Democracy is good for ranking: Towards multi-view rank learning and adaptation in web search
WSDM 2014 - Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Page: 63-72
2014
- 11Citations
- 31Usage
- 20Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes11
- 11
- CrossRef9
- Usage31
- Downloads26
- Abstract Views5
- Captures20
- Readers20
- 20
Conference Paper Description
Web search ranking models are learned from features originated from different views or perspectives of document relevancy, such as query dependent or independent features. This seems intuitively conformant to the principle of multi-view approach that leverages distinct complementary views to improve model learning. In this paper, we aim to obtain optimal separation of ranking features into non-overlapping subsets (i.e., views), and use such different views for rank learning and adaptation. We present a novel semi-supervised multi-view ranking model, which is then extended into an adaptive ranker for search domains where no training data exists. The core idea is to proactively strengthen view consistency (i.e., the consistency between different rankings each predicted by a distinct view-based ranker) especially when training and test data follow divergent distributions. For this purpose, we propose a unified framework based on listwise ranking scheme to mutually reinforce the view consistency of target queries and the appropriate weighting of source queries that act as prior knowledge. Based on LETOR and Yahoo Learning to Rank datasets, our method significantly outperforms some strong baselines including single-view ranking models commonly used and multi-view ranking models that do not impose view consistency on target data. © 2014 ACM.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84898665654&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556195.2556267; https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2556195.2556267; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/4583; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5586&context=sis_research
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know