1 01/10/09 1 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Overview of the INFILE track at CLEF 2009 multilingual INformation FILtering Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SINAI-GIR A Multilingual Geographical IR System University of Jaén (Spain) José Manuel Perea Ortega CLEF 2008, 18 September, Aarhus (Denmark) Computer.
Advertisements

Overview of Collaborative Information Retrieval (CIR) at FIRE 2012 Debasis Ganguly, Johannes Leveling, Gareth Jones School of Computing, CNGL, Dublin City.
Information Retrieval Visualization CPSC 533c Class Presentation Qixing Zheng March 22, 2004.
Search Engines and Information Retrieval
Carnegie Mellon 1 Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Information Thresholding Yi Zhang & Jamie Callan Carnegie Mellon University
Modern Information Retrieval
XML Document Mining Challenge Bridging the gap between Information Retrieval and Machine Learning Ludovic DENOYER – University of Paris 6.
Information Retrieval in Practice
Information Access I Measurement and Evaluation GSLT, Göteborg, October 2003 Barbara Gawronska, Högskolan i Skövde.
Reference Collections: Task Characteristics. TREC Collection Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) –sponsored by NIST and DARPA (1992-?) Comparing approaches.
Retrieval Evaluation. Introduction Evaluation of implementations in computer science often is in terms of time and space complexity. With large document.
An investigation of query expansion terms Gheorghe Muresan Rutgers University, School of Communication, Information and Library Science 4 Huntington St.,
The Relevance Model  A distribution over terms, given information need I, (Lavrenko and Croft 2001). For term r, P(I) can be dropped w/o affecting the.
Personalized Ontologies for Web Search and Caching Susan Gauch Information and Telecommunications Technology Center Electrical Engineering and Computer.
Evaluation Information retrieval Web. Purposes of Evaluation System Performance Evaluation efficiency of data structures and methods operational profile.
1 The Web as a Parallel Corpus  Parallel corpora are useful  Training data for statistical MT  Lexical correspondences for cross-lingual IR  Early.
 Official Site: facility.org/research/evaluation/clef-ip-10http:// facility.org/research/evaluation/clef-ip-10.
Combining Content-based and Collaborative Filtering Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Slovak University of Technology
Search and Retrieval: Relevance and Evaluation Prof. Marti Hearst SIMS 202, Lecture 20.
Challenges in Information Retrieval and Language Modeling Michael Shepherd Dalhousie University Halifax, NS Canada.
A New Approach for Cross- Language Plagiarism Analysis Rafael Corezola Pereira, Viviane P. Moreira, and Renata Galante Universidade Federal do Rio Grande.
Finding parallel texts on the web using cross-language information retrieval Achim Ruopp Joint work with Fei Xia University of Washington.
August 21, 2002Szechenyi National Library Support for Multilingual Information Access Douglas W. Oard College of Information Studies and Institute for.
Processing of large document collections Part 3 (Evaluation of text classifiers, applications of text categorization) Helena Ahonen-Myka Spring 2005.
Search Engines and Information Retrieval Chapter 1.
CLEF Ǻrhus Robust – Word Sense Disambiguation exercise UBC: Eneko Agirre, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, Arantxa Otegi, German Rigau UVA & Irion: Piek Vossen.
TREC 2009 Review Lanbo Zhang. 7 tracks Web track Relevance Feedback track (RF) Entity track Blog track Legal track Million Query track (MQ) Chemical IR.
Minimal Test Collections for Retrieval Evaluation B. Carterette, J. Allan, R. Sitaraman University of Massachusetts Amherst SIGIR2006.
Philosophy of IR Evaluation Ellen Voorhees. NIST Evaluation: How well does system meet information need? System evaluation: how good are document rankings?
©2008 Srikanth Kallurkar, Quantum Leap Innovations, Inc. All rights reserved. Apollo – Automated Content Management System Srikanth Kallurkar Quantum Leap.
1 Cross-Lingual Query Suggestion Using Query Logs of Different Languages SIGIR 07.
“ SINAI at CLEF 2005 : The evolution of the CLEF2003 system.” Fernando Martínez-Santiago Miguel Ángel García-Cumbreras University of Jaén.
Improving Web Spam Classification using Rank-time Features September 25, 2008 TaeSeob,Yun KAIST DATABASE & MULTIMEDIA LAB.
Modern Information Retrieval: A Brief Overview By Amit Singhal Ranjan Dash.
