Tag Archives: Research

A look at European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR) 2012

Posted on by
Reply

European Conference on Information Retrieval

The 34th European Conference on Information Retrieval was held  1-5 April 2011, in the lovely but crowded city of Barcelona, Spain. The core conference attracted over 100 attendees, with a total of 35 accepted full papers, 28 posters, and 7 demos being presented. As opposed to the previous year, which had 2 parallel sessions, this year’s conference included a single running session. The accepted papers covered a diverse range of topics, and were divided into query representation, blog and online-community search, semi-structured retrieval, applications, evaluation, retrieval models, classification, categorisation and clustering, image and video retrieval, and systems efficiency.

The best paper award went to Guido Zuccon, Leif Azzopardi, Dell Zhang and Jun Wang for their work entitled “Top-k Retrieval using Facility Location Analysis” and presented by Leif Azzopardi during the retrieval models session. The authors propose using facility location analysis taken from the discipline of operations research to address the top-k retrieval problem of finding “the optimal set of k documents from a number of relevant documents given the user’s query”.

Meanwhile, “Predicting IMDB Movie Ratings using Social Media” by Andrei Oghina, Mathias Breuss, Manos Tsagkias and Maarten de Rijke won the best poster award. With a different goal from the best paper, the authors of the poster experiment with a prediction model for rating movies using a set of qualitative and quantitative features extracted from the stream of two social media channels, YouTube and Twitter. Their findings show that the highest predictive performance is obtained by combining features from both channels, and propose as future work to include other social media channels.

Workshop Days

The conference was preceded by a full day of workshops and tutorials running in parallel. I attended two workshops: Information Retrieval Over Query Sessions (SIR) during the morning and Task-Based and Aggregated Search (TBAS) in the afternoon. The second workshop ended with an interactive discussion. A third, full-day workshop was Searching 4 Fun!.

Industry Day

The last day was the Industry Day. Only 2 papers here, plus 5 oral contributions, and around 50 attendees. A strong focus of the talks given at the industry day was on opinion-mining: four of the six participating companies/institutions presented work on sentiment analysis and opinion mining from social media streams. Jussi Karlgren, from Gavagai, argued that sentiment analysis from social media can be used by companies for example in finding reviews or comments made about their product or service, analyse their market position, and predict price movements. Rianne Kaptein, from Oxyme, backed this up by adding that businesses are interested by what the consumers say about their brand, products or campaigns on social media streams. Furthermore, Hugo Zaragoza from Websays identified two basic needs inside a company: a need for help in reading so that someone can act, and a need for help in explaining so that it can convince. Very interesting topic indeed, and research in this direction will advance as companies become more aware of the business gains from opinion mining of social media.

Overall, ECIR 2012 was a very inspiring conference. It also seemed a very friendly conference, offering many opportunities to network with the fellow attendees. Despite that, several participants said that the number of attendees at this year’s conference has decreased in comparison with previous years. The workshops and the core conference gave me the impression that it has a strong focus on young researchers, as many of the accepted contributions had a student as a first author and presenter at the conference. The fact that there was only one session running at a time was a good decision in my opinion, as the attendees were not forced to miss presentations. Nevertheless, the workshops and tutorials were running in parallel, and although the proceedings of the workshops will be made freely available, I still feel that I missed something that day. The industry day was very exciting, offering the opportunity to share ideas between academia and industry. However, there were not so many presentations, and the topics were not as diverse. I propose that next year Findwise will be among the speakers at the Industry track!

ECIR 2013 will be held in Moscow, Russia, between 24-28 March. See you there!

Findwise in Cooperation with Borås University College Receives Research Grant

Posted on by
Reply

In recent decades Swedish and Western industry have had to adapt to the new paradigm. Moving from classical production industry organizations towards knowledge companies in which sales of services and knowledge are often bundled with a product – resulting in a complete solution. This change is vital for the survival of the Western world’s economy which previously has been built upon organizations of heavy industrial giants optimizing production processes and factory outputs by reducing overheads and increasing quality.

The threat to the industry from low cost countries, which no longer only compete just on low cost, but also with high quality and competence, forces Western organizations to develop new strategies to sustain their growth and competitive advantage. Cutting margins in order to compete with low cost countries is a downward spiral. Instead changing the model, to be able to provide knowledge and holistic understanding of customers needs and the ability to rapidly deliver a complete solution is now becoming the key competitive advantage. This however requires investment in IT and knowledge exchange tools. By moving away from selling physical products and components to solutions higher margins are possible because more business value is exchanged in the transactions.

The organizations adapting to this change, are identifiable by the fact that they consider knowledge and information as corporate assets – treated and cared for as any other asset. One example is the Swedish company SKF Group whose new vision is the “Knowledge Engineering Company” where the company going through a change from component supplier to a holistic supplier of both products and services.

