This invention relates in general to online search engines, and in particular to personalization of search results.
The current state of the art in online search engines is highly advanced in its ability to retrieve documents (e.g., web pages or portions thereof, images, etc.) that are responsive to the terms of a query. Search engines today can quickly retrieve specific documents that match the terms of the query. However, current search engines often return documents that while accurately correspond to the specific terms of the query, do not in any way reflect the user's underlying interests. Thus, two different users, one who is very interested in sports, and another who is interested in politics, will obtain exactly the same results to a given query, say “drug testing in baseball,” even though the first user may be more interested in learning about which teams have implemented drug testing, while the latter user is more interested in learning about legislation related to drug testing in sports. Thus, there is a need for providing a mechanism and methodology for personalizing search results in accordance, with the interests of the users.
Further, while a user may have particular set of interests that may be useful in processing their search query, a user may not want to always have such interests influence the query results. Thus, it would be desirable to a provide a mechanism and a methodology by which the user can variably adjust the degree to which his interests influence the results of a given search query.
The present invention provides allows a user to variably adjust the degree to which his or her personal interests influence the presentation of results of a given search query. The present invention has multiple embodiments, including a system for providing a search engine, a methodology for processing a search query, and a user interface for the user to variably adjust the degree of influence.
For a user's perspective, the present invention provides a mechanism for personalizing search results. The user defines a set of interests, for example as a set of topics or categories of interest to the user, as an interests profile. The user then submits a search query to a search engine. The search engine retrieves documents that are relevant to the query and presents these as search results. At first (though not necessarily) the search results are ranked without regard to the user's interests. This enables the user to see the relevance of the documents without influence by his personal interests. The user can variably control ranking of the documents in the search result set. In a preferred embodiment, this is done by direct manipulation of graphical control element, a personalization control. This graphical element can have various graphical representations, and in one embodiment it is represented as a slider. Adjusting the control element adjusts the degree to which the results are ranked according to the user's interests, as expressed in his interest profile. In response to changes in the position of the control element, the search results are reranked, thereby allowing the user to see how his interests affect the ordering of the results.
In one embodiment, the ranking of search results operates to increase the relevance score of documents that are associated with the directory of topics. Each topic in the directory is associated with a group of documents (e.g., websites) which are deemed relevant to the topic. For each document (again, website), a boost value is provided which indicates the degree of relevance of the site to the topic. All pages within a given site get that site's boost value. The boost value may be understood as a scaling factor that represents the relevance of the site to the topic. During the query processing, the set of documents is returned, and scored without regard to their inclusion in the topic directory. In addition, a separate score for each document is determined in which the document's underlying relevance score is adjusted by its associated boost value if any, for example by multiplying the relevance score by the boost value, thereby scaling the relevance of the document to the query. Generally, only those documents which belong to sites listed in the directory will have a boosted relevance score, and other documents in the search results will not. The reranking of the documents in accordance with their boosted relevance scores is then a function of the position of the personalization control, either from no influence (where the boost value has no effect on the relevance score) to complete influence, wherein boost value for each document is applied 100% to the relevance score, and any number of intermediate levels of application. The user can thus immediately rerank the documents in the search results by adjusting the position of the control.
A system embodiment includes a topic directory for providing topics (categories) to a user, a search engine and index for searching indexed websites in response to a user's query, and a personalization component for determining for the search results at least one (and preferably a set) of rankings of, the search results in accordance with the user's interests. A user interface embodiment includes a topical directory, with various topics, and graphical controls (e.g., checkboxes) in which the user can select topics of interests, and a graphical control that allows the user to adjust the search result ranking in accordance with his interest profile.
The present invention is next described with respect to various figures and diagrams and technical information. The figures depict various embodiments of the present invention for purposes of illustration only. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the illustrated and described structures, methods, and functions may be employed without departing from the principles of the invention.
Referring now to
Clicking on the Edit Profile link 104 accesses the page 200 illustrated in
The subtopics themselves can have any number of additional levels of subtopics. For example,
Referring again to
The personalization control 608 allows the user to adjust the ranking of the individual documents/pages of the search results with respect to his interests, preferably as expressed in the personalization profile. The personalization control may be explained as controlling a degree of influence or contribution of the user's interest profile to the ranking of the search results.
In the example of
Referring now to
Referring now to
In the examples of
As shown on
In one embodiment of the invention, the personalization of search results is provided by the following methodology. Those of skill in the art of search engine design can readily understanding the basic structure of a search engine and its operation in which this methodology can be implemented.
1) When the user selects topics (categories), they are added to a cookie containing a list of his interests IN (where IN is short for “interests”). The interests can be expressed as either text tokens (e.g. “computers”), or as indices into a directory, where each topic/subtopic has an index number. When the user accesses the site, the system retrieves this interest list from the cookie. Alternatively, the site can provide a user registration page, in which the user registers with a user name and password, and the user's interests are stored at the search engine site in a database, and retrieved in response to the user login.
2) Each time the user issues a search query Q, the list IN is sent to a frontend web server.
3) Then the frontend web server issues two requests to a backend search engine (Q, null) and (Q, IN), which returns to the frontend web server two results sets, R_base (normal) and R_in (personalized), respectively.
4) The base query (Q null) is the same as searching for Q on the search engine without any personalization, so R_base is the result set that the search engine would normally return in response to the query. As noted above, the search results accordingly are ranked on their relevance to the query and any other factors, such as PageRank, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999, “Method for node ranking in a linked database”, which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and for. all of its teachings.
5) The personalized query (Q, IN) contains the user's interest list. The search engine follows a similar processing control flow as a normal query, but it activates a personalization component during the scoring function, which “boosts” documents that are relevant to the set of interests IN.
In one embodiment of the invention, these boosts are implemented using a set of maps (one map for each topic/subtopic in the directory), of the form:
{Site→boost}
So for example, the category “Health” has a map of the form
{Site→boost}
which contains entries such as:
nih.gov→5.8
cdc.gov--:>7.9
med.stanford.edu→3.5
where nih.gov, cdc.gov, and med.Stanford.edu are various sites that have been determined (either manually or automatically) to be related to the topic “Health”. In other words, for each topic in the directory, there is a set of sites that have been determined to be relevant to the topic, and for each of these sites, a boost value is defined.
The boost for the sites listed in the topical directory is generally determined as follows:
a) A “site graph” is generated where nodes of the graph are sites (basically, pages on the same host) and edges between nodes are weighted based on the number of pages from one site that link to pages on another. This same type of graph can be used to compute all topic boost maps.
b) For each topic in the directory, say “Health”, a number of sites are selected as “start sites” S0 whose home page is listed in the Open Directory. For example, for a university like Stanford, start sites may be selected as any site ending in .stanford.edu.
c) A computation is run in two passes:
d) The sites in S2 are boosted with their assigned weights.
When a personalized query comes in with an interest set (e.g., {Health, Music}), then the personalization component consults the respective maps, and then for query results (i.e. documents) that are in these maps, the personalization components boosts the IR score for them, so that they would get ranked higher. The IR score is the information retrieval score that the search engine provides for each document, and can be a function of document relevance and other factors, such as PageRank.
For example if http://www.med.stanford.edu/research/ were one of the results for query Q, and IN included “Health,” then that result would get a multiplicative boost of 3.5 to its IR score, because that page is on the site med.stanford.edu. For multiple interests, the values in the corresponding maps are multiplied together for a combined effect. Further details of one implementation for determining the boost for sites in the directory boost map are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/646,331 incorporated by reference herein.
6) The frontend web server receives R_base and R_in. R_base represents the results 602 the user sees when the personalization control 608 is set at 0 (or its minimum position 612). R_in represents the results 602 the user sees when the slider is at its maximum position 61 4, e.g. 10. In one embodiment, the control has 11 positions, but any number of positions may be used. The rankings that are shown to the user between 0 and 10 are interpolated; this means using R_base and R_in, the personalization component constructs intermediate rankings (R) . . . R—9) by moving each individual result along a virtual path “from its position when the control 608 is at its minimum position to when the control 608 is at its maximum position.
7) How the slider effect is provided to the user:
The frontend web server appends the results in°R_in that are not in R_base to R_base to get a list of all unique results (either in R_base or R_in) called R_all. The frontend web server then assigns consecutive identification numbers to the results in R_all that serve as identifiers. The frontend then sends to the user's browser two items:
a) the mapping lid→result} for each of the results in R_all, containing for each document in the results its identification number; and
b} N vectors that denote the rankings the user should see, in terms of result IDs, where N is the number of positions of the slider, and each vector represents the ordering of the results based on the degree of personalization. In this example, there would be 11 vectors corresponding to positions 0 through 10 of the control 608. In one embodiment Vector 0 is [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], reflecting the un-personalized ranking of the results, assigned with the local IDs starting with R_O. Vector 10 is the ordering in the fully personalized results R_in; for instance, it might be [15, 17, 5, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10], where documents 15 and 17, for example, are documents in the relevant map of the topic directory whose IR score was boosted according to the boost values in the map, and the value associated with the control 608's position. Transmitting the N ranking vectors to the client allows the client browser to quickly recomputed the rankings, rather than imposing that calculation on the server.
8) Finally, Javascript code in the result page causes the user's browser to reorder the search results using the appropriate one of the 11 positional ranking vectors in response to the user changing. the position of the control 608. Further details of one embodiment of steps 6-8, above, are described in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/641,489, incorporated by reference herein.
The present invention has been described in particular detail with respect to one possible embodiment. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced in other embodiments. First, the particular naming of the components, capitalization of terms, the attributes, data structures, or any other programming or structural aspect is not mandatory or significant, and the mechanisms that implement the invention or its features may have different names, formats, or protocols. Further, the system may be implemented via a combination of hardware and software, as described, or entirely in hardware elements. Also, the particular division of functionality between the various system components described herein is merely exemplary, and not mandatory; functions performed by a single system component may instead be performed by multiple components, and functions performed by multiple components may instead be performed by a single component.
Some portions of above description present the features of the present invention in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on information. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. These operations, while described functionally or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs. Furthermore, it has also proven convenient at times, to refer to these arrangements of operations as modules or by functional names, without loss of generality.
Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the above discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “calculating” or “determining” or “identifying” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
Certain aspects of the present invention include process steps and instructions described herein in the form of an algorithm. It should be noted that the process steps and instructions of the present invention could be embodied in software, firmware or hardware, and when embodied in software, could be downloaded to reside on and be operated from different platforms used by real time network operating systems.
The present invention also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored on a computer readable medium that can be accessed by the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus. Those of skill in the art of integrated circuit design and video codecs appreciate that the invention can be readily fabricated in various types of integrated circuits based on the above functional and structural descriptions, including application specific integrated circuits (ASIC). In addition, the present invention may be incorporated into various types of video coding devices.
The algorithms and operations presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may also be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will be apparent to those of skill in the art, along with equivalent variations. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language. It is appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the present invention as described herein, and any references to specific languages are provided for disclosure of enablement and best mode of the present invention.
Finally, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter. Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention.
This application is a continuation of, and claims priority to, pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/464,083, filed on May 4, 2012, entitled “Variable Personalization of Search Results in a Search Engine,” which is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/720,479, filed on Mar. 9, 2010 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,180,776, which claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/002,474, filed on Dec. 1, 2004 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,716,223, which claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/557,783 filed on Mar. 29, 2004, which are both incorporated by reference herein. This application also incorporates by reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/646,331 (filed on Aug. 22, 2003 and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,216,123) and Ser. No. 10/641,489 (filed on Aug. 14, 2003); all of the above applications are commonly owned along with this application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5724521 | Dedrick | Mar 1998 | A |
5724567 | Rose et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5754938 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754939 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5778363 | Light | Jul 1998 | A |
5809242 | Shaw et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5887133 | Brown et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5946678 | Aalbersberg | Aug 1999 | A |
6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6112202 | Kleinberg | Aug 2000 | A |
6134532 | Lazarus et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6137911 | Zhilyaev | Oct 2000 | A |
6138113 | Dean et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6182068 | Culliss | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6285999 | Page | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6289342 | Lawrence et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6308202 | Cohn et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6327574 | Kramer et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6327590 | Chidlovskii et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6356898 | Cohen et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6360221 | Gough et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366298 | Haitsuka et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6370527 | Singhal | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385592 | Angles et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6385619 | Eichstaedt et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6449657 | Stanbach, Jr. et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6560600 | Broder | May 2003 | B1 |
6584468 | Gabriel et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6601061 | Holt et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6665656 | Carter | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665837 | Dean et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6665838 | Brown et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6681223 | Sundaresan | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684205 | Modha et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6757691 | Welsh et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6772200 | Bakshi et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6789076 | Dutta | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6799176 | Page | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6871202 | Broder | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6912505 | Linden et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6922685 | Greene et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6981040 | Konig et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7017114 | Guo et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7216123 | Kamvar et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7380258 | Durden et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7565630 | Kamvar et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7631032 | Refuah et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7716223 | Haveliwala et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
8180776 | Haveliwala et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
20020024532 | Fables et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020062323 | Takatori et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078045 | Dutta | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099685 | Takano et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020120619 | Marso et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123912 | Subramanian et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020198882 | Linden et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030018659 | Fuks et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037041 | Hertz | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030088562 | Dillon et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030115318 | Wueste | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030204502 | Tomlin et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030208478 | Harvey | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030208482 | Kim et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030233345 | Perisic et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040024752 | Manber et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044571 | Bronnimann | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073485 | Liu et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040249709 | Donovan et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050038775 | Haveliwala et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1050830 | Nov 2000 | EP |
WO 0144992 | Jun 2001 | WO |
WO 0163472 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 03107127 | Dec 2003 | WO |
