Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Log In
Sign Up

Figure 17 – uploaded by Feiyu Xu

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

and a MMR reranked order with A = ..5. They were asked to perform nine different search tasks to find information and asked various questions about the tasks. They used two methods to retrieve documents, known only as R and S. _ Parallel tasks were constructed so that one set of users would perform method R on one task and method S on a similar task. Users were not told how the documents were presented only that either “method R” or “method S” were used and that they needed to be try to distinguish the differences between methods. After each task we asked them to record the information found. We also asked them to look at the ranking for method R and method S and see if they could tell any difference between the two. The majority of people said they preferred the method which gave in their opinion the most broad and interesting topics. In the final section they were asked to select a search method and use it for a search task. 80% (4 out of 5) chose the method MMR to use. The person who chose Smart stated it was because “it tends to group more like stories together.” The users indicated a differential preference for MMR in navigation and for locating the relevant candidate documents more quickly, and pure-relevance ranking when looking at related documents within that band. Three of the five users clearly discovered the differential utility of diversity search and relevance-only search. One user explicitly stated his strategy: 3. DOCUMENT REORDERING We implemented MMR in two retrieval engines, PURSUIT (an upgraded version of the original — Table 17 and a MMR reranked order with A = ..5. They were asked to perform nine different search tasks to find information and asked various questions about the tasks. They used two methods to retrieve documents, known only as R and S. _ Parallel tasks were constructed so that one set of users would perform method R on one task and method S on a similar task. Users were not told how the documents were presented only that either “method R” or “method S” were used and that they needed to be try to distinguish the differences between methods. After each task we asked them to record the information found. We also asked them to look at the ranking for method R and method S and see if they could tell any difference between the two. The majority of people said they preferred the method which gave in their opinion the most broad and interesting topics. In the final section they were asked to select a search method and use it for a search task. 80% (4 out of 5) chose the method MMR to use. The person who chose Smart stated it was because “it tends to group more like stories together.” The users indicated a differential preference for MMR in navigation and for locating the relevant candidate documents more quickly, and pure-relevance ranking when looking at related documents within that band. Three of the five users clearly discovered the differential utility of diversity search and relevance-only search. One user explicitly stated his strategy: 3. DOCUMENT REORDERING We implemented MMR in two retrieval engines, PURSUIT (an upgraded version of the original

Related Figures (65)

On an abstract level, the task of CLIR is not much different from traditional IR. A set of documents is acquired that are of potential interest to some user. The documents are processed in order to obtain information that may be relevant in a query situation. We may call this information simply document information. The document information is stored in a format that permits the matching of queries against this infor- mation. Addresses of the documents are stored to- gether with the document information to enable the actual retrieval. The addresses may be URLs, lo- cations on a storage medium or data base identifi- ers.

hours”. On the other hand, related terms like “church” and “monastery”, which correspond to BUILDING, will lead to a template that includes slots describing “building period” and “architect”.

These mappings are crucial to the multilinguality of the information extraction and natural language generation systems and will be, as mentioned before, organized in a multilingual thesaurus that maps terms in one language onto those of another. The figure below (due to [9]) shows how language independent templates interact with generation into individual languages on the one side and mappings between information extracted in these languages on the other.

The query forms are meant to support the user by guiding his search, i.e., making it clear to him on what aspects of a certain class or category he can pose more specific queries. To further support a precise formulation of the (free text) query, the user can submit it to the query expansion component. Here, the query is first processed and normalized, where appropriate, and envisioned to take a central role in this. We assume that the user has basically two choices for searching; one is on the basis of free text queries, the other on the basis of concept- oriented classifications. Free text queries can take the user either to different kinds of full text indices and/or it can take the user to a classification hierarchy, if the search term happens to map onto on of the conceptual classes.

Figure 1: vector product weighting algorithm f more than one translation per source language query term is used for searching we might stil treat the translated query as a bag-of-words. As we will see in section 5 the way of weighting the possible translations is crucial for unstructured queries. In particular it is important to normalise the possible translations in such a way that for each source language query term the weights o possible translations sum up to one. Not using normalisation will make source language query terms with a lot of possible translations unin- tentionally more important than source language query terms that have only less possible transla- tions.

