Mining query subtopics from search log data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most queries in web search are ambiguous and multifaceted. Identifying the major senses and facets of queries from search log data, referred to as query subtopic mining in this paper, is a very important issue in web search. Through search log analysis, we show that there are two interesting phenomena of user behavior that can be leveraged to identify query subtopics, referred to as `one subtopic per search' and `subtopic clarification by keyword'. One subtopic per search means that if a user clicks multiple URLs in one query, then the clicked URLs tend to represent the same sense or facet. Subtopic clarification by keyword means that users often add an additional keyword or keywords to expand the query in order to clarify their search intent. Thus, the keywords tend to be indicative of the sense or facet. We propose a clustering algorithm that can effectively leverage the two phenomena to automatically mine the major subtopics of queries, where each subtopic is represented by a cluster containing a number of URLs and keywords. The mined subtopics of queries can be used in multiple tasks in web search and we evaluate them in aspects of the search result presentation such as clustering and re-ranking. We demonstrate that our clustering algorithm can effectively mine query subtopics with an F1 measure in the range of 0.896-0.956. Our experimental results show that the use of the subtopics mined by our approach can significantly improve the state-of-the-art methods used for search result clustering. Experimental results based on click data also show that the re-ranking of search result based on our method can significantly improve the efficiency of users' ability to find information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".