Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2009 Edition
| Editors: LING LIU, M. TAMER ÖZSU

Web Search Relevance Feedback

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_462

Definition

Relevance feedback refers to an interactive cycle that helps to improve the retrieval performance based on the relevance judgments provided by a user. Specifically, when a user issues a query to describe an information need, an information retrieval system would first return a set of initial results and then ask the user to judge whether some information items (typically documents or passages) are relevant or not. After that, the system would reformulate the query based on the collected feedback information, and return a set of retrieval results, which presumably would be better than the initial retrieval results. This procedure could be repeated.

Historical Background

Quality of retrieval results highly depends on how effective a user’s query (usually a set of keywords) is in distinguishing relevant documents from non-relevant ones. Ideally, the keywords used in the query should occur only in the relevant documents and not in any non-relevant document. Unfortunately, in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Allan J. Relevance feedback with too much data. In Proc. 18th Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1995, pp. 337–343.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckley C. Automatic query expansion using SMART: TREC-3. In Overview of the Third Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-3), D. Harman (ed.), 1995, pp. 69–80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burges C., Shaked T., Renshaw E., Lazier A., Deeds M., Hamilton N., and Hullender G. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, 2005, pp. 89–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joachims T. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proc. 8th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2002, pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelly D. and Teevan J. Implicit feedback for inferring user preference. SIGIR Forum, 37(2):18–28, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robertson S.E. and Jones K.S. Relevance weighting of search terms. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 27(3):129–146, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson S.E., Walker S., Jones S., Hancock-Beaulieu M.M., and Gatford M. Okapi at TREC-3. In Proc. The 3rd Text Retrieval Conference, 1995, pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rocchio J. Relevance feedback in information retrieval. In The SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1971, pp. 313–323.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruthven I. and Lalmas M. A survey on the use of relevance feedback for information access system. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(2):95–145, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salton G. and Buckley C. Improving retrieval performance by relevance feedback. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 44(4):288–297, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shen X. and Zhai C. Active feedback in ad hoc information retrieval. In Proc. 31st Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2005, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singhal A., Mitra M., and Buckley C. Learning routing queries in a query zone. In Proc. 20th Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1997, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang X., Fang H., and Zhai C. A study of methods for negative relevance feedback. In Proc. 34th Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2008, pp. 219–226.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xu J. and Croft W.B. Query expansion using local and global document analysis. In Proc. 19th Annual Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1996, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhai C. and Lafferty J. Model-based feedback in the language modeling approach to information retrieval. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, 2001, pp. 403–410.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA