Document ranking with quantum probabilities

Abstract

In this thesis we investigate the use of quantum probability theory for ranking documents. Quantum probability theory is used to estimate the probability of relevance of a document given a user's query. We posit that quantum probability theory can lead to a better estimation of the probability of a document being relevant to a user's query than the common IR approach, i. e. the Probability Ranking Principle (PRP), which is based upon Kolmogorovian probability theory. Following our hypothesis, we formulate an analogy between the document retrieval scenario and a physical scenario, that of the double slit experiment. Through the analogy, we propose a novel ranking approach, the quantum probability ranking principle (qPRP). Key to our proposal is the presence of quantum interference. Mathematically, this is the statistical deviation between empirical observations and expected values predicted by the Kolmogorovian rule of additivity of probabilities of disjoint events in configurations such that of the double slit experiment. While PRP explicitly assumes that the relevancy of a document is independent of that of other documents, we suggest that qPRP implicitly models interdependent document relevance through quantum interference and thus is suited to those document ranking tasks where the independence assumption fails. Throughout the thesis, we also suggest how quantum interference can be estimated for effective document ranking.To validate our proposal and to gain more insights about approaches for document ranking, we (1) analyse PRP, qPRP and other ranking approaches, exposing the assumptions underlying their ranking criteria and formulating the conditions for the optimality of the two ranking principles, (2) empirically compare three ranking principles (i. e. PRP, interactive PRP, and qPRP) and two state-of-the-art ranking strategies in two retrieval scenarios, those of ad-hoc retrieval and diversity retrieval, (3) analytically contrast the ranking criteria of the examined approaches, exposing similarities and differences, (4) study the ranking behaviours of approaches alternative to PRP in terms of the kinematics they impose on relevant documents, i. e. by considering the extent and direction of the movements of relevant documents across the ranking recorded when comparing PRP against its alternatives.

A comprehensive analysis of parameter settings for novelty-biased cumulative gain

“…These models are theoretically grounded in the interpretations of relevance suggested by Robertson et al [9] (see also [7,15] for further details).…”