The CLEF 2003 cross language image retrieval task Paul Clough and Mark Sanderson University of Sheffield
Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) IST Expected Kick-off Date: August 2001 Carol Peters IEI-CNR, Pisa, Italy Carol Peters: blabla Carol.
MIRACLE Multilingual Information RetrievAl for the CLEF campaign DAEDALUS – Data, Decisions and Language, S.A. Universidad Carlos III de.
IIIT Hyderabad’s CLIR experiments for FIRE-2008 Sethuramalingam S & Vasudeva Varma IIIT Hyderabad, India 1.
Enhancing Cluster Labeling Using Wikipedia David Carmel, Haggai Roitman, Naama Zwerdling IBM Research Lab (SIGIR’09) Date: 11/09/2009 Speaker: Cho, Chin.
Using Surface Syntactic Parser & Deviation from Randomness Jean-Pierre Chevallet IPAL I2R Gilles Sérasset CLIPS IMAG.
WIRED Week 3 Syllabus Update (next week) Readings Overview - Quick Review of Last Week’s IR Models (if time) - Evaluating IR Systems - Understanding Queries.
How robust is CLIR? Proposal for a new robust task at CLEF Thomas Mandl Information Science Universität Hildesheim 6 th Workshop.
Iterative Translation Disambiguation for Cross Language Information Retrieval Christof Monz and Bonnie J. Dorr Institute for Advanced Computer Studies.
Clarity Cross-Lingual Document Retrieval, Categorisation and Navigation Based on Distributed Services
CLEF Kerkyra Robust – Word Sense Disambiguation exercise UBC: Eneko Agirre, Arantxa Otegi UNIPD: Giorgio Di Nunzio UH: Thomas Mandl.
Measuring How Good Your Search Engine Is. *. Information System Evaluation l Before 1993 evaluations were done using a few small, well-known corpora of.
Digital Libraries1 David Rashty. Digital Libraries2 “A library is an arsenal of liberty” Anonymous.
Intelligent Database Systems Lab 國立雲林科技大學 National Yunlin University of Science and Technology 1 Iterative Translation Disambiguation for Cross-Language.
Information Retrieval
The Cross Language Image Retrieval Track: ImageCLEF Breakout session discussion.
1 13/05/07 1/20 LIST – DTSI – Interfaces, Cognitics and Virtual Reality Unit The INFILE project: a crosslingual filtering systems evaluation campaign Romaric.
1 What Makes a Query Difficult? David Carmel, Elad YomTov, Adam Darlow, Dan Pelleg IBM Haifa Research Labs SIGIR 2006.
The Loquacious ( 愛說話 ) User: A Document-Independent Source of Terms for Query Expansion Diane Kelly et al. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Combining Text and Image Queries at ImageCLEF2005: A Corpus-Based Relevance-Feedback Approach Yih-Cheng Chang Department of Computer Science and Information.
Thomas Mandl: Robust CLEF Overview 1 Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) Thomas Mandl Information Science Universität Hildesheim
Indri at TREC 2004: UMass Terabyte Track Overview Don Metzler University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1 The Domain-Specific Track at CLEF 2007 Vivien Petras, Stefan Baerisch & Max Stempfhuber GESIS Social Science Information Centre, Bonn, Germany Budapest,
Text Information Management ChengXiang Zhai, Tao Tao, Xuehua Shen, Hui Fang, Azadeh Shakery, Jing Jiang.
Analysis of Experiments on Hybridization of different approaches in mono and cross-language information retrieval DAEDALUS – Data, Decisions and Language,
Usefulness of Quality Click- through Data for Training Craig Macdonald, ladh Ounis Department of Computing Science University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Knowledge and Information Retrieval Dr Nicholas Gibbins 32/4037.
Information Retrieval and Extraction 2009 Term Project – Modern Web Search Advisor: 陳信希 TA: 蔡銘峰&許名宏.
1 INFILE - INformation FILtering Evaluation Evaluation of adaptive filtering systems for business intelligence and technology watch Towards real use conditions.
Using Blog Properties to Improve Retrieval Gilad Mishne (ICWSM 2007)
CLEF Workshop ECDL 2003 Trondheim Michael Kluck slide 1 Introduction to the Monolingual and Domain-Specific Tasks of the Cross-language.
A Trainable Multi-factored QA System Radu Ion, Dan Ştefănescu, Alexandru Ceauşu, Dan Tufiş, Elena Irimia, Verginica Barbu-Mititelu Research Institute for.
Information Retrieval in Practice
Walid Magdy Gareth Jones
IR Theory: Evaluation Methods
Multilingual Information Access in a Digital Library
Presentation transcript:

1 01/10/09 1 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Overview of the INFILE track at CLEF 2009 multilingual INformation FILtering Evaluation Romaric Besançon (1), Djamel Mostefa, Olivier Hamon, Khalid Choukri (2), Stéphane Chaudiron,Ismaïl Timimi (3) (1)(2)(3)

