneg DQSFDQS

F: aggregation function

Q

Q1neg

Q2neg

Q3neg

Q4neg Q5

neg

Q6neg


Effectiveness of Negative Feedback[Wang et al. 08]

MAP GMAP MAP GMAP

ROBUST+LM ROBUST+VSM

OriginalRank 0.0293 0.0137 0.0223 0.0097

SingleQuery 0.0325 0.0141 0.0222 0.0097

SingleNeg1 0.0325 0.0147 0.0225 0.0097

SingleNeg2 0.0330 0.0149 0.0226 0.0097

MultiNeg1 0.0346 0.0150 0.0226 0.0099

MultiNeg2 0.0363 0.0148 0.0233 0.0100

GOV+LM GOV+VSM

OriginalRank 0.0257 0.0054 0.0290 0.0035

SingleQuery 0.0297 0.0056 0.0301 0.0038

SingleNeg1 0.0300 0.0056 0.0331 0.0038

SingleNeg2 0.0289 0.0055 0.0298 0.0036

MultiNeg1 0.0331 0.0058 0.0294 0.0036

MultiNeg2 0.0311 0.0057 0.0290 0.0036


Scenario 4:Can we leverage user interaction history to personalize result presentation?



Need for User-Specific Summaries

Such a snippet summary may be fine for a user who knows about the topic

But for a user who hasn’t been tracking the news, a theme-based overview summary may be more useful

Query = “Asian tsunami”


A Theme Overview Summary (Asia Tsunami)

Immediate Reports

Statistics of Death and loss

Personal Experience of Survivors

Statistics of further impact

Aid from Local Areas Aid from the world

Donations from countries

Specific Events of Aid

…

…

Lessons from Tsunami Research inspired

Time

Doc1Doc3 Doc ..

Theme Evolutionary transitions

Theme evolution thread


Risk Minimization for User-Specific Summary


– r(At) = {(D,)}, DC, |D|=k, {“snippet”, “overview”}

– M= (U, n), n{0,1} “topic is new to the user”

– p(M|U,H,At,C)=p(U,n|Q,H), M*=(*, n*)( , , ) ( , , *, *)

( , *) ( , *)

( || ) ( , *)i

i t i i

i i

d id D

L r A M L D n

L D L n

D L n

n*=1 n*=0

i=snippet 1 0i=overview 0 1

( , *)iL n

Task 1 = Estimating n*: p(n=1)p(Q|H)Task 2 = Generating an overview summary


General problem definition: Given a text collection with time stamps Extract a theme evolution graph Model the life cycles of the most salient themes

Temporal Theme Mining for Generating Overview News Summaries

Time

Theme1.1

T1 T2 Tn…

Theme1.2…

Theme2.1

Theme2.2…

Theme3.1

Theme3.2……

T1 T2 … Tn

Theme A

Theme B

Theme life cycles

Theme evolution graph


A Topic Modeling Approach [Mei & Zhai 06]

tt11

12

13

21

22

31

3k

PartitioningPartitioning

Theme Evolution GraphTheme Evolution Graph

Extracting global Extracting global salient themessalient themes(mixture model)(mixture model)

…… ……

θθ11 θθ22

θθ33

BB

…… ……

(HMM)(HMM)

Decoding Decoding CollectionCollection

s

tt

Theme Life cyclesTheme Life cycles

tt

Theme extractionTheme extraction((mixture mixture modelsmodels))

……

Collection with time stampsCollection with time stamps

Model theme transitionsModel theme transitions((KL divKL div))

Computing Theme Computing Theme StrengthStrength

t1 t2 t3, …, t


Theme Evolution Graph: TsunamiT

aid 0.020relief 0.016U.S. 0.013military 0.011U.N. 0.011…

Bush 0.016U.S. 0.015$ 0.009relief 0.008million 0.008…

Indonesian 0.01military 0.01islands 0.008foreign 0.008aid 0.007…

system 0.0104Bush 0.008warning 0.007conference 0.005US 0.005…

system 0.008China 0.007warning 0.005Chinese 0.005…

warning 0.012system 0.012Islands 0.009Japan 0.005quake 0.003…

……

……

……

12/28/04 01/05/05 01/15/05 …

…


Theme Life Cycles: Tsunami

Aid from the world

$ 0.0173million 0.0135relief 0.0134aid 0.0099U.N. 0.0066 …

Personal experiences

I 0.0322wave 0.0061beach 0.0051saw 0.0046sea 0.0046 …

CNN, Absolute StrengthCNN, Absolute Strength

The UCAIR Prototype System


• A client-side search agent • Talks to any browser (both Firefox and IE)

http://timan.cs.uiuc.edu/proj/ucair

UCAIR Screen Shots: Immediate Implicit Feedback


Standard mode Adaptive mode

Screen Shots of UCAIR System: query =“airs accommodation”


Adaptive modeStandard mode

Screen Shots of UCAIR: “airs regisgtration”


Adaptive mode Standard mode

UCAIR Screenshots: Search History-Based Recommendation


Part III. Summary and Open Challenges



Summary • One doesn’t fit all; each user needs his/her own search

agent (especially important for long-tail search)

• User-centered adaptive IR (UCAIR) emphasizes

– Collecting maximum amount of user information and search context

– Formal models of user information needs and other user status variables

– Information integration

– Optimizing every response in interactive IR, thus potentially maximizing the effectiveness

• Preliminary results show that

– Implicit user modeling can improve search accuracy in many different ways


Open Challenges• Formal user models

– More in-depth analysis of user behavior (e.g., why did the user drop a query word and add it again later?)

– Exploit more implicit feedback clues (e.g., dwelling time-based language model)

– Collaborative user modeling (e.g., smoothing of user model)

• Context-sensitive retrieval models based on appropriate loss functions – Optimize long-term utility in interactive retrieval (e.g., active feedback,

exploration-exploitation tradeoff, incorporation of Fuhr’s interactive retrieval model)

– Robust and non-intrusive adaptation (e.g., considering confidence of adaptation)

• UCAIR system extension– Right architecture: client+server? P2P?

– Design of novel interface to facilitate acquisition of user info

– Beyond search to support querying+browsing+recommendation

Final Goal: A unified personal intelligent information agent


EmailWWW

E-COM

Blog Sports

Literature

IM

Desktop

Intranet

…

User Profile

Intelligent Adaptation

Proactive Info Service

Frequently Accessed Info

SecurityHandler

Task Support…

67

Search

Text

Filtering

Categorization

Summarization

Clustering

Natural Language Content Analysis

Extraction

Mining

VisualizationSearchApplications

MiningApplications

InformationAccess

KnowledgeAcquisition

InformationOrganization

Other Research Work & Roadmap

- Personalized- Retrieval models- Topic map - Recommender

Current focus

-Contextual text mining-Opinion integration-Controversy discovery-Abstractive summarization

Current focus

Web, Email, and Biomedical informatics

Entity/Relation Extraction


68

Towards Next-Generation Search Engines

Bag of words

Search

Keyword Queries

Access

Mining

Task Support

Entities-Relations

Knowledge Representation

Search History

Complete User Model

Current Search Engine

1.Personalization(User Modeling)

2. Large-Scale Semantic Analysis

3. Full-Fledged Text Info. Management


+ Social Networks

+ Task Environment

+Information Networks

Multiresolution Topic Map for Browsing[Want et al. 2009]


Turn search logs into a topic map

Naturally support collaborative surfing

Browse logs offer more opportunities

to understand user interests and intents

Make browsing a “first-class citizen”!

70

Multi-Faceted Sentiment Summary [Mei et al. 07]

(query=“Da Vinci Code”)Neutral Positive Negative

Facet 1:Movie

... Ron Howards selection of Tom Hanks to play Robert Langdon.