WO 2005033979 | Apr 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Aggarwal, C. et al. “A Framework for the Optimizing of the WWW Advertising,” International IFIP Working Conference on Electronic Commerce, 1998, Hamburg, Germany, published in Trends in Distributed Systems for Electronic Commerce, edited by W. Lamersdorf and M. Merz, Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1998, pp. 1-10, vol. 1402. |
Barroso, L.A. et al. “Web Search for a Planet: The Google Cluster Architecture,” IEEE Micro, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 22-28. |
Bohté, Sander M. et al. “On Current Technology for Information Filtering and User Profiling in Agent-Based Systems, Part I: A Perspective”, CWI, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, Jan. 2000, pp. 1-12. |
Brin, S. et al. “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Apr. 1998, pp. 107-117, vol. 30, No. 1-7. |
Carr, D.A., “Using Interaction Object Graphs to Specify Graphical Widgets,” Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Maryland, Sep. 1994. |
Cho, J. et al. “Efficient Crawing Through URL Ordering,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Apr. 1998, pp. 161-171, vol. 30, No. 1-7. |
Cornelis, B. “Personalizing search in digital libraries” Jan. 2003, pp. 1-57. Retrieved from the Internet: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.129.7017&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [retrieved on Aug. 13, 2009]. |
Dumais, Susan et al. “Stuff I've Seen: A System for Personal Information Retrieval and Re-Use,” SIGIR 03, Jul. 28-Aug. 1, 2003, pp. 108. |
Communication pursuant to Article 94(3) for Application No. 05 725 981.4, dated Apr. 14, 2011, 5 pages. |
Geiger, D. et al. “Asymptotic Model Selection for Directed Networks with Hidden Variables,” May 1996, Technical Report MSR-TR-96-07, Microsoft Research, Advanced Technology Division. |
Haveliwala, T.H et al, “An Analytical Comparison of Approaches to personalizing PageRank,” Stanford University Technical Report, 2003-35, Jun. 20, 2003. |
Haveliwala, T.H. “Topic-Sensitive PageRank: A Context-Sensitive Ranking Algorithm for Web Search,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2003. |
Heckerman, D. et al. “Learning Bayesian Networks: The Combination of Knowledge and Statistical Data,” Microsoft Research, Advanced Technology Division, Mar. 1994, pp. 1-53. |
International Search Report re International Application No. PCT/US2004/026631, International Filing Date Aug. 13, 2004. |
International Search Report for International Application No. PCT/US2005/025081, mailed Dec. 2, 2005. |
Jeh, G. et al. “Scaling personalized web search”, In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web (Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, 2003). WWW '03. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 271-279. |
Jordan, M. et al. “Hidden Markov Decision Trees”, 1997, Center for Biological and Computational Learning Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada, 7 pages. |
Kohda, Y. et al. “Ubiquitous Advertising on the WWW: Merging Advertisement on the Browser,” Fifth International World Wide Conference, May 6-10, 1996, pp. 1-9, Paris, France. |
Langheinrich, M. et al. “Unintrusive Customization Techniques for Web Advertising,” Computer Networks, 1999, pp. 1259-1272, vol. 31, No. 11-16. |
Lawley, Elizabeth Lane, “Mamamusings”, “MSR Presentations to Search Champs”, http://mamamusings.net/archives/2004-10/05/msr—presentations—to—search champs, Oct. 5,2004, p. 1 of 1. |
Liao, H.S. et al. “Browsing Unix Directories with Dynamic Queries; An Evaluation of Three Information Display Techniques,” Technical Report CAR-TR-605 CS-TR-2841, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Maryland, Feb. 1992. |
Liu, F. et al. “Personalized 1-36 web search for improving retrieval effectiveness” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Service Center, Los Alamitos, CA, vol. 16, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2004, pp. 28-40, XP011106912. |
Marais, J. et al. “Supporting cooperative and personal surfing with a desktop assistant.” Proceedings of ACM UIST'97, Oct. 1997. |
Matthews, J., “Automating Ad Intelligence,” Silicon Valley, Jul. 24, 2000, [online] Retrieved from the Internet>URL: http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531—420651 <. |
Meila, M. et al. “Estimating Dependency Structure as a Hidden Variable,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, A.I. Memo No. 1648, C.B.C.L. Memo No. 165, Sep. 1998. |
Meng, W. et al. “Building Efficient and Effective Metasearch Engines,” ACM Computing Surveys, Mar. 2002, pp. 48-49, vol. 34, No. 1. |
Osada, M. et al. “AlphaSlider: Searching Textual Lists with Sliders,” Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Maryland, Apr. 1993. |
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US05/09340, Jan. 31, 2007, 7 pages. |
Pretschner, A. et al. “Ontology Based Personalized Search,” Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Nov. 1999, pp. 391-398, Chicago. |
Rosenstein, M. et al. “Recommending from Content: Preliminary Results from an E-Commerce Experiment,” CHI 2000, published Apr. 16, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands. |
Supplementary European Search Report, European Patent Office Reference No. EPP95965, Aug. 31, 2009. |
Weinburger, D. “Microsoft Research,” Joho the Blog.www.hyperorg.com, Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 1-3. |
Mladnic, Dunja Personal Webwatcher: Design and Implementation, Dept. for Intelligent Systems, J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, 11000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1996, 18 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130103683 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60557783 | Mar 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13464083 | May 2012 | US |
Child | 13620611 | US | |
Parent | 12720479 | Mar 2010 | US |
Child | 13464083 | US | |
Parent | 11002474 | Dec 2004 | US |
Child | 12720479 | US |