Modern Information Retrieval
Chapter 10: User Interfaces and Visualization - by Marti Hearst


next up previous
Next: 8. Interface Support for Up: 1. User Interfaces and Previous: 6. Context


7. Using Relevance Judgements

An important part of the information access process is query reformulation, and a proven effective technique for query reformulation is relevance feedback. In its original form, relevance feedback refers to an interaction cycle in which the user selects a small set of documents that appear to be relevant to the query, and the system then uses features derived from these selected relevant documents to revise the original query. This revised query is then executed and a new set of documents is returned. Documents from the original set can appear in the new results list, although they are likely to appear in a different rank order. Relevance feedback in its original form has been shown to be an effective mechanism for improving retrieval results in a variety of studies and settings [salton90a][harman92c][buckley94b]. In recent years the scope of ideas that can be classified under this term has widened greatly.

Relevance feedback introduces important design choices, including which operations should be performed automatically by the system and which should be user initiated and controlled. Bates discusses this issue in detail [bates90b], asserting that despite the emphasis in modern systems to try to automate the entire process, an intermediate approach in which the system helps automate search at a strategic level is preferable. Bates suggests an analogy of an automatic camera versus one with adjustable lenses and shutter speeds. On many occasions, a quick, easy method that requires little training or thought is appropriate. At other times the user needs more control over the operation of the machinery, while still not wanting to know about the low level details of its operation.

A related idea is that, for any interface, control should be described in terms of the task being done, not in terms of how the machine can be made to accomplish the task [norman88]. Continuing the camera analogy, the user should be able to control the mood created by the photograph, rather than the adjustment of the lens. In information access systems, control should be over the kind of information returned, not over which terms are used to modify the query. Unfortunately it is often quite difficult to build interfaces to complex systems that behave in this manner.

1. Interfaces for Standard Relevance Feedback

A standard interface for relevance feedback consists of a list of titles with checkboxes beside the titles that allow the user to mark relevant documents. This can imply either that unmarked documents are not relevant or that no opinion has been made about unmarked documents, depending on the system. Another option is to provide a choice among several checkboxes indicating relevant or not relevant (with no selection implying no opinion). In some cases users are allowed to indicate a value on a relevance scale [belew96]. Standard relevance feedback algorithms usually do not perform better given negative relevance judgement evidence [dunlop97], but machine learning algorithms can take advantage of negative feedback [pazzani96][kozierok93].

After the user has made a set of relevance judgements and issued a search command, the system can either automatically reweight the query and re-execute the search, or generate a list of terms for the user to select from in order to augment the original query. (See Figure [*], taken from [koenemann96].) Systems usually do not suggest terms to remove from the query.

Figure: An example of an interface for relevance feedback [koenemann96].

After the query is re-executed, a new list of titles is shown. It can be helpful to retain an indicator such as a marked checkbox beside the documents that the user has already judged. A difficult design decision concerns whether or not to show documents that the user has already viewed towards the top of the ranked list [aalbersberg92]. Repeatedly showing the same set of documents at the top may inconvenience a user who is trying to create a large set of relevant documents, but at the same time, this can serve as feedback indicating that the revised query does not downgrade the ranking of those documents that have been found especially important. One solution is to retain a separate window that shows the rankings of only the documents that have not been retrieved or ranked highly previously. Another solution is to use smaller fonts or gray-out color for the titles of documents already seen.

Creating multiple relevance judgements is an effortful task, and the notion of relevance feedback is unfamiliar to most users. To circumvent these problems, Web-based search engines have adopted the terminology of `more like this' as a simpler way to indicate that the user is requesting documents similar to the selected one. This `one-click' interaction method is simpler than standard relevance feedback dialog which requires users to rate a small number of documents and then request a reranking. Unfortunately, in most cases relevance feedback requires many relevance judgements in order to work well. To partly alleviate this problem, Aalbersberg [aalbersberg92] proposes incremental relevance feedback which works well given only one relevant document at a time and thus can be used to hide the two-step procedure from the user.

2. Studies of User Interaction with Relevance Feedback Systems

Standard relevance feedback assumes the user is involved in the interaction by specifying the relevant documents. In some interfaces users are also able to select which terms to add to the query. However, most ranking and reweighting algorithms are difficult to understand or predict (even for the creators of the algorithms!) and so it might be the case that users have difficulties controlling a relevance feedback system explicitly.

A recent study was conductedto investigate directly to what degree user control of the feedback process is beneficial. Koenemann and Belkin [koenemann96] measured the benefits of letting users `under the hood' during relevance feedback. They tested four cases using the Inquery system [tc90]:

The 64 subjects were much more effective (measuring precision at a cutoff of top 5, top 10, top 30, and top 100 documents) with relevance feedback than without it. The penetrable group performed significantly better than the control, with the opaque and transparent performances falling between the two in effectiveness. Search times did not differ significantly among the conditions, but there were significant differences in the number of feedback iterations. The subjects in the penetrable group required significantly fewer iterations to achieve better queries (an average of 5.8 cycles in the penetrable group, 8.2 cycles in the control group, 7.7 cycles in the opaque group, and surprisingly, the transparent group required more cycles, 8.8 on average). The average number of documents marked relevant ranged between 11 and 14 for the three conditions. All subjects preferred relevance feedback over the baseline system, and several remarked that they preferred the `lazy' approach of selecting suggested terms over having to think up their own.

An observational study on a TTY-based version of an online catalog system [hancock-beaulieu92a] also found that users performed better using a relevance feedback mechanism that allowed manual selection of terms. However, a later observational study did not find overall success with this form of relevance feedback [hancock-beaulieu95]. The authors attribute these results to a poor design of a new graphical interface. These results may also be due to the fact that users often selected only one relevant document before performing the feedback operation, although they were using a system optimized from multiple document selection.

3. Fetching Relevant Information in the Background

Standard relevance feedback is predicated on the goal of improving an ad hoc query or building a profile for a routing query. More recently researchers have begun developing systems that monitor users' progress and behavior over long interaction periods in an attempt to predict which documents or actions the user is likely to want in future. These systems are called semi-automated assistants or recommender `agents,' and often make use of machine learning techniques [mitchell97]. Some of these systems require explicit user input in the form of a goal statement [joachims97] or relevance judgements [pazzani96], while others quietly record users' actions and try to make inferences based on these actions.

A system developed by Kozierok and Maes [kozierok93][maes93] makes predictions about how users will handle email messages (what order to read them in, where to file them) and how users will schedule meetings in a calendar manager application. The system `looks over the shoulder' of the users, recording every relevant action into a database. After enough data has been accumulated, the system uses a nearest-neighbors method [stanfill86b] to predict a user's action based on the similarity of the current situation to situations already encountered. For example, if the user almost always saves email messages from a particular person into a particular file, the system can offer to automate this action the next time a message from that person arrives [maes93]. This system integrates learning from both implicit and explicit user feedback. If a user ignores the system's suggestion, the system treats this as negative feedback, and accordingly adds the overriding action to the action database. After certain types of incorrect predictions, the system asks the user questions that allow it to adjust the weight of the featurethat caused the error. Finally, the user can explicitly train the system by presenting it with hypothetical examples of input-action pairs.

Another system, Syskill and Webert [pazzani96], attempts to learn a user profile based on explicit relevance judgements of pages explored while browsing the Web. In a sense this is akin to standard relevance feedback, except the user judgements are retained across sessions and the interaction model differs: as the user browses a new Web page, the links on the page are automatically annotated as to whether or not they should be relevant to the user's interest.

A related system is Letizia [lieberman95], whose goal is to bring to the user's attention a percentage of the available next moves that are most likely to be of interest, given the user's earlier actions. Upon request, Letizia provides recommendations for further action on the user's part, usually in the form of suggestions of links to follow when the user is unsure what to do next. The system monitors the user's behavior while navigating and reading Web pages, and concurrently evaluates the links reachable from the current page. The system uses only implicit feedback. Thus, saving a page as a bookmark is taken as strong positive evidence for the terms in the corresponding Web page. Links skipped are taken as negative support for the information reachable from the link. Selected links can indicate positive or negative evidence, depending on how much time the user spends on the resulting page and whether or not the decision to leave a page quickly is later reversed. Additionally, the evidence for user interest remains persistent across browsing sessions. Thus, a user who often reads kayaking pages is at another time reading the home page of a professional contact and may be alerted to the fact that the colleague's personal interests page contains a link to a shared hobby. The system uses a best-first search strategy and heuristics to determine which pages to recommend most strongly.

A more user-directed approach to prefetching potentially relevant information is seen in the Butterfly system [mackinlay95]. This interface helps the user follow a series of citation links from a given reference, an important information seeking strategy [bates90b]. The system automatically examines the document the user is currently reading and prefetches the bibliographic citations it refers to. It also retrieves lists of articles that cite the focus document. The underlying assumption is that the services from which the citations are requested do not respond immediately. Rather than making the user wait during the delay associated with each request, the system handles many requests in parallel and the interface uses graphics and animations to show the incrementally growing list of available citations. The system does not try to be clever about which cites to bring first; rather the user can watch the `organically' growing visualization of the document and its citations, and based on what looks relevant, direct the system as to which parts of the citation space to spend more time on.

4. Group Relevance Judgements

Recently there has been much interest in using relevance judgements from a large number of different users to rate or rank information of general interest [resnick97]. Some variations of this social recommendation approach use only similarity among relevance judgements by people with similar tastes, ignoring the representation of the information being judged altogether. This has been found highly effective for rating information in which taste plays a major role, such as movie and music recommendations [shardanand95]. More recent work has combined group relevance judgements with content information [basu98].

5. Pseudo-Relevance Feedback

At the far end of the system versus user feedback spectrum is what is informally known as pseudo-relevance feedback. In this method, rather than relying on the user to choose the top k relevant documents, the system simply assumes that its top-ranked documents are relevant, and uses these documents to augment the query with a relevance feedback ranking algorithm. This procedure has been found to be highly effective in some settings [thompson95][kwok95][allan95], most likely those in which the original query statement is long and precise. An intriguing extension to this idea is to use the output of clustering of retrieval results as the input to a relevance feedback mechanism, either by having the user or the system select the cluster to be used [hearst96e], but this idea has not yet been evaluated.

next up previous
Next: 8. Interface Support for Up: 1. User Interfaces and Previous: 6. Context

Modern Information Retrieval © Addison-Wesley-Longman Publishing co.
1999 Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Berthier Ribeiro-Neto