Tom Hanks stars in the movie,who can be mad at that?

But the movie might get delayed, and even killed off if he loses.

Directed by: Ron Howard Writing credits: Akiva Goldsman ...

Tom Hanks, who is my favorite movie star act the leading role.

protesting ... will lose your faith by ... watching the movie.

After watching the movie I went online and some research on ...

Anybody is interested in it?

... so sick of people making such a big deal about a FICTION book and movie.

Facet 2:Book

I remembered when i first read the book, I finished the book in two days.

Awesome book. ... so sick of people making such a big deal about a FICTION book and movie.

I’m reading “Da Vinci Code” now.

…

So still a good book to past time.

This controversy book cause lots conflict in west society.

Latent Aspect Rating Analysis [Wang et al. 2010]

71

Reviews + overall ratings Aspect segments

location:1amazing:1walk:1anywhere:1

0.10.70.10.9

nice:1accommodating:1smile:1friendliness:1attentiveness:1

Term weights Aspect Rating

0.00.90.10.3

room:1nicely:1appointed:1comfortable:1

0.60.80.70.80.9

Aspect Segmentation

Latent Rating Regression

1.3

1.8

3.8

Aspect Weight

0.2

0.2

0.6

+

Aspect ratings?Weights on aspects?

Reviewer Behavior Analysis & Personalized Ranking of Entities

72

People like cheap hotels because of good value

People like expensive hotels because of good service

Query: 0.9 value 0.1 others

Non-Personalized

Personalized

Major References • Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, and ChengXiang Zhai, Implicit User Modeling for Personalized Search , In Proceedings of

CIKM 2005 pages 824-831.

• Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, ChengXiang Zhai, Context-Sensitive Information Retrieval with Implicit Feedback, Proceedings of SIGIR 2005, 43-50, 2005.

• Bin Tan, Xuehua Shen, ChengXiang Zhai, Mining long-term search history to improve search accuracy , Proceedings of KDD 2006, pages 718-723.

• Xuanhui Wang, Hui Fang, ChengXiang Zhai. A study of methods for negative relevance feedback , Proceedings of SIGIR 2008, pages 219-226.

• Qiaozhu Mei, ChengXiang Zhai, Discovering Evolutionary Theme Patterns from Text -- An Exploration of Temporal Text Mining, Proceedings of KDD 2005, pages 198-207.

• Maryam Karimzadehgan, ChengXiang Zhai: Exploration-exploitation tradeoff in interactive relevance feedback. In Proceedings of CIKM 2010, pages1397-1400.

• Norbert Fuhr: A probability ranking principle for interactive information retrieval. Information Retrieval 11(3): 251-265 (2008)

• Xuanhui Wang, Bin Tan, Azadeh Shakery, ChengXiang Zhai, Beyond Hyperlinks: Organizing Information Footprints in Search Logs to Support Effective Browsing, Proceedings of CIKM 2009, pages 1237-1246, 2009.

• Qiaozhu Mei, Xu Ling, Matthew Wondra, Hang Su, ChengXiang Zhai, Topic Sentiment Mixture: Modeling Facets and Opinions in Weblogs, Proceedings of WWW 2007, pages 171-180.

• Hongning Wang, Yue Lu, ChengXiang Zhai. Latent Aspect Rating Analysis on Review Text Data: A Rating Regression Approach, Proceedings of KDD 2010, pages 115-124, 2010


More information can be found at http://timan.cs.uiuc.edu/

Looking forward to opportunities for collaborations…

Thank You!


Acknowledgments


Funding Support

Joint work with Xuehua Shen, Bin Tan, Xuanhui Wang, Qiaozhu Mei,

Hongning Wang, and other TIMAN group members

…

maximum personalization: user-centered adaptive information retrieval

Documents

particular user

maximum personalization

google desktop search

accurate user modelingcan

current search engines

userintegrates information

yahoo manber

maximum exploitation