Abstract:2.1 Introduction and hypotheses The goal of our work in the HARD track was to test techniques for using knowledge about various aspects of the information seeker's context to improve IR system performance. We were particularly concerned with such knowledge which could be gained through implicit sources of evidence, rather than explicit questioning of the information seeker. We therefore did not submit any clarification form,, preferring to rely on the categories of supplied metadata concerning the user which we believed could, at least in principle, be inferred from user behavior, either in the past or during the current information seeking episode. To this end, based on the training data supplied and our previous research, we attempted to test the following hypotheses: H1: People who are familiar with a topic will want to see documents which are detailed and terminologically specific; people who are unfamiliar with a topic will want to see general and relatively simple documents. This we operationalized by promoting the value of documents which scored toward the unreadable end of readability scales for people highly familiar with the topic, and by promoting the value of documents which scored toward the easily readable end of the scales for people unfamiliar with the topic. H2: Different document genres can be identified by their vocabularies. This we operationalized by constructing language models for all the retrieved documents for each training topic and for just the completely relevant documents for each topic. We then identified words which occurred with greater than expected probability, based on the entire topic language model, in the relevant documents, for all topics which had the same genre. These words were considered to be indicators of the genre. We added the words associated with a particular genre to queries f or topics which requested that genre. H3: Certain document sources will be relevant, or not, to different desired genres. This we operationalized by promoting documents from certain sources to the top of the retrieved list for topics with some genres, by removing documents from some sources entirely from the retrieved list for topics with some genres, and by demoting the value of documents from some sources in the retrieved list for topics with some genres. H4: If there are texts which the information searcher has identified as relevant to the topic, using them as the basis for automatic query expansion will improve retrieval performance. This was operationalized by choosing terms for query expansion from the relevant texts, based on a combined ranking formula. H5: If the desired granularity of the retrieval result is passage, then the retrieved documents should be ranked on the basis of their best passage, rather than on the document as a whole. This was operationalized by using the InQuery best passage ranking function. Our official submission was with queries constructed on the basis of hypotheses 2, 4 and 5.Our basic IR system was InQuery, version 3.2, obtained from the Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval, University of Massachusetts ( http://ciir. cs. umass. edu) using its default indexing, query processing and retrieval algorithms. The queries for our baseline run were constructed using both title and description fields from the topics, and were just the weighted sum of the stemmed, non-stoplist words from the title and description fields. These queries were then used as the basis for our experimental runs, with them, or their results, modified according to the metadata, as described in section 2.2, below. 2.2 How metadata about the searcher was used The experimental condition of the HARD track was for each site to submit at least one baseline run for the set of 50 (eventually 48) topics, using only the title and (optionally) description fields for query construction. The results of the

TREC-10 Experiments at CAS-ICT: Filtering, Web and QA.

FDU at TREC-10: Filtering, QA, Web and Video Tasks

FDU at TREC-9: CLIR, Filtering and QA Tasks.

TREC-10 Web Track Experiments at MSRA.

PKU-ICST at TRECVID2009: High Level Feature Extraction and Search

Peking University at the TREC 2005 Question and Answering Track.

Fudan University at TRECVID 2007

QCRI at TREC 2013 Microblog Track.

THUIR at TREC 2008: Relevance Feedback Track

At the web track of TREC 2003

TRECVID 2007 Search Tasks by NUS-ICT.

THU QUANTA at TAC 2009 KBP and RTE Track.

THU QUANTA at TAC 2008 QA and RTE track

FDUQA on TREC 2006 QA Track.

MSR KMG at TREC 2014 KBA track vital filtering task

PKU-ICST at TRECVID 2012: Known-item Search Task

FDUQA on TREC2003 QA Task.

Tsinghua University at TRECVID 2005.

PKU-ICST @TRECVID2012: Known-item Search Task.

Rutgers' HARD and Web Interactive Track Experiments at TREC 2003

FDUQA on TREC 2007 QA Track.