Exploring Structured Documents and Query Formulation Techniques for Patent Retrieval

  • Walid Magdy
  • Johannes Leveling
  • Gareth J. F. Jones
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6241)

Abstract

This paper presents the experiments and results of DCU in CLEF-IP 2009. Our work applied standard information retrieval (IR) techniques to patent search. Different experiments tested various methods for the patent retrieval, including query formulation, structured index, weighted fields, document filtering, and blind relevance feedback. Some methods did not show expected good retrieval effectiveness such as blind relevance feedback, other experiments showed acceptable performance. Query formulation was the key to achieving better retrieval effectiveness, and this was performed through assigning higher weights to certain document fields. Further experiments showed that for longer queries, better results are achieved but at the expense of additional computations. For the best runs, the retrieval effectiveness is still lower than for IR applications for other domains, illustrating the difficulty of patent search. The official results have shown that among fifteen participants we achieved the seventh and the fourth ranks from the mean average precision (MAP) and recall point of view, respectively.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fujii, A., Iwayama, M., Kando, N.: Overview of patent retrieval task at NTCIR-4. In: Proceedings of the Fourth NTCIR Workshop on Evaluation of Information Retrieval, Automatic Text Summarization and Question Answering, Tokyo, Japan, June 2-4 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graf, E., Azzopardi, L.: A methodology for building a patent test collection for prior art search. In: EVIA-2008 Workshop, NTCIR-7 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hull, D.: Using statistical testing in the evaluation of retrieval experiments. In: SIGIR 1993, New York, NY, USA, pp. 329–338 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Porter, M.F.: An Algorithm for Suffix Stripping. Program 14(3), 130–137 (1980)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roda, G., Tait, J., Piroi, F., Zenz, V.: CLEF-IP 2009: retrieval experiments in the Intellectual Property domain. In: CLEF Working Notes 2009, Corfu, Greece (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strohman, T., Metzler, D., Turtle, H., Croft, W.B.: Indri: A language model-based search engine for complex queries. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IPC (International Patent Classification), http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/ipc-reform.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walid Magdy
    • 1
  • Johannes Leveling
    • 1
  • Gareth J. F. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Next Generation Localization, School of ComputingDublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations