SILS, U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

INLS-509 (Old INLS-172) -- Information Retrieval

Bob Losee

Manning 302
962-7150

losee at unc dot edu
Fall 2006

Brief Description:

An introductory survey of information filtering and retrieval, with an emphasis on developing the student's understanding of the relationship between the algorithms used by search engines, the query and document, and system performance. This is an information science course, not an information technology course. The course is required for students in the School’s Master’s in Information Science program and will emphasize basic knowledge useful for those who will be in leadership positions in the information professions.

Course WWW links:

http://InformationRetrieval.US
(if you forget, there is link from my home page)

Course Outline

Readings below are required except for those preceded by an asterisk (*) Note that students are never expected to absorb all the material or understand all the mathematics in the articles.

Introduction: Retrieval and Filtering

Losee, Lectures Notes (available in bookstore), Chapter 1.

Sparck-Jones and Willett, Readings in Information Retrieval ("RIR" below), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1997. Chapter 1.

* Baeza-Yates and Ribeiro-Neto, Chapters 4, 10

* Case, Donald, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior, Academic Press, 2002.

* Sugar, “User-centered Perspectives of Information Retrieval Research and Analysis Methods,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 1995, 77-109.

Probability

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 2.

Students may wish to consult one or more of the "management science" books in the UNC libraries.

Indexing, Document, and Media Representation

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 3

RIR, Chapter 2, articles by Joyce and Needham (p. 15); Luhn (p. 21); Doyle (p. 25); Cleverdon (p. 47); Salton and Lesk (p. 60.)

* Iivonen and Sonnenwald, “From Translation to Navigation of Different Discourses: a Model of Search Term Selection during the Pre-online Stage of the Search Process,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (Apr. 1 '98), 312-26.

* Svenonius, "Access to Nonbook Materials: The Limits of Subject Indexing for Visual and Aural Languages," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(8) Sept. 94, 600-606.

* Salton and McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, 1983, Chapter 3.

* Salton, Automatic Text Processing, Addison-Wesley, 1989, Chapter 9.

Retrieval Performance

RIR, Chapter 3, article by Saracevic (p. 143.)

RIR, Chapter 4, articles by Saracevic, Kantor, Chamis, and Trivison (p. 175); Cooper (p. 191); Tague-Sutcliffe (p. 205); Keen (p. 217.)

* Baeza-Yates and Ribeiro-Neto, Chapter 3.

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 4.

* Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 6.

* Van Rijsbergen, Information Retrieval, 2nd ed., Butterworths, 1979, Chapter 7.

Similarity and Retrieval Decisions

RIR, Chapter 5, articles by Cooper(p. 265); Belkin, Oddy, and Brooks (p. 299.)

RIR, Chapter 6, articles by Salton and Buckley (p. 355); Croft and Harper (p. 339.)

RIR, Chapter 7, article by Tenopir and Cahn (p. 446.)

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 5

* Van Rijsbergen, Chapters 5 & 6.

Relationships between Terms, Natural Language Processing

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 8, 9, 11.

RIR, Chapter 5, article by Turtle and Croft (p. 287.)

RIR, Chapter 6, article by Porter (p. 313.)

RIR, Chapter 8, articles by Salton, Allan, Buckley and Singhal (p. 478); Rau (p. 527); Johnson, Paice, Black, and Neal (p. 538.)

* Chowdhury, “Natural Language Processing,” in Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2003.

Rule Based and Logical Systems

Losee, Lecture Notes, Chapter 10.

* Forsyth and Rada, Machine Learning: Applications in Expert Systems and Information Retrieval, Wiley, 1986, Chapters 6-14.

Coding and Compression

* Salton, 1989, Chapters 5 & 6.

* Losee, Science of Information, 1990, Chapter 2.

Course Evaluation:

Quality of class participation 40%
Critiques of readings 30%
Other homework 30%

Critiques of Readings:

For some articles listed on the course schedule, students are expected to write a critique of the article of 5 to 8 sentences in length (maximum ¾ page single spaced, 1 page double spaced) and hand in the critique (on paper, not via email, and use serif fonts for the body of the text) by the beginning of the class on the due date listed on the schedule. The critiques should be constructive and might include (1) questions that arose as you read the article whose answer would be useful, (2) suggestions for improving the research described in the article, (3) ideas about additional research that might be conducted in this area, and (4) possible research questions that could be turned into (and are focused enough and small enough to be) SILS Master’s papers, along with methodologies for addressing these questions. Do not criticize the author’s writing style or the choice of topic. The one lowest critique grade will be dropped, to cover “bad days,” critiques that don’t get handed in on-time, or sickness.

Information Retrieval Leadership Proposals:

Each student will develop three Information Retrieval Leadership Proposals. The Leadership Proposal areas (due dates for printed proposals are on the class schedule) are

Proposal 1: Expressions of information needs as queries by individuals or groups; query languages; means for eliciting information needs.
Proposal 2: Univariate (statistically independent) feature, document, and query matching and similarities, assuming term independence; indexing (as viewed from retrieval).
Proposal 3: Multivariate similarity or matching systems; multivariate reasoning systems; natural language processing.

The proposals are due at the start of class on the day indicated. Each proposal should be a total of 2 to 4 pages, single spaced. Do not use a sans serif font; these fonts (e.g. Helvetica or Arial) are designed for headlines and captions, not the body of text in a paper. As the title for each paper, state clearly what question you are asking, formulated as an English language question with a question mark at the end. The proposal should address the nature of the problem, a discussion of how results and theory in the literature "support" the problem, methodology, the kinds of results you expect to find, and the usefulness of the answer to your question. The question and its answer should address issues bigger than found at one site or one system or one language; the most useful questions are generic questions that are of the form “is X better than Y?” Select a question whose answer would make you a leader in IR by suggesting ways people should make decisions differently or better. Descriptive studies are acceptable but always considered less useful than constructive studies that make concrete recommendations. The focus of each proposal needs to be on a question closely related to the topic for the date, with other information retrieval system considerations being secondary. Grading will be based upon how well the proposal addresses the question related to the topic, the usefulness of the proposed analysis, how answering the question is feasible as a student 3 credit project or master's paper, and the quality of the proposed methodology at answering the question. Proposing a small project that leads to definite knowledge and possible improvement of practice is always better than a larger project which just amasses data but doesn’t lead to much understanding and the improvement of practice.

For the first proposal, your question should not discuss or evaluate a particular information system or information resource, or the use of a system or systems by users. Propose a study of information needs independent of how the need might be satisfied or how searching for an answer takes place. You may look at information use, but only as a way to study the focus of this proposal, information need. You might want to think about psychological studies of individuals, to learn how needs are formulated, felt, or expressed, or you might wish to focus on a particular functional group and their particularly different needs or expressions of needs. If you start writing about how a system serves people or how people search for information, stop.

For the second proposal, your question should address matters associated with individual terms, either in the area of indexing or retrieval. You can address multiple term systems; however, the terms should be treated as independent of each other (as do most of the retrieval models discussed up to this point in the course).

For the third proposal, your question should explicitly address systems using the relationships that exist between document features and consider how this would impact retrieval performance. Methods of looking at these relationships might include statistical dependencies, multivariate machine learning techniques, linguistic (syntactic or semantic) information, or a logical system based on a thesaurus.

Warning: Don’t write on a topic. You should be writing to show how the methodology will answer the question you provide. If your methodology won’t provide a definitive (or at least solid) answer to the question, the question may be too broad and might be narrowed further. Doing a good job on a professionally relevant but narrow question is always better than a much weaker answer to a broader question. Each question-answer combination should show how to lead the field of information retrieval.

Each student is expected to conduct a small research project and write up the project in a paper of 4 to 10 pages of text, single spaced, to be handed in on paper. You may use any widely accepted paper style (e.g., Chicago, APA, MLA). The project should begin with a question whose answer would be of value to the information retrieval community. The question is best phrased in the form “Is X better than Y for Z?” rather than “How and why does Z work?” or “How does X impact Z?” There should be a brief discussion of the literature addressing areas around the question, possibly citing 3 to 6 related articles. The question should be clearly stated in the paper and the paper should focus on answering this question by drawing conclusions based primarily on the data collected and analyzed. The research should involve either the manual or automated analysis of data to be gathered by the student (not from the literature), and it may be either quantitative or qualitative. Studies must focus on more than one system (or multiple distributed systems) or more than one user; the focus should be on knowledge and techniques applicable to a wide range of systems and/or users. Do not base your data analysis primarily on published data. Implementing a system or software, or planning to implement such a system, is not acceptable as the course project; you may wish to perform a study to gain knowledge that might help outside the course to develop a system, or you might use software you have developed to test out a hypothesis. The paper should describe and analyze the results, with an emphasis on interpretation (“why”) leading to an understanding of the results. Insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the different techniques or situations is more important than raw performance improvement. The last paragraph of the paper should contain specific recommendations for professional practice, as well as summaries of the reasons for these recommendations.

Criteria for Leadership Proposals (and Class Participation) Evaluation

This is a required course for the SILS Master’s degree in Information Science. You are here to learn, not to worry. Anyone who puts in a reasonable effort should expect to pass the course.

An H paper includes a question whose answer will improve the operation of more than one information retrieval system. The paper should include strong reasons for considering the problem important to ILS professionals; a brief literature review, and a methods section, as well as a clear explanation or argument about why these results occurred. The question to be answered should be topically similar to those questions addressed in journals such as JASIS and IP&M. An H course grade indicates clear excellence and leadership in the course.

A P paper is a good solid piece of work, at the normal graduate level, that may be less effective in explaining why the question’s answer would be useful or in connecting it to central issues in the field; or it may lack references to relevant literature; or it may lack an obvious connection between the question and the methods to be used; or it may not describe the question or the methodology precisely; or it may overlook some minor methodological problems or fail to discuss or resolve them satisfactorily. There may be little explanation about why these particular results occurred. P is the most commonly awarded course grade in graduate level courses such as this.

An L paper may fail to explain the utility of the research or it may fail to connect the question to the methods to be used or the different aspects of methods to each other. Major methodological problems may have been overlooked. There may be little or no understanding provided as to the cause of the results.

An F paper is lacking a required element (the question, relevant literature, research site and/or sources and/or subjects, data collection and analysis). Any plagiarism or other violation of the Honor Code will also result in an F and the likelihood of further action.

Each student will develop three informal IR Leadership proposals. The Leadership proposals areas and due dates (late proposals penalized!) are

Wed. Oct. 11 Individual users' information needs, expressions of needs as queries.
Wed. Nov. 8 Univariate feature matching and term independence, indexing.
Wed. Dec. 13 Multivariate systems, reasoning systems, natural language processing.

The first 2 proposals are due at the start of class on the day indicated, and the last proposal is due at noon. Each proposal should be a total of 2 to 4 pages, single spaced. State clearly what question you are asking, formulated as an English language question with a question mark at the end. The proposal should address the nature of the problem, a discussion of how results and theory in the literature "support" the problem, methodology, the kinds of results you expect to find, and the importance of your question and approach. The focus of each proposal needs to be on a question closely related to the topic for the date, with other information retrieval system considerations being secondary. Grading will be based upon how well the proposal addresses the question related to the topic, the usefulness of the proposed research, its feasibility as a student 3 credit project or master's paper, and the quality of the proposed methodology. Proposing a small project that leads to definite knowledge and possible improvement of practice is always better than a larger project which just amasses data but doesn’t lead to much understanding or the improvement of practice.

For the first proposal, your question should not discuss or evaluate a particular information system or information resource. Propose a study of information needs independent of how the need might be satisfied or how searching for an answer takes place. You might want to think about psychological studies of individuals, to learn how needs are formulated, felt, or expressed, or you might wish to focus on a particular functional group and their particularly different needs or expressions of needs. If you start writing about how a system serves people, stop.

For the second proposal, your question should address matters associated with individual terms, either in the area of indexing or retrieval. You can address multiple term systems; however, the terms should be treated as independent of each other (as do most of the retrieval models discussed up to this point in the course).

For the third proposal, your question should explicitly address systems using the relationships that exist between document features and consider how this would impact retrieval performance. Methods of looking at these relationships might include statistical dependencies, linguistic (syntactic or semantic) information, or a logical system based on a thesaurus.