A key success factor in this transformation from products to solutions is that the supply of knowledge and information to the employees is effective, easy to use and complete. The organization succeeds in providing that extra value, thereby allowing higher margins. Historical key performing indicators (KPIs) such as factory output, reduction of defects and increasing of quality, are dealing with physical production efficiency to ensure as little cost per unit manufactured and as high quality as possible. Individuals are used to measuring these KPIs and provide a way to manage the operational production processes. The turnover and efficiency of information and knowledge exchange lacks these models and measurement tools, thereby not allowing them to be managed. What you can’t measure, you can’t manage, or improve.

One technical solution which has the capabilities to enable complete, rapid and reduced turnover time for knowledge and information exchange, is Enterprise Search. This has been recognized by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, which granted Findwise AB research funds to tackle this problem in cooperation with the College University of Borås in the Strategic Mobility program. The funded project will study the usefulness and value of a well functioning search engine for work-related information use. It will also identify performing indicators for information and knowledge exchange through search and to achieve results that systematically will illustrate the quantitative direct effects together with soft indirect effects.

The project will start early 2010 and run through the entire year. As part of the project, Dr. Katriina Byström will join Findwise and work together with Findwise employees in this joint research project. Findwise customers are invited to participate in the project and will have the availability to influence its direction. For more information on research at Findwise contact Henrik Strindberg.

About Dr. Katriina Byström
Dr. Katriina Byström is an associate professor in the Swedish School of Library and Information Science at the University College of Borås & Goteborg University, Sweden. She is one of initiators and director of the IA bachelor’s programme at Swedish School of Library and Information Science, and she is a chair for the programme with teaching involvement broadly across the curricula. Furthermore , Katriina is associate editor and co-founder at the Journal of Information Architecture. Katriina’s degree is in information studies, and her research focus on task-based information seeking, information retrieval and information architecture.

What Differentiates a Good Search Engine from a Bad One?

Posted on by
Reply

That was one of the questions the UIE research group asked themselves when conducting a study of on-site search. One of the things they discovered was that the choice of search engine was not as important as the implementation. Most of the big search vendors were found in both the top sites and the bottom sites.

So even though the choice of vendor influences what functionality you can achieve and the control you have over your content there are other things that matter, maybe even more. Because the best search engine in the world will not work for you unless you configure it properly.

According to Jared Spool there are four kinds of search results:

  • ‘Match relevant results’ – returns the exact thing you were looking for.
  • ‘Zero results’ – no relevant results found.
  • ‘Related results’ – i.e. search for a sweater and also get results for a cardigan. (If you know that a cardigan is a type of sweater you are satisfied. Otherwise you just get frustrated and wonder why you got a result for a cardigan when you searched for a sweater).
  • ‘Wacko results – the results seem to have nothing in common with your query.

So what did the best sites do according to Jared Spool and his colleagues?
They returned match relevant results, and they did not return 0 results for searches.

So how do you achieve that then? We have previously written about the importance of content refinement and information quality. But what do you do when trying to achieve good search results with your search engine? And what if you do not have the time or knowledge to do a proper content tuning process?

Well, the search logs are a good way to start. Start looking at them to identify the 100 most common searches and the results they return. Are they match relevant results? It is also a good idea to look at the searches that return zero results and see if there is anything that can be done to improve those searches as well.

Jared Spool and his colleagues at UIE mostly talk about site search for e-commerce sites. For e-commerce sites bad search results mean loss of revenue while good search results hopefully give an increase in revenue (if other things such as check out do not fail). Working with intranet search the implications are a bit different.

With intranet search solutions the searches can be more complex when information not items, is what users are searching for. It might not be as easy to just add synonyms or group similar items to achieve better search results. I believe that in such a complex information universe, proper content tuning is the key to success. But looking at the search logs is a good way for you to start. And me and my colleagues here at Findwise can always help you how to get the most out of your search solution.

New challenges and leaders in the segment of Enterprise Search 2007

Posted on by
Reply

The yearly magic quadrant for Information Access Technology from Gartner has become an important way to evaluate the vendors in Enterprise Search business. The result is presented in a matrix measuring the different players by ability to execute (product, overall viability, customer experience etc.) and the completeness of their vision (offering strategy, innovation etc.). The vendors are then positioned as niche players (a rather crowded spot), visionaries, challengers and leaders.

For the last couple of years the upper right corner, which includes the leaders, has been a yearly fight between FAST Search & Transfer, Autonomy, Verity (which was bought by Autonomy in 2005) and Endeca.

However, the magic quadrant for 2007 shows that there is a substantial change in the market and two new leaders as well as two new large vendors on the challenging spot are represented. Continue reading →