Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jacob Bank

dblp:57/9056 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › ranking
dynamic ranking
0.112011
Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011
Information retrieval
interactive information retrieval
0.112011
Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.112011
Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

result diversification · 0.1decision theory · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Dynamic ranked retrieval
abstract
We present a theoretically well-founded retrieval model for dynamically generating rankings based on interactive user feedback. Unlike conventional rankings that remain static after the query was issued, dynamic rankings allow and anticipate user activity, thus providing a way to combine the otherwise contradictory goals of result diversification and high recall. We develop a decision-theoretic framework to guide the design and evaluation of algorithms for this interactive retrieval setting. Furthermore, we propose two dynamic ranking algorithms, both of which are computationally efficient. We prove that these algorithms provide retrieval performance that is guaranteed to be at least as good as the optimal static ranking algorithm. In empirical evaluations, dynamic ranking shows substantial improvements in retrieval performance over conventional static rankings.
Christina Brandt, Thorsten Joachims, Yisong Yue, Jacob Bank
WSDM4