Salvatore_Orlando

Beyond Query Suggestions: Recommending Tasks to SE Users

Claudio Lucchese*, Gabriele Tolomei*+, Salvatore Orlando+, Raffaele Perego*, Fabrizio Silvestri**ISTI - CNR, Pisa, Italy

+Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italy

C. Lucchese, S. Orlando, R. Perego, F. Silvestri, G. Tolomei. Identifying Task-based Sessions in Search Engine Query Logs. ACM WSDM, Hong Kong, February 9-12, 2011 G. Tolomei, S. Orlando, and F. Silvestri. Towards a task-based search and recommender systems. The 26th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE '10 Workshops, pages 333-336, 2010.

C. Lucchese, S. Orlando, R. Perego, F. Silvestri, G. Tolomei. Beyond Query Suggestions: Recommending Tasks to Search Engine Users, submitted to WSDM 2012.

TechTalk at Moscow - August 22, 2011

1mercoledì 24 agosto 2011

Contents

• Introduction and Motivations

• Web Task Discovery

• Web Task Recommendation

• Mining Query Logs for Web Task Discovery

• Mining Query Logs for Web Task Recommendation


Web Task Discovery• What is a Web task?

• Any (atomic) user activity that can be achieved by exploiting the information/services available on the Web, e.g., “find a recipe”, “book a flight”, “read news”, etc.

• Why do we use WSE Query Logs to identify Web tasks?

• “Addiction to Web search” : Users rely on WSEs for satisfying their information needs by issuing possibly interleaved stream of related queries

• How do we discover Web tasks in query logs?

• Task-based Session Discovery

• sessions are sets of possibly non contiguous queries, issued by a user whose aim is to carry out specific “Web tasks”


Web Task Discovery• What is a Web task?

• Any (atomic) user activity that can be achieved by exploiting the information/services available on the Web, e.g., “find a recipe”, “book a flight”, “read news”, etc.

• Why do we use WSE Query Logs to identify Web tasks?

• “Addiction to Web search” : Users rely on WSEs for satisfying their information needs by issuing possibly interleaved stream of related queries

• How do we discover Web tasks in query logs?

• Task-based Session Discovery

• sessions are sets of possibly non contiguous queries, issued by a user whose aim is to carry out specific “Web tasks”

we argue that there is task interleaving


The Big Picture of Task Discovery


The Big Picture of Task Discoveryquery

hong kongflights

...



fly tohong kong

...



nba sportnews

...



pisa tohong kong

...



... ......

long-term session



... ......

1 2 n...

Δt > tφ long-term session



1 2 ... n



1 2 ... n

fly to Hong Kong

nba news shopping in Hong Kong


Task/Query RecommendationHow to exploit Task-based Session Knowledge

• We are interested in supplying novel recommendations to WSE users, on the basis of the knowledge of the task-based query sessions

• from intra-task query recommendation

• to task recommendation

• to finally arrive at inter-task query recommendation


Task/Query RecommendationHow to exploit Task-based Session Knowledge

• We are interested in supplying novel recommendations to WSE users, on the basis of the knowledge of the task-based query sessions

• from intra-task query recommendation

• to task recommendation

• to finally arrive at inter-task query recommendation

We aim to recommend another related task, where the current and the recommended ones are part of a mission


Task/Query Recommendation From tasks to missions

• From Web task to Web mission

• We argue that single search tasks may be subsumed by composite tasks, namely missions, which user aim to accomplish through a WSE

• Example

• Alice starts interacting with her favorite WSE by submitting queries we recognize as part of the same task, related to “booking of a hotel room in New York”

• The current Alice's task could be included in a mission, composed of more tasks, concerned with “planning a travel to New York”

R. Jones and K.L. Klinkner. 2008. Beyond the session timeout: automatic hierarchical segmentation of search topics in query logs. In CIKM ’08. ACM, 699–708.


Task/Query Recommendation From intra- to inter-task query suggestions

• Assume we recognize that Alice is performing a query task (several queries) related to “booking of a hotel room in New York”

• query suggestion mechanisms may provide alternative related queries (intra-task query suggestions), such as “cheap new york hotels”, “times square hotel”, “waldorf astoria”, etc. ⇐ this is similar to current query suggestion mechanisms

• Assume we discover that many users performed a task similar to the Alice's one, along with other tasks ➠ they could be part of a composite mission

• e.g., a mission that is concerned with “planning a travel to New York”

• we may also recommend to Alice other tasks, whose underpinning queries look like: “mta subway”, or “broadway shows”, or “JFK airport shuttle” (inter-task query suggestions)


Task Discovery


Data Set: AOL Query Log

Original Data Set

Sample Data Set

✓ 1-week collection✓ ~100K queries✓ 1,000 users✓ removed empty queries✓ removed “non-sense” queries✓ removed stop-words✓ applied Porter stemming algorithm

✓ 3-months collection✓ ~20M queries✓ ~657K users


Data Analysis: query time gap

tφ = 26 min.

84.1% of adjacent query pairs are issued within 26 minutes


Task-based Session Discoverya combined approach

2) QueryClustering-m

Queries in a time-based sessions are f u r ther g rouped us ing c l u s ter i ng algorithms, which exploit several query features. Two queries (qi, qj) are in the same task-based session iff they belong to the same cluster.

QC-m, where m is one of the clustering method

Methods: QC-MEANS, QC-SCAN, QC-WCC, and QC-HTC

1) TimeSplitting-t

The idea is that if two consecutive queries are far away, they are also likely unrelated

TS-t, where t is the time gap between consecutive queries must be not greater than t

This technique alone produces time-based sessions, but is unable to deal with multi-tasking

Methods: TS-5, TS-15, TS-26, etc.


QC-m: Query Features and Similarities Semantic-based (µsemantic)

✓ using Wikipedia and Wiktionary for “expanding” a query q

✓ “wikification” of q using vector-space model

✓ relatedness between (qi, qj) computed using cosine-similarity

Content-based (µcontent)✓ two queries (qi, qj) sharing common terms are

likely related✓ µjaccard: Jaccard index on query character 3-

grams

✓ µlevenshtein: normalized Levenshtein (edit) distance


Distance Functions: µ1 vs. µ2

✓Convex combination µ1

✓ Conditional formula µ2

Idea: if two queries are close in term of lexical content, the semantic expansion could be unhelpful. Vice-versa, nothing can be said when queries do not share any content feature

✓ Both µ1 and µ2 rely on the estimation of some parameters, i.e., α, t, and b✓ Use the ground-truth for tuning parameters


• ~500 long-term sessions are first split using the threshold tφ devised before (i.e., 26 minutes), obtaining several time-gap sessions

• Human annotators put together task-related queries that they claim to be part of the same task

• This ground-truth is used for

• to tune some parameter of our method

• more importantly, to evaluate the automatic clustering for task-based session discovery

Ground-truth: construction e use


Ground-truth: statistics

✓ 4.49 avg. queries per time-gap session

✓ more than 70% time-gap session contains at most 5 queries

✓ 2.57 avg. queries per task-based sessions

✓ ~75% tasks contains at most 3 queries

✓ 1.80 tasks per time-gap session (avg.)✓ ~47% time-gap session contains more

than one task (multi-tasking)✓ 1,046 over 1,424 queries (i.e., ~74%)

included in multi-tasking sessions


QC-WCC WEIGHTED CONNECTED COMPONENTS

1 8765432time-gap session φ



1 2

3

4

56

7

8

Build the similarity graph Gφ - O(N2)




1 2

3

4

56

7

8


Drop “weak edges”



1 2

3

4

56

7

8



• Variation of QC-WCC, that does not need to compute the full similarity graph

• Performs into 3 steps:

1. computes the similarities between chronologically consecutive queries in φ and insert the corresponding labeled edge in the graph Gφ - O(N)

2. Drop “weak edges”, thus obtaining clusters corresponding to sub-sequences

• each cluster represented by the chronologically first and last queries: head and tail

3. Pairwise merging of the sub-sequences so obtained,

• by only inserting edges between the heads/tails if the corresponding queries are similar enough

QC-HTCHEAD-TAIL COMPONENTS


• Run and compare all the proposed approaches with:

• TS-26: time-splitting technique (baseline)

• QFG: session extraction method based on the query-flow graph model (state of the art)

Experiments Setup

P. Boldi, F. Bonchi, C. Castillo, D. Donato, A. Gionis, S. Vigna: The query-flow graph: model and applications. CIKM 2008: 609-618


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/b/Boldi:Paolo.html


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/c/Castillo:Carlos.html


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/d/Donato:Debora.html


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/g/Gionis:Aristides.html


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/v/Vigna:Sebastiano.html


http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/cikm/cikm2008.html#BoldiBCDGV08


• Measure the degree of correspondence between the true tasks (manually-extracted ground-truth), and the predicted tasks (algorithms’ outputs)

• we can use all the external measures commonly used to evaluate a clustering algorithm when used to extract disjoint partitions in a dataset annotated with class labels

Evaluation

a) F-MEASURE✓ evaluates the extent to

which a predicted task contains only and all the queries of a true task

✓ combines p(i, j) and r(i, j) the precision and recall of task i w.r.t. class j

b) RAND✓ pairs of queries instead

of singleton ✓ f00, f01, f10, f11

c) JACCARD✓ pairs of queries instead

of singleton ✓ f01, f10, f11


• Measure the degree of correspondence between the true tasks (manually-extracted ground-truth), and the predicted tasks (algorithms’ outputs)

