Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Craig's Thesis Available

Following up from my successful defence, I'm pleased to announce that my thesis, titled The Voting Model for People Search is now available online.

My thesis proposes the Voting Model for various people search problems, such as expert search in enterprise settings (find me someone who knows about...) , or blog(ger) search (find me a blog about the general topic...). I also examine the reviewer assignment problem (suggest for me reviewers for this paper...). In general, the Voting Model is concerned with the ranking of aggregates of documents.

Experimental chapters are mainly carried out using TREC Enterprise track and Blog track test collections.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Correlator launched

Yahoo! Research has launched a new search engine called Correlator. It uses advanced techniques from Natural Language Processing and Computational Linguistics to locate entities within text and to group sentences about these entities from different documents. In his talk at the ECIR 2008 Industry Day, Hugo Zaragoza who championed the Correlator project at Yahoo! Research Barcelona, described some of the system's underlying approaches and technologies. In a blog post introducing the search engine, he states:
The core of Correlator is a search engine capable of returning not only relevant documents, but also relevant sentences and entities.
Currently, Correlator uses Wikipedia as the underlying document collection. However, the Correlator team contends that this can be extended to other collections and types of documents such as blogs.

I have quickly tried Correlator this morning. My first impression of the system is that it does extremely well on many queries - e.g. results for queries such as "precision and recall" are pretty good and informative. However, there are several areas for improvement when it comes to identifying relationships between entities. For example, for the query "Tony Blair", when searching for names, the system suggests many entities as 'probably related to Tony Blair', however the precise nature of the relationship between the two entities is not stated, e.g. Cherie Blair should be presented as the definite wife of Tony Blair. Indeed, it is left to the user the task of browsing through various possible suggested relationships between the named entities. However, this might be a design choice by the designers of the system, favouring high coverage over high precision.

Relatedly, it is of note that TREC 2009 will include a new Entity track. One of the currently proposed search tasks is the identification of relationships between entities.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Choosing an issue tracking system

I recently posted about our deployment of an issue tracking system for use by the Terrier platform.

When we recently made the decision process to an issue tracking system, I reviewed several alternative products, namely Scarab, Mantis, and JIRA. Firstly, I should say that I was already familiar with JIRA through its extensive usage by the Apache Software Foundation, e.g. by Hadoop and Pig.

When I evaluated all three products, I found Scarab to be the nearest to JIRA, however it required much work to setup an issue tracking system that was full of "attributeGroup1" etc. labels. Scarab also lacked querying features: e.g. it had an advanced SQL inspired querying interface, but no easy way to see "All Issues" or "Most Recently Updated Issues". For me, this is a killer problem, as Bugzilla faces the same issue. It should be easy to see what the current problems are, or what issues people are working on. At the end of the day, as a developer, you spend more time querying an issue tracker than you do filing issues.

I'm no expert at HTML & CSS, so for Mantis, I was pleased when it installed with a cleaner default theme. However, with Mantis, the fields for an issue were hard-coded in the submission and display pages. This was ultimately the downfall for Mantis, as I'm keen on minimising the unnecessary fields, and Mantis had many fields that were not appropriate for Terrier. Another downside for Mantis was that issues were numbered 0000001. In JIRA and Scarab, issues have a project prefix, and no leading zeros, making them instantly recognisable outside of the issue tracker - e.g. if I write TR-5 (e.g. in a SVN commit message), then people are likely to know what I'm on about. In contrast 0000005 is not something that using a search engine they would find quickly.

Finally, I installed a trial for Atlassian's JIRA. We found JIRA easy to browse and query existing issues. The dashboard functionality it also useful, and customisable. Finally, we also liked the user/SE friendly URLs used by JIRA for issues: e.g. http://ir.dcs.gla.ac.uk/terrier/issues/browse/TR-1 for issue TR-1. I'm pleased with JIRA, which exhibits an overall very polished UI. Atlassian have also very kindly provided Terrier with an open source license for JIRA. Thanks Atlassian!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

WSDM 09 : Your mileage may vary

So, for the second year WSDM arrives, attendance has remained constant (despite the economic downturn) and we're all packing t-shirts rather than bags. However, unwrapping the packaging, what do we find?

Initially, the conference seemed promising, beginning with an excellent speech by Jeff Dean. A 101 on efficiency at Google since 1999, well rounded with explanations and statistics in equal measure. Unfortunately, this staring performance seemed to overshadow the rest of the conference - a benchmark never surpassed.

If I was to use one word to describe WSDM'09, then it would be inconsistent. There were some nice speeches, Eytan Adar's talk on detecting how the web changes over time springs to mind (also best student paper), and Songhua Xu gets bonus points for turning up with an interface paper to a predominantly text-based conference. However, many were poorly presented, insubstantial or both.

The dominating topic of the conference was unsurprisingly Wikipedia, with well over 40% of papers giving it a mention. Ignoring the proliferation of Wikipedia papers over the last year, high point here was Eytan Adar's paper on Information Arbitrage Across Multi-lingual Wikipedia, for coming up with something which might actually be useful in practice.

The videos from the conference should be up soon on videolectures.net, and I would recommend Jeff Deans opening speech - for those of you who can survive watching in tiny eye-strain-o vision which comes with flash. As for the rest remember - your mileage may vary.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

WSDM 2009 highlights

Richard and I went to Barcelona last week to attend the WSCD 2009 workshop and the WSDM 2009 conference. Craig was also there on Monday to present an interesting poster on the usefulness of click-through data for training.

Besides being held in an exciting city (!), WSDM 2009 kept up with its previous edition in bringing together industry and academia to a common, quality forum for Web IR and data mining, with papers covering a wide range of trendy topics -- fairly well summarised by the tag cloud printed on the t-shirts given to the participants! -- from query intent detection, through search results diversification, to tagging-based clustering and classification, and social network-driven marketing analysis, to name a few.

The best paper award went to Fernando Diaz for his work on the selective integration of news content into Web results based on the classification of the newsworthiness of each query. Eytan Adar et al. received the best student paper award for their study of the dynamics of the content and structure of Web documents of varying popularity over a fine-grained timescale. In the new late breaking results session, the award went to Irem Arikan et al.'s paper on applying a language model approach for improving the retrieval effectiveness for queries with temporal expressions. The invited talks by Jeff Dean and Gerhard Weikum were also insightful -- we couldn't attend Ravi Kumar's though. All talks should be available soon from VideoLectures.net.

Overall, WSDM is rapidly moving towards establishing itself among the major IR conferences. In 2010, it will probably be held in Los Angeles, CA, USA.