2010
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-12275-0_50
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Improving Pseudo-Relevance Feedback Using Pseudo-Irrelevant Documents

Abstract: Abstract. Pseudo-Relevance Feedback (PRF) assumes that the topranking n documents of the initial retrieval are relevant and extracts expansion terms from them. In this work, we introduce the notion of pseudo-irrelevant documents, i.e. high-scoring documents outside of top n that are highly unlikely to be relevant. We show how pseudo-irrelevant documents can be used to extract better expansion terms from the topranking n documents: good expansion terms are those which discriminate the top-ranking n documents fr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It assumes that topranked documents in the first-pass retrieval are relevant, and then used as feedback documents in order to refine the representation of original queries by adding potentially related terms. Although PRF has been shown to be effective in improving IR performance [4,6,9,13,23,26,28,30,36,37,40,42] in a number of IR tasks, traditional PRF can also fail in some cases. For example, when some of the feedback documents have several incoherent topics, terms in the irrelevant contents are likely to misguide the feedback models by importing noisy terms into the queries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It assumes that topranked documents in the first-pass retrieval are relevant, and then used as feedback documents in order to refine the representation of original queries by adding potentially related terms. Although PRF has been shown to be effective in improving IR performance [4,6,9,13,23,26,28,30,36,37,40,42] in a number of IR tasks, traditional PRF can also fail in some cases. For example, when some of the feedback documents have several incoherent topics, terms in the irrelevant contents are likely to misguide the feedback models by importing noisy terms into the queries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…With the refined query, usually better retrieval performance can be expected. PRF has been shown to be effective with various retrieval models [6,10,14,17,29,32,34,35,42,44,46,43,25]. There are a large number of studies on the topic of PRF.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It assumes that top-ranked documents in the first-pass retrieval are relevant, and then used as feedback documents in order to refine the representation of original queries by adding potentially related terms or adjusting the weights of query terms. PRF has been shown to be effective in improving IR performance [6,10,14,17,29,32,34,35,42,44,46] in a number of IR tasks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two categories of studies have been conducted on the topic of PRF. For example, Raman et al (2010) utilized irrelevant feedback documents to extract specific expansion terms from top-ranked documents and showed that good expansion terms are those that discriminate the top-ranked documents. For example, Raman et al (2010) utilized irrelevant feedback documents to extract specific expansion terms from top-ranked documents and showed that good expansion terms are those that discriminate the top-ranked documents.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One category has mainly concentrated on investigating the different impacts of the relevant and irrelevant feedback documents or how to reduce the negative impact of the irrelevant documents (for instance, Mbarek et al (2017); Raman, Udupa, Bhattacharyya, & Bhole, 2010;Singhal, Mitra, & Buckley, 1997;Wang, Fang, & Zhai, 2008;Basile, Caputo, & Semeraro, 2011). For example, Raman et al (2010) utilized irrelevant feedback documents to extract specific expansion terms from top-ranked documents and showed that good expansion terms are those that discriminate the top-ranked documents. The other category involves proposed methods of improving QE processing (for instance, Carpineto et al, 2001;Collins-Thompson, 2009;Greenberg, 2001b;Bai, Song, Bruza, Nie, & Cao, 2005).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%