Friends, Countrymen, Googlers, I come to bury relevance, not to praise it. Well, that’s overstating the case. But I am here today to challenge your approach to information access, and more importantly to tease out and question its philosophical underpinnings. I realize that I’m singling you out as Googlers for holding a belief that is far more widely held, but you are the standard bearers of relevance. And you invited me. Notes: this presentation was delivered at the Google NYC office on 1/7/09. The title is an allusion to Tefko Saracevic’s article, “Relevance Reconsidered”. If you are interested in learning more about the history of relevance I highly recommend his 2007 Lazerow Memorial Lecture on “Relevance in information science” (http://mediabeast.ites.utk.edu/mediasite4/Viewer/?peid=fb8f84cb-9f82-499f-b12c-9a56ab5cf5ba).
27 Favorites
Godfather Consultoria em Estratégias Sociais, Consultor em Estratégias e Inteligência de Marketing Digital at Godfather Consultoria em Estratégias Sociais, favorited this 3 months ago
Google Tech Talk: Reconsidering Relevance - Presentation Transcript
Reconsidering Relevance Daniel Tunkelang Chief Scientist, Endeca
howdy!
1988 – 1992
1993 – 1998
1999 -
overview
what is relevance?
what’s wrong with relevance?
what are the alternatives?
but first let’s set the stage
iconic businesses of the 20 th and 21 st centuries I’m Feeling Lucky
process and scale orchestration
but there’s a dark side
users are satisfied
an interesting contrast
“ Search on the internet is solved. I always find what I need. But why not in the enterprise? Seems like a solution waiting to happen.”
- a Fortune 500 CTO
the real questions
What is “search on the internet” and why is it perceived a solved problem?
What is “search in the enterprise” and why is it perceived as an unsolved problem?
And what does this have to do with relevance?
easy vs. hard search problems
easy where to buy Ender in Exile ?
hard good novel to read on the beach?
easy proof that sorting has n log n lower bound?
hard algorithm to sort partially ordered set, given a constant-time comparator?
what is relevance?
what’s wrong with relevance?
what are the alternatives?
defining relevance
Relevance is defined as a measure of information conveyed by a document relative to a query. It is shown that the relationship between the document and the query, though necessary, is not sufficient to determine relevance.
William Goffman, On relevance as a measure, 1964.
we need more definitions
let’s work top-down
information retrieval (IR) = study of retrieval of information (not data) from collection of written documents retrieved documents aim at satisfying user information need
IR assumes information needs
user information need = natural language declaration of informational need of user
query = expression of user information need in input language provided by information system
relevance drives IR modeling
modeling = studies algorithms used for ranking documents according to system assigned likelihood of relevance
model = a set of premises and an algorithm for ranking documents with regard to a user query
a relevance-centric approach information Need query select from results rank using IR model USER: SYSTEM: tf-idf PageRank
what is relevance?
what’s wrong with relevance?
what are the alternatives?
our first communication problem information need query
2 words?
natural language?
telepathy?
and the game of telephone continues query rank using IR model
cumulative error
relevance is subjective
what Goffman said
and hopefully users feel lucky rank using IR model
selection bias
inefficient channel
backup plan?
select from results
queries are misinterpreted Results 1-10 out of about 344,000,000 for ir
ranked lists are inefficient
assumptions of relevance-centric approach
self-awareness
self-expression
model knows best
answer is a document
one-shot query
can we do better?
what is relevance?
what’s wrong with relevance?
what are the alternatives?
human-computer information retrieval
don’t just guess the user’s intent
optimize communication
increase user responsibility and control
require and reward human intellectual effort
“ Toward Human-Computer Information Retrieval” Gary Marchionini
human computer information retrieval
a concrete use case
Colleague: Hey Daniel! You should check out what this guy Steve Pollitt’s been researching. Sounds right up your alley.
Daniel: Sure thing, I’ll look into it.
google him!
google scholar him?
rexa him?
getting better
hcir-inspired interface
tags provide summarization and guidance
my information need evolves as i learn
hcir – implementing the vision
scatter/gather: a search for “star”
faceted search
practical considerations
which facets to show
which facet values to show
when to suggest faceted refinement
how to automate faceted classification
showing the right facets: microwaves
showing the right facets: ceiling fans
query-driven clarification before refinement
Matching Categories include:
Appliances > Small Appliances > Irons & Steamers
Appliances > Small Appliances > Microwaves & Steamers
Bath > Sauna & Spas > Steamers
Kitchen > Bakeware & Cookware > Cookware >
Open Stock Pots > Double Boilers & Steamers
Kitchen > Small Appliances > Steamers
results-driven clarification before refinement Search : storage
crowd-sourcing to tag documents
hcir cheats the precision / recall trade-off recall precision
set retrieval 2.0
set retrieval that responds to queries with
overview of the user's current context
organized set of options for exploration
contextual summaries of document sets
optimize system’s communication with user
query refinement options
optimize user’s communication with system
hcir using set retrieval 2.0
emphasize set summaries over ranked lists
establish a dialog between the user and the data
enable exploration and discovery
think outside the (search) box
relevance-centric search solves many use cases
but not some of the most valuable ones
support interaction, exploration
human-computer information retrieval
one more thing …
“ Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
We've become complacent about relevance. The overwhelming success of web search engines has lulled even information retrieval (IR) researchers to expect only incremental improvements in relevance in the near future. And beyond web search, there are still broad search problems where relevance still feels hopelessly like the pre-Google web.
But even some of the most basic IR questions about relevance are unresolved. We take for granted the very idea that a computer can determine which documents are relevant to a person's needs. And we still rely on two-word queries (on average) to communicate a user's information need. But this approach is a contrivance; in reality, we need to think of information-seeking as a problem of optimizing the communication between people and machines.
We can do better. In fact, there are a variety of ongoing efforts to do so, often under the banners of "interactive information retrieval", "exploratory search", and "human computer information retrieval". In this talk, I'll discuss these initiatives and how they are helping to move "relevance" beyond today's outdated assumptions.
About the Speaker
Daniel Tunkelang is co-founder and Chief Scientist at Endeca, a leading provider of enterprise information access solutions. He leads Endeca's efforts to develop features and capabilities that emphasize user interaction. Daniel has spearheaded the annual Workshops on Human Computer Information Retrieval (HCIR) and is organizing the Industry Track for SIGIR '09. Daniel also publishes The Noisy Channel, a widely read and cited blog that focuses on how people interact with information.
Daniel holds undergraduate degrees in mathematics and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a minor in psychology. He completed a PhD at Carnegie Mellon University for his work on information visualization. His work previous to Endeca includes stints at the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center and AT&T Labs, less
3 comments
Comments 1 - 3 of 3 previous next Post a comment