• we can use all the external measures commonly used to evaluate a clustering algorithm when used to extract disjoint partitions in a dataset annotated with class labels

Evaluation

a) F-MEASURE✓ evaluates the extent to

which a predicted task contains only and all the queries of a true task

✓ combines p(i, j) and r(i, j) the precision and recall of task i w.r.t. class j

b) RAND✓ pairs of queries instead

of singleton ✓ f00, f01, f10, f11

c) JACCARD✓ pairs of queries instead

of singleton ✓ f01, f10, f11

f00 = #pairs of objʼs w/ different class and taskf01 = #pairs of objʼs w/ different class and same taskf10 = #pairs of objʼs w/ same class and different taskf11 = #pairs of objʼs w/ same class and task


Results: best

Supervised methodQuery Flow Graph (QFG)

K-means (centroid-based) and DB-Scan (density-

based)















Results: best

Supervised methodQuery Flow Graph (QFG)

K-means (centroid-based) and DB-Scan (density-

based)















Task Recommendation


Crowd-based Task Synthesis

• We need to find recurrent behaviors in the crowd

• We need to identify similar tasks by clustering the associated “virtual documents”

• where each virtual document include the queries performed in the task by a user

User 1

User 2

User 3

....

All the tasks appear different


Crowd-based Task Synthesis

• We can rewrite each task-oriented session in terms of the new synthesized tasks ids: Th

where Th = {T1 , ... , TK}

• Th can be considered as a representative for an aggregation composed of similar tasks, performed by several distinct users

• The various long term sessions thus become sets/sequences of synthesized tasks in which we can find recurrences

User 1

User 2

User 3

....

same Th


Task-based Model Generation• Produce a Task Recommendation Model

• a weighted directed graph GT = (T, E, w), where the weighting function w(.) measures the “inter-task relatedness”

• if they are related, they are probably part of the same mission

GT = (T, E, w)wi,j

wh,i wk,i


Task-based Recommendation• Generate a Task-oriented Recommendations

• given a user who is interested in (has just performed) a task Ti

• retrieve from GT the set Rm(Ti), which includes the m-top related nodes/tasks to Ti

• the graph nodes in Rm(Ti) are directly connected to node Ti and are the m ones labeled with the highest weights

Ti


Task-based Recommendation• Generate a Task-oriented Recommendations

• given a user who is interested in (has just performed) a task Ti

• retrieve from GT the set Rm(Ti), which includes the m-top related nodes/tasks to Ti

• the graph nodes in Rm(Ti) are directly connected to node Ti and are the m ones labeled with the highest weights

Ti

R2(Ti)


How to Generate the Model• Various methods to generate edges in GT and the

associated weights

• Random-based (baseline): an edge for each pair, whose weights are uniform

• Sequence-based: the frequency of the pairs wrt a given support threshold, by considering the relative order in the original sequences

GT = (T, E, w)wi,j

wh,i wk,i

• Association-Rule based (support): the frequency of the rule wrt a given support threshold. We do not consider the relative order in the original sequences to extract the rules

• Association-Rule based (confidence): the confidence of the rules wrt a given confidence threshold. We do not consider the relative order in the original sequences to extract the rules


Data Set: AOL 2006 Query Log

Original Data Set

Sample Data Set

✓ Top-600 longest user sessions✓ ~58K queries✓ avg 14 queries per user/day

✓set A : 500 user sessions (training)✓ set B : 100 user sessions (test)




Original Data Set

Sample Data Set






Original Data Set

Sample Data Set




From both A and B we extracted the tasks with our QC-HTCSet A was used to generate the graph model using various mining techniques


Experimental results

• We measured

• precision (proportion of suggestions that actually occur in the 2/3 suffix)

• coverage (proportion of tasks in the 1/3 prefix that are able to provide at least one suggestion)

• changing the weighting in each model, by tuning the corresponding parameters, modifies the coverage ...

• we thus plot precision vs coverage to permit the different models to be fairly compared

GT = (T, E, w)wi,j

wh,i wk,i

• We used the log subset B (test query log) for evaluation

• we divided each long term session in B (with synthesized tasks) into a 1/3 prefix and 2/3 suffix

• the prefix is used to retrieve from GT the tasks: Rm(prefix)


Experimental results Recommendation Models


Experimental results Recommendation Models


Anecdotal Evidence

actually performed

queries

}


Anecdotal Evidence


Questions?


Salvatore_Orlando

Health & Medicine

query task

related task

task similar

taskbased query sessions

taskbased search

taskbased sessions

intertask query suggestions

current alices task