2 01/10/09 2 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Presentation of the INFILE track Information Filtering Evaluation  Filter documents from a document stream according to long-term information needs (user profiles) Second edition of the INFILE track in CLEF  1 participant in 2008  use same data in 2009

3 01/10/09 3 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Presentation of the INFILE track Mutlilingual English, French, Arabic for both documents and topics Two tasks batch filtering  the whole corpus is given to the participants, which must return a list of filtered documents for each topic adaptive filtering  documents are provided to the participants one at a time through an interactive procedure, with possible automated feedback to adapt the filtering system  closer to real usage in a context of competitive intelligence

4 01/10/09 4 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Document Collection Built from a corpus of news from the AFP (Agence France Presse) almost 1.5 million news in French, English and Arabic For the information filtering task: documents to filter, in each language NewsML format standard XML format for news (IPTC)

5 01/10/09 5 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Document example document identifier keywords headline

6 01/10/09 6 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Document example IPTC category AFP category content

7 01/10/09 7 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Topics 50 interest profiles 20 profiles in the domain of science and technology  developped by CI professionals from French institutes INIST, ARIS, Oto Research, Digiport 30 profiles of general interest Profiles developed in French/English Translated into Arabic

8 01/10/09 8 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Topics Each profile contains 5 fields: title: a few words description description: a one-sentence description narrative: a longer description of what is considered a relevant document keywords: a set of key words, key phrases or named entities sample: a sample of relevant document (one paragraph)  Participants may use any subset of the fields for their filtering

9 01/10/09 9 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Topic Example

10 01/10/09 10 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Some topic examples in general domain in scientific information domain

11 01/10/09 11 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Constitution of the corpus Same corpus as 2008 With simulated feedback, we need the ground truth before the campaign To build the corpus of documents to filter:  find relevant documents for the profiles in the original corpus  use a pooling technique with results of IR tools  4 IR engines (Lucene, Indri, Zettair and CEA search engine), on several query fields combinations  iterative pooling using Mixture-of-Experts model

12 01/10/09 12 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Constitution of the corpus (2) keep all documents assessed documents returned by IR systems by judged not relevant form a set of difficult documents choose random documents (noise) collection retrieved assessed relevant test collection random

13 01/10/09 13 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Corpus Number of relevant documents for each topic, in each language

14 01/10/09 14 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Tasks Batch filtering (02/ /05)  documents and topics available to participants  return list of filtered documents per topic (unordered) Adaptive filtering (03/ /07)  topics available to participants  documents available one at a time (one pass test)  interactive protocol using a client-server architecture (webservice communication)  new document available only if previous one has been filtered  available simulated user feedback  for adapatation  limited number of feedbacks (200)

15 01/10/09 15 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Evaluation metrics Standard precision / recall / F-measure Utility (from TREC filtering tracks) per profile and averaged on all profiles adaptivity: evolution curve (values computed each documents) two experimental measures originality  number of relevant documents a system uniquely retrieves anticipation  inverse rank of first relevant document detected

16 01/10/09 16 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico INFILE Participants 9 registered 5 submitted runs batch filtering 3 participants, 12 runs interactive filtering 2 participants, 3 runs 27

17 01/10/09 17 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico INFILE results Repartition of runs by task and languages ara fre eng ara fre batch adaptive

18 01/10/09 18 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico INFILE results – monolingual batch filtering

19 01/10/09 19 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico INFILE results – crosslingual / adaptive filtering 57% best mono 90% same team mono crosslingual better than monolingual

20 01/10/09 20 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico INFILE results – anticipation/originality strongly correlated with recall too few pariticipants

21 01/10/09 21 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Approaches Filtering  adapted Information Retrieval tools (Lucene)  SVM classifier with external ressources (GoogleNews)  textual similarity measures with thresholds  reasoning model (human plausible reasoning) Adaptation  adaptation of selection thresholds  user feedback as parameter in reasoning model Crosslingual  bilingual dictionaries  machine translation

22 01/10/09 22 INFILE CEA LIST ELDA Univ. Lille 3 - Geriico Conclusion and after… Increasing participation, reasonable result, but not enough… Currently, no INFILE track planned for next year interest in multilingual filtering ?  2/3 runs on monolingual English  not enough participants for crosslingual to have comparative results no funding INFILE evaluation kit will be made available  corpus of documents / topics / relevance assessments  tools for the interactive adaptive filtering procedure  tools for the evaluation distributed by ELDA