Warning: Don’t write on a topic. You should be writing to show how the methodology will answer the question you provide. If your methodology won’t provide a definitive (or at least solid) answer to the question, the question may be too broad and might be narrowed further. Doing a good job on a professionally relevant but narrow question is always better than a much weaker answer to a broader question.

Sources of Information on Information Filtering & Retrieval

Serials:

The major serials covering IR include Information Processing and Management (formerly Information Storage and Retrieval), Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (formerly JASIS and before that American Documentation), Journal of Documentation, IEEE Trans on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Trans on Date and Knowledge Engineering, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Information Retrieval, and New Review of Document & Text Management.

Conference Proceedings:

The ACM Special Interest Group in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) has held annual conferences since 1980. The conference is usually held in North America in odd years, outside North America even years. Some European conferences have been published as "books." Most of the ACM SIGIR conference proceedings are in the ACM Digital Library and can be accessed through the library web page.

Monographs:

Baldi and Brunak, Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach, MIT, 2001.

Baldi, Frasconi, and Smyth, Modeling the Internet and the Web, Wiley, 2003.

Baeza-Yates and Ribeiro-Neto, Modern Information Retrieval, Addison Wesley, 1999.

Case, Donald, Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior, Academic Press, 2002.

Chen, Li, and Wang, Machine Learning and Statistical Modeling Approaches to Image Retrieval, Kluwer, 2004.

Chu, Heting, Information Representation and Retrieval in the Digital Age, ASIS, 2003.

Foskett, A. C., The Subject Approach to Information, London, Lib. Assoc. Publ, 1996.

Forsyth and Rada, Machine Learning; Applications in Expert Systems and Information Retrieval, Wiley, 1986.

Frakes and Baeza-Yates, eds., Information Retrieval: Data Structures & Algorithms, Prentice Hall, 1992.

Frants, Shapiro, and Voiskunskii, Automated Information Retrieval, Academic Press, 1997.

Grossman and Frieder, Information Retrieval: Algorithms and Heuristics, Second edition, Springer-Verlag, 2004.

Grefenstette, Cross-Language Information Retrieval, Kluwer, 1998.

Korfhage, Information Storage and Retrieval, Wiley, 1997.

Kowalski and Maybury, Information Storage and Retrieval Systems, Kluwer, 2000.

Langville and Meyer, Google’s PageRank and Beyond: The Science of Search Engine Rankings, Princeton, 2006.

Losee, Text Retrieval and Filtering, Kluwer, 1998.

Maybury, M., Ed., Intelligent Multimedia Information Retrieval, AAAI/MIT Press, 1997.

Salton, Automatic Text Processing, Addison-Wesley, 1989.

Salton and McGill, Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw Hill, 1983

Sparck Jones and Willett, Information Retrieval, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1997.

Van Rijsbergen, Geometry of Information Retrieval, Cambridge, 2004.

Van Rijsbergen, Information Retrieval, Second Edition, Butterworth, 1979.

Wu, Xiong, and Shekhar, Clustering and Information Retrieval, Kluwer, 2004.

Honor Code:

Students should familiarize themselves with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Honor Code that is described in University publications. It should be noted that in this course, students are expected to receive (and provide) some assistance regarding the use of hardware and software in the laboratories and general problem solving techniques for homework assignments. Students should NOT receive (or provide) major creative assistance or continuing minor support for projects.

Plagiarism:

Student assignments that are handed in that contain more than 5 consecutive words that the instructor feels were taken from another source without proper attribution (without the proper quote marks and citations) definitely will be referred to the appropriate administrative authorities who address issues of Academic Integrity (e.g. the Honor Court) I assume that all students are equally likely to be honest and will put an equal amount of effort into considering the possibility of plagiarism for each student’s paper.

Classroom Behavior:

Separate from the Honor Code but related to respect for classmates is classroom behavior, which will be a factor in your class participation grade. Students are expected to behave in a professional manner in class. Students in class are expected to focus on classroom materials. Students are expected to avoid student-to-student conversations during class. Use of laptop computers should be limited to taking notes for class and to using class related materials. Similarly, materials being read should be limited to those appropriate for the classroom lecture or discussion. Students who appear to be involved in non-class related activities during class time will be graded as not participating in class. Cellular telephones and computers should have speakers or other audio devices muted before class begins so as to not disturb others.