Figure 4: translation chart of third world war

Table 3: results of ’unstructured query’ runs

Table 4: results of structured query’ runs Table 4 lists the results of the structured query runs. Normalisation of term weights is implicit in the structured query, so run3a and run3b will give exactly the same results as run3c and run3d respectively.

Table 1: A translation memory example interface

Fr: Monter l’élément de suspension droit. Table 2: Granularity and type of sub-sentence alignments generated by TRINITY En: Connect the wheel suspension on the right-hand side.

Table 3: Decomposing an example sentence for translation. En: Release the wheel suspension on the left-hand side.

Table 4: Estimating expected counts via the Iterative Proportional Fitting Algorithm

Figure 1: Multimedia database architecture

Figure 2 proposes the design of the misflRor query processor. An IR system is described by its re- trieval model, which defines the document rep- resentation, the query formulation, and the rank- ing function [26]. These three aspects are re- flected in the design of our multimedia query pro- cessor, in subsequently the concept layer (doc- ument representation), the evidential reason- ing layer (ranking function), and the relevance feedback layer (query formulation). Figure 2: The multimedia query processor

Figure 3: A multimedia retrieval model based on Bayesian inference networks

data collections. Its main characteristic is the strict separation between the logical and physi- cal databases. This separation provides data in- dependence, and allows for algebraic query opti- mization in the translation from expressions at the logical level to queries executed in the physi- cal database. Also, parallellization of the physical algebra is orthogonal to the logical algebra, such that we can transparently distribute the data over different database servers by changing only the mapping between the two views. In this paper, we only discuss query processing at the logical level. The interested reader is referred to [9] for a discussion of the implementation in the physical database. MOA is an object algebra for the logical level, being developed by our research group. It pro- vides an extensible nested object data model and an algebra on this model. The prototype imple- mentation does not yet provide a query language at the conceptual level; queries can only be spec- ified using MOA expressions. The MOA Tools translate the query expressions specified in MOA into efficient MIL programs? that are executed in the Monet database system [1]. Monet is an ex- tensible parallel database kernel that is intended to serve as a backend in various application do- mains [2]; e.g., image retrieval is supported by an extension module defining the ‘Acoi’ algebra 18]. Monet has also been used succesfully for geographic information systems as well as com- mercial data mining applications.

(Chinchor [5]) has in fact shown that there were no significant differences between the top five systems in MUC-6 at a 98% level of confidence.

first N would be taken as the output of the hybrid system. duces a ranked order of the M most relevant texts from the new corpus. A figure of merit for routing systems is "precision at N", i.e. the percentage of relevant texts out of the first N retrieved.

Figure 3: Condorcet’s indexing process.

Figure 4: Enriched canonical tree structure. SU- node contains the syntactic subject and TOP col- lects all topicalised elements (CP’s, PP’s, NP’s, adverbs). V contains the main verb, and C&A all verbal complements and adverbials. In en- riched structures, TOP and SU are linked to their deep structure positions. SU is linked to the deep structure subject position of the main verb in case of active, and to the leftmost position under C&A in case of passive sentences.

Figure 5: Syntactic tree containing the Linguistic Information Package for the VP of zonisamide affects epilepsy. The LIP consists of a candidate relation (REL), consisting of a candidate co-ordinator (COO), an agent (AGE) and an object (OBJ). Constituents are linked to deep structure positions by indexes (e.g. <1>).

the muscular-skeletal movements of the dancers and their positions in space. Movement notation systems are expected to ‘provide the key to relatively unambiguous communication through the creation of an agreed symbol system’ [3] An example of a prominent system, Labanotation, is shown in Fig. 1. The notation is read from bottom to top, along a vertical temporal axis delimited by bars akin to those of a musical score. Symbols to the left of the centre refer to movements made by the left hand side of the body: the foot, leg, torso, arm, hand and fingers - in that order. The symbols’ points, shadings and size capture the movement dynamics of direction, level of extension and duration.

Table 1: Excerpts from two corresponding D- texts and one I-text

Table 3: Preponderant general language lexical items in the D-texts The mid-ranges of the SL / GL list were filled with more generally familiar words which describe movement and actions, e.g. bend, come, hold, roll, kneel, walk. Words that locate movements and actions in space and time also appear, e.g. diagonal, forward, left, right, across and continuing, occasional, while, sporadic.

Table 4: Semi-fossilized phrases in the D-texts

Table 5: Distribution of clauses by information content in one D-text The even spread of clauses suggests that this is a useful classification for further analysis to be based on. Each clause can refer to 1, 2 or 3+ dancers - dancing in unison or taking different roles in an interaction. The contents of a clause can be modified by adjectives and adverbs to describe quality, and by prepositional phrases to situate them in space and time.

Table 7: Cohesion through reference in D-texts In the above passage, a mention of a previously unseen dancer is cued by an indefinite article, another in this case. Subsequent mentions are referential - who, his, he - or elliptical. The return of a previous dancer is cued by the definite article the.

Table 9: Linking of phrases to form interpretations in the I-texts

has been extended to implement a video object database, alongside text analysis modules. Collateral text is processed in order to semi-automate video annotation by generating video objects with reference to a knowledge-base, Fig. 2. Fig. 2: The KAB Video Annotation Overview

The KAB prototype, Fig. 3, lets the user build collections of linked videos and collateral texts. Annotations can be attached to the video in the form of video objects through a series of dynamic menus which show a selection of available representations (updated through the ‘Add Lexical Knowledge’ option). Searching is achieved by making a selection from similar menus, which returns a set of matching video objects. Current work is implementing the ‘Process Texts’ function so that collateral texts are analysed to automatically suggest video objects — grounded in exical resources and knowledge-bases. As well as being used to match queries for retrieval purposes, the expressions attached to video objects can also be used o explain the video contents to the viewer when browsing, e.g. by showing an expert’s commentary on a sequence or offering a link to related media. For further information about the development of KAB see [20] Fig. 3: The KAB Prototype main menu and example video with collateral text

Figure 5 The video

Figure 4 Part of the story board (images) Figure 3 Text hits in the subtitles

Figure 1: Illustration for clause 1 Clause 1 is illustrated by an image depicting the squeezing of ointment (Figure 1). Clause 2 is il- lustrated by a picture showing a finger entering the left nostril (Figure 2), while clause 3 is il- lustrated by a similar picture involving the right nostril (Figure 3):

Figure 1: Plot of average precision against term weighting parameters b and K forTREC-7/SDR local development queries (left), and TREC-7/SDR evaluation queries (right).

Table 1: Use of multiple transcriptions derived from ABBOT on the TREC-6 known-item retrieval task. R1 are the reference transcripts, S1 are the transcripts produced by A BBOT using frame-level merging. Forward and backward are the decodings produced by the nets in isolation. The term ‘merged’ implies the concatenation of two or more sets of transcripts whereas the term ‘union’ implies the union of sets of transcripts — multiple occurrences of the same term are discarded.

Figure 2: Effect of the query expansion parameters nr (maximum number of relevant documents to consider) anc it (maximum number of terms to add) on the average precision for our local development queries using ABBOT speech recognizer output. The Jun 1997 - Feb 1998 LA Times/Washington Post portion of the 1998 TREC-7/SDF anguage model corpus was used as the query expansion collection.

Figure 3: Effect of query expansion on retrieval of recognizer output for local development queries. Query expan- sion was performed on (1) LA Times/ Washington Post newswire text (LM-qe); (2) the recognizer transcripts that made up the test collection (S1-qe); and (3) no query expansion (noge).

Table 2: Summary of TREC-7 Spoken Document Retrieval track results for different recognizer conditions, eval- uated in terms of word error rate (WER), term error rate (TER) defined in the text, average precision (AveP) and R-precision (R-P). R1 refers to the reference transcripts; $1 refers to THISL speech recognition described in the paper; B1 and B2 are baseline recognition runs with different levels of pruning using CMU Sphinx-I] at NIST; CR- CUHTK refers to Cambridge University (HTK) speech recognition; CR-DERASRU-S1 and CR-DERASRU-S2 refers to DERA/SRU speech recognition; CR-DRAG ON-S1 refers to Dragon Systems speech recognition.

Figure 4: Recall-precision curves of the THISL system running on various transcripts submitted for TREC-7/SDR.

Figure 5: Effect of query expansion on recall-precision for evaluation R1 and S1 conditions (post-evaluation experiment).

Figure 6: Query-by-query effect of query expansion in terms of change in average precision compared with no query expansion.

Figure 1: System architecture The following figure shows the architecture of the TNO system as used in the TREC7 experiments. For the pilot experiment, which is described in section )3] a more simplistic term weighting strategy was used. The following figure shows the architecture of

Table 2: ISM + wordspotter hybrid system

Figure 2: Trading speed for Recall Hybrid system performance

Table 3: Results of the SDR TREC7 runs where d/ is the document length and avdl represents the average document length. This resulted in the following average precision values for the tasks R1, B1 and B2. For the S1 run we submitted a run based on the method described in The only conceptual difference with the DAS+ pilot set-up on the IR

Figure 3: Rough estimate of false alarm rate

Table 2: Precision Scores

Table 1. Sample output from the CBA program: List of the most highly weighted candidate substrings for the role of SPECIES. After the text has been read in, all the fillers found for each role are collated. The substrings may be weighted, since some templates are more reliable than others. If any substring of a filler is found more than once, the weight associated with each instance is combined. The weight for each substring is also enhanced if the substring occurs in the title of the document or can be lexically validated [2] by matching a word or phrase in a lexicon of terms known to be feasible role fillers. The most highly weighted substring found in this way is taken to be the most likely interpretation of a given role.

Table 3. Machine generated list of roles and fillers corresponding to Table 2. In many information retrieval experiments, t effectiveness of the retrieval is measured using the measures of recall and precision. Recall (R) measures the proportion of relevant material actually retrieved in response to a search [5]. Since our ultimate aim is to retrieve ALL t ne ne (f), followed by no match (g) at all. In making these comparisons, the best-match criterion of Gaussier, Langé & Meunier is employed [4]. Only matches between each machine-generated term and the best matching human-selected term are considered. However, if the best-matching term in the human-selected list can be matched even more strongly with a different machine-generated term, the match with the first machine-generated term is not considered.

Figure 1 — Architecture of the Sumatra system The Sumatra system uses the following architecture to perform these steps: The input of the system consists of a text. The output consists of a summarized version of that text. Let’s take a closer look at the different components of the system. Text generator

A relation oriented graph-pruning method selects certain relations from a semantic structure, together r arguments, and discard the rest of the Figure 2 with thei structure. shows the selection of relation A and the resulting summarized structure.

Beside connectivity, other parameters can be used to determine the importance value of a relation. The first and last sentence of a paragraph are usually more important than other sentences, and the occurrence of certain signal words in a sentence can indicate that it is important. The importance value of relations that have been derived from such sentences can be altered by multiplying it with a certain boost factor. The Sumatra system uses the following heuristics to alter the importance value if a relation conforms to certain conditions: The values for these boost factors have been obtained by extensive testing with six texts used in the final exams of the Dutch grammar school. For each text, a list of the relevant information elements was available and a script has been used to automatically determine the percentage of relevant information elements a summary contains. The values for the boost factors have been varied to maximize this percentage. The combination of values for the boost factors have been chosen manually, and because of the enormous search space of this optimizing problem, it is very likely that a better combination exists. A better combination could be found by using a neural network or genetic algorithm to find a higher (local) maximum.

Figure 3 — The connectivity of a relation There are several ways to define the importance value of a relation. A possible definition could use the connectivity of a relation as its importance value. The connectivity of a relation is defined as the number of connections that must be severed to cut the relation and all its arguments free from the structure. Consider, for example, the following semantic structure:

REFERENCES Figure 6 - Evaluation

Figure 2, Query screen he query bar a table is presenting the documents hat contain this query phrase or a phrase that iccording to some similarity measure is related to it. The table gives the relevant document, its source which can be either the Twenty-One database -ontaining electronic versions of paper documents, or ocuments from remote sites that have been marked is relevant to the application domain), the page in the ocument containing the matching phrase, the

Figure 3, HTML-presentation

Related topics:

Natural Language Generation Machine Translation Cross Language Information Retrieval Template matching Query Expansion Document Classification Image Search and Retrieval Query Translation

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field

Discover breakthrough research and expand your academic network

Explore
Papers
Topics

Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts

Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials

Company
About
Careers
Press
Help Center
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400

San Francisco, CA, 94104

© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved