Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Profiles and Context for Structured Text Retrieval

  • Marijn KoolenEmail author
  • Toine Bogers
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_80726


The combination of structured information retrieval with user profile information represents the scenario where systems search with an explicit statement of the information need – a search query – as well as a profile of a user, which can contain information about previous interactions, search history, user demographics, or other relevant information about the user’s preferences. The relation between the profile and the information need is implicit and may contain many irrelevant signals. The task of the system then is to model both the current information need and the background user preferences to derive notions of topical relevance as well as user relevance and to find the right balance between these notions to determine the optimal ranking of search results.

Historical Background

Information retrieval research has traditionally focused on locating documents that are relevant to a user’s search query – an explicit statement of that user’s underlying information need....

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Basilico J, Hofmann T. Unifying collaborative and content-based filtering. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning; 2004. p. 9–16.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogers T, Van den Bosch A. Collaborative and content-based filtering for item recommendation on social bookmarking websites. In: Jannach D, Geyer W, Freyne J, Anand SS, Dugan C, Mobasher B, Kobsa A, editors, Proceedings of the ACM RecSys ’09 Workshop on Recommender Systems and the Social Web; 2009. p. 9–16.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chavarria-Garza H. A user profile-query model for document retrieval. PhD thesis, Southern Methodist University, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claypool M, Gokhale A, Miranda T, Murnikov P, Netes D, Sartin M. Combining content-based and collaborative filters in an online newspaper. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on Recommender Systems; 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean-Hall A, Clarke CLA, Kamps J, Thomas P, Simon N, Voorhees EM. Overview of the TREC 2013 contextual suggestion track. In: Voorhees EM, editor, The Twenty-Second Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2013) Notebook. National Institute for Standards and Technology. NIST Special Publication; 2014. p. 302–500.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hafsi M, Géry M, Beigbeder M. LaHC at INEX 2014: social book search track. In: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huurdeman HC, Kamps J, Koolen M, van Wees J. Using collaborative filtering in social book search. In: CLEF 2012 Evaluation Labs and Workshop, Online Working Notes; 2012. p. 17–20. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1178/CLEF2012wn-INEX-HuurdemanEt2012.pdf
  8. 8.
    Koolen M. User reviews in the search index? That’ll never work! In: Proceedings of the 36th European Conference on IR Research; 2014. p. 323–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_27.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koolen M, Kamps J, Kazai G. Social book search: comparing topical relevance judgements and book suggestions for evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management; 2012. p. 185–94.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koolen M, Kazai G, Preminger M, Doucet A. Overview of the INEX 2013 social book search track. In: Proceedings of the CLEF 2013 Evaluation Labs and Workshop; 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koolen M, Bogers T, Kamps J, Kazai G, Preminger M. Overview of the INEX 2014 social book search track. In: Working Notes for CLEF 2014 Conference. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1180; 2014. p. 462–79. www.CEUR-WS.org
  12. 12.
    Korfhage RR, Chavarria-Garza H. Retrieval improvement by the interaction of queries and user profiles. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern Methodist University, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mahoui M, Bhargava B, Mohania M. User content mining supporting usage content for web personalization. CERIAS technical report 2001-21, Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson S, Hull DA. The TREC-9 filtering track final report. 2000; p. 25–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Voorhees EM. The philosophy of information retrieval evaluation. In: Revised Papers from the Second Workshop of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum on Evaluation of Cross-Language Information Retrieval Systems, CLEF’01. London: Springer; 2002. p. 355–70. ISBN:3-540-44042-9. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=648264.753539CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and DevelopmentHuygens ING, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and SciencesAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark