The goal of search personalization is to tailor search results to individual users by taking into account their profiles, which include their particular interests and preferences. As these latter are multiple and change over time, personalization becomes effective when the search process takes into account the current user interest. This article presents a search personalization approach that models a semantic user profile and focuses on a personalized document ranking model based on an extended graph-based distance measure. Documents and user profiles are both represented by graphs of concepts issued from predefined web ontology, namely, the Open Directory Project directory (ODP). Personalization is then based on reordering the search results of related queries according to a graph-based document ranking model. This former is based on using a graph-based distance measure combining the minimum common supergraph and the maximum common subgraph between the document and the user profile graphs. We extend this measure in order to take into account a semantic recovery at exact and approximate concept-level matching. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our personalized graph-based ranking model compared with Yahoo and different personalized ranking models performed using classical graph-based measures or vector-space similarity measures.
GowanJ. A multiple model approach to personalised information access. Master thesis in computer science, University of College Dublin, 2003.
2.
SiegAMobasherBBurkeRPrabuGLytinenS. Using concept hierarchies to enhance user queries in web-based information retrieval. In: IASTED international conference on artificial intelligence and applications. Innsbruck, Austria, 2004.
3.
LiuFYuCMengW. Personalized web search for improving retrieval effectiveness. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering2004; 16(1): 28–40.
4.
GauchSChaffeeJPretschnerA. Ontology-based personalized search and browsing. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems2003; 1(3-4): 219–234.
5.
CalegariSPasiG. Ontology-based information behaviour to improve web search. Future Internet2010; 2(4): 533–558.
6.
KoutrikaGIoannidisY. A unified user profile framework for query disambiguation and personalization. In: Proceedings of workshop on new technologies for personalized information access, 2005.
7.
Tamine-LechaniLBoughanemMZemirliN. Personalized document ranking: exploiting evidence from multiple user interests for profiling and retrieval. Journal of Digital Information Management2008; 6(5): 354–365.
8.
FanWGordonMDPathakP. Discovery of context-specific ranking functions for effective information retrieval using genetic programming. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2004; 16(4): 523–527.
9.
LinCXueGZengHYuY. Using probabilistic latent semantic analysis for personalised web search. In: Proceedings of the APWeb conference, 2005, pp. 707–711.
10.
SiegAMobasherBBurkeR. Web search personalization with ontological user profiles. In: CIKM’07, Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on information and knowledge management. New York: ACM, 2007, pp. 525–534.
11.
DaoudMTamineLBoughanemM. A personalized graph-based document ranking model using a semantic user profile (regular paper). In: Conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization (UMAP 2010), 20–24 June 2010. Hawai: Springer, 2010, pp. 171–182.
12.
DumaisSCadizECJJJanckeGSarinRDanielCR. Stuff I’ve seen: a system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In: SIGIR’03, Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference. ACM Press, 2003, pp. 72–79.
13.
ShenXTanBZhaiC. Context-sensitive information retrieval using implicit feedback. In: SIGIR ‘05, Proceedings of ACM SIGIR conference. New York: ACM, 2005, pp. 43–50.
14.
WebbGPazzaniMBillsusD. Machine learning for user modeling. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction2001; 11(1–2): 19–29.
15.
DingCPatraJCPengFC. Personalized web search with selforganizing map. In: EEE’05, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service. Washington: IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 144–147.
16.
TanBShenXZhaiC. Mining long-term search history to improve search accuracy. In: KDD ’06, Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference. New York: ACM, 2006, pp. 718–723.
17.
LiebermanH. Autonomous interface agents. In: CHI, 1997, pp. 67–74.
18.
WhiteRWBennettPNDumaisST. Predicting short-term interests using activity-based search context. In: HuangJKoudasNJonesGWuXCollins-ThompsonKAnA (eds). CIKM. ACM, 2010, pp. 1009–1018.
19.
BeggIMGnocatoJMooreWE. A prototype intelligent user interface for real-time supervisory control systems. In: IUI ’93, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on intelligent user interfaces. New York: ACM, 1993, pp. 211–214.
20.
MicarelliASciarroneF. Anatomy and empirical evaluation of an adaptive web-based information filtering system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction2004; 14(2–3): 159–200.
21.
KimHRChanPK. Learning implicit user interest hierarchy for context in personalization. In: IUI ’03, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. New York: ACM, 2003, pp. 101–108.
22.
AlexandruCPWolfgangNRalucaPChristianK. Using odp metadata to personalize search. In: SIGIR ’05, Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2005, pp. 178–185.
23.
StaabSStuderR. Handbook on ontologies (International handbooks on information systems). Springer, 2004.
24.
MaZPantGShengORL. Interest-based personalized search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 2007; 25(1): 5.
25.
JehGWidomJ. Scaling personalized web search. In: WWW ’03, Proceedings of the 12th international conference on world wide web. New York: ACM, 2003, pp. 271–279.
26.
RocchioJ. Relevance feedback in information retrieval. In: The SMART retrieval system-experiments in automatic document processing. New York: ACM, 1971, pp. 313–323.
27.
BoubekeurFBoughanemMTamineL. Semantic information retrieval based on CP-nets. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). London, 23–26 July 2007.
28.
BazizMBoughanemMLoiseauYPradeH. Fuzzy logic and ontology-based information retrieval. In: WangPRuanDKerreE (eds) Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, Vol. 215/2007. Springer, 2007, pp. 193–218.
29.
CaiW-TWangS-RJiangQ-S. Address extraction: a graph-matching and ontology-based approach to conceptual information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on machine learning and cybernetics, 2004, pp. 1571–1576.
30.
ZhongJZhuHLiJYuY. Conceptual graph matching for semantic search. In: ICCS ’02, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on conceptual structures. London: Springer, 2002, pp. 92–196.
31.
MaisonnasseLChevalletJ-PBerrutC. Incomplete and fuzzy conceptual graphs to automatically index medical reports. NLDB 2007. pp. 240–251.
32.
YiJMaghoulF. Query clustering using click-through graph. In: WWW ’09, Proceedings of the 18th international conference on the world wide web. New York: ACM, 2009, pp. 1055–1056.
33.
CuiHWenJRNieJYMaWY. Query expansion by mining user logs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering2003; 15(4): 829–839.
34.
HuangYSunLWangZ. A unified graph-based iterative reinforcement approach to personalized search. In: AIRS ’09, Proceedings of the 5th Asia information retrieval symposium on information retrieval technology. Berlin: Springer, 2009, pp. 193–204.
35.
WanXYangJXiaoJ. Towards an iterative reinforcement approach for simultaneous document summarization and keyword extraction. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2007, pp. 552–559.
36.
KleinbergJM. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the ACM1999; 46(5): 604–632.
37.
BrinSPageL. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems. 1998; 30(1–7): 107–117.
38.
DaoudMTamineLBoughanemM. Towards a graph based user profile modeling for a session-based personalized search. Knowledge and Information Systems2009; 21(3): 365–398.
39.
FernándezMLValienteG. A graph distance metric combining maximum common subgraph and minimum common supergraph. Pattern Recognition. Letters. 2001; 22(6–7): 753–758.
40.
LeviG. A note on the derivation of maximal common subgraphs of two directed or undirected graphs. Calcolo1972; 9: 341–354.
41.
BunkeHJiangXKandelA. On the minimum common supergraph of two graphs. Computing2000; 65(1): 13–25.
42.
BouidghaghenOTamineLDaoudMLaffaireC. Contextual evaluation of mobile search (regular paper). In: DoanBLJoseJMelucciMTamineL (eds) Workshop on contextual information access, seeking and retrieval evaluation. Milton Keynes, 28 March 2010, Vol. 569.
43.
BuckleyCVoorheesEM. Evaluating evaluation measure stability. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR ’00). New York: ACM, 2000, pp. 33–40.
44.
TrajkovaJGauchS. Improving ontology-based user profiles. In: FluhrCGrefenstetteGCroftWB (eds) RIAO. CID, 2004, pp. 380–390.
45.
DaoudMTamineLBoughanemMChebaroB. A session based personalized search using an ontological user profile. In: ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC 2009). Haiwai: ACM, 2009, pp. 1031–1035.
