National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications

2015

Next Generation Search Engine

Dr. B R Prakash
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of MCA, Sri
Siddhartha Institute of
Technology, Tumkur,
Vasantha Kavitha
Assistant Professor,
Maharani Lakshmi Ammanni
College for women,
Bangalore.
Dr. M. Hanumanthappa
Professor, Department of
Computer Science &
Applications, Bangalore
University, Bangalore.

Key words: search engines, Information

Abstract
In the recent years, there have been
significant advancements in the areas of
scientific data management and retrieval
techniques, particularly in terms of standards
and protocols for archiving data and
metadata. Scientific data is rich, and spread
across different places. In orderto integrate
these pieces to gether, a data archive and
associated metadata should be generated.
Data should be stored in a format that can be
retrievable and more importantly it should
be in a format that will continue to be
accessible as technology changes, such as
XML. While general purpose search engines
are useful for finding many things on the
Internet, they are often of limited usefulness
for locating Earth Science data relevant to a
specific spatiotemporal extent. By contrast,
tools that search repositories of structured
metadata can locate relevant datasets with
fairly high precision, but the search is
limited to that particular repository.
Federated searches have been used, but can
be slow and the comprehensiveness can be
limited by downtime in any search partner.
retrieval, Mobile Environment
1. INTRODUCTION
Conventional web search engines provide
search results as a list of their titles and
summaries, and it is difficult for users to
find web pages which they need by these
systems because search results are too much
to read. CMU Lab is trying to develop the
next generation search engine, in order to
help the users to find web pages which they
need. So, the name is ‘search@once’.
The core theory of Search@once is formal
concept analysis and, it provides well-
structured outputs as line-diagram in terms
of semantic of each page.
As you know, the 1st generation search
engines are known as indexing search
engines or directories. People can use
keywords, but that is really ‘searching’, no
other process to determine the relevance of
data. Directory is a really good idea and is
invented by the portal giant, Yahoo. In this
generation, at least people can find
something from a huge set of data.

ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
The 2nd generation which is the current
generation is known as the core technology
and of course, a great example would be
Google’s powerful PageRank. PageRank is
actually a set of formulas and equations
which determines the relevance and
reliability of every webpage for every
keyword. People can find the most relevant
and reliable data almost instantly. Also,
Google is famous for its indexing engine
too, because we can search over 1 billion
webpages in less than 0.1s. This is indeed
amazing! In this generation, we can all get
the most relevant webpages, but of course,
they are fetched and generated by machines.
So what will happen in 3rd generation
search engines? In my own opinion, the
importance and relevance of data will be
determined by humans instead. At the
moment, when we start searching, we are
telling the search engine what we want to
find, and the machines at the background
will then return the result to us. This is
actually known as one-way communication,
just like Web 1.0 or Read-Only Web. Why
not let the machines understand the
information of searches we sent? Our
searches may be very important for other
users, because we are finding information
according to computers’ mind, and the result
may not be the best.
In the 3rd generation of search engines,
machines will collect our searches and
analyze them. For example, we will tell the
search engine what we click, how long we
stay, how many pages we view, etc. These
2015
actions will be able to be understood by the
3rd generation search engines and they will
use them to improve the result for the next
user who wants to find answers to a similar
term.
2. Information retrieval
Information retrieval (IR) deals with the
representation,storage, and access to
informationaccording to the user’s
information need. Themain goal of an
information retrieval system(IRS) is to bring
relevant documents to users inresponse to
their queries. However, the explosionof the
information available on the Internet andits
heterogeneity has made traditional IRS less
effective. The traditional IRS do nottake into
account the user context in the
retrievalprocess. Indeed, traditional retrieval
models andsystem design are based solely
on the query andthe document collection
which leads to providingthe same set of
results for different users when thesame
query is submitted. In order to tackle
thisproblem, a key challenge in IR is: how to
captureand how to integrate contextual
information in theretrieval process in order
to increase the search performance?
Contextual retrievalis defined as “combine
search technologies andknowledge about
query and user context into asingle
framework in order to provide the
mostappropriate answer for users
information needs”.Thus, contextual IR aims
at optimizing the retrievalaccuracy by
involving two related steps:
appropriatelydefining the context of user
informationneeds, commonly called “search
ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
context”, andthen adapting the search by
taking it into accountin the information
selection process.
One of the fundamental questionsin
contextual IR is: which context
dimensionsshould be considered in the
retrieval process? We considered five
context specific dimensions listed below,
that have been explored in contextual IR
literature.
1. Device: device refers to a physical tool
thatgives to the user direct access to the
informationsuch as computer, mobile phone,
PDAetc. Regarding this dimension,
adaptingretrieval consists mainly in
considering thedevice characteristics.
2. Spatio-temporal contex: this
dimensioncontains two sub-dimensions
related respectivelyto geographical location
and time.According to this dimension,
contextualretrieval aims at delivering the
informationthat better addresses the user’s
situation inspatio-temporal applications
where the dataand/or query objects change
their locationsand they are not valid over
2015
time like in touristguide and network routing
applications
3. User context: user context is the
centraldimension in contextual IR and the
mostwidely one addressed in the research
area.This dimension contains two sub-
dimensionsrelated respectively to the
personal contextof the user and his social
environment.
a) Personal context: deals with the
followingsub-dimensions:
a. Demographic context:
personalpreference attributes such
aslanguage
b. Psychological context: anxietyand
frustration are examples ofuser’s affective
characteristics
that influence information-seekingbehavior
and user’s relevance assessments.
c. Cognitive context: this sub-dimensionis
the most addressed onein the area. It refers
to the user’slevels of expertise and
userinterests either short-term onesor long-
term ones.
b) Social context: points on the
user’scommunity such as friends,
neighboursand colleagues for instance.
Accordingto the social dimension, adapting
retrievalaims at leveraging the
searchaccording to implied preferences ofthe
user’s community rather than justthe
individual .
4. Task/problem: this dimension refers to
thebasic goal or intention behind the search
ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
2015

activitysuch as fact-finding vs. exploration

task,transactional, informational or
navigational task in web search.

5. Document context: Two main sub-

dimensionscould characterize the
documentcontext. The first one concerns the
documentsurrogates (relevant text
fragments) such asform, colors, structural
elements, citations, metadata. The second
dimension concerns the datasource
characteristics and their perceptionby the
users .

3. Contextual IR in Mobile
Environment
Most traditional search engines do not
consider the search context in the retrieval
process and arenot tuned to mobile
environments. Recent worksin IR
community attempt to improve the
searchaccuracy in this environment. This
research workscan be grouped under the
field of “ContextualMobile Information
Retrieval” (CMIR). CMIR aimsto tackle the Contextual retrieval is achieved by
problem of information overloadby exploiting themobile context during query
providing appropriate results according tothe reformulation and
resource constraints in one hand and document re-ranking steps. Below we give
users’location, time and interests on the anoverview of some significant approaches
other hand. in thisdomain which we can categorize into
three maincategories: device-based
adaptation approaches,
location-based adaptation approaches and
userbasedadaptation approaches.

• Device-based adaptation:
• Location-based adaptation:
• User-based adaptation:
ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
4. MOBILESEARCH USING A
SPATIOTEMPORAL
Motivation and General Approach
In mobile IR, the computing environment is
continuouslychanging due to the inherent
mobilityframework. More specifically,
users’ interests maychange anytime due to
change in their environment(location, time,
near persons, etc.). Just forexample, assume
that a person being at a “museum”submits
the query “Water lilies”, knowing that heis
interested both in “art” and “gardens”, we
canimprove search results by taking into
account hisinterests for “art” and not for
“gardens” giventhat he is at a “museum” and
not in a “garden”.Static approaches for
building the user profile aretherefore poorly
useful, so we rather focus on moredynamic
techniques, any time capable of adjustingthe
user interests to the current search
situation.Our general approach for search
personalizationrelies on building and
selecting the most appropriateuser profile in
a particular search situation. Infact, while a
user can have many profiles, one ofthese
profiles is the one primarily correspondingto
the current users’ query and situation. In
orderto select the most adequate user profile
to be usedfor personalization, we compare
the similaritybetween a new search situation
and the past ones.Comparing past user
experiences is referred toin the literature as
case-based reasoning (CBR). In CBR a
problem issolved based on solutions of past
similar problems.A case is described by a
pair tuple <premise,value>. Premise is the
description of the casewhich contains its
2015
characteristics, while the valueis the result
of the reasoning based on the premise.
The premise part of a case referred in our
situationsimilarity computing seating, is a
specific searchsituation S of a mobile user,
while the value partof a case is the user
profile G to be used for thepersonalization
of the search results. Each casefrom our case
base represents then a specific element from
U, denoted: Case = (S, G). For eachnew
submitted query, we build a new
semanticsituation, by modeling its
associated time andlocation contexts. A
situation based similaritymeasure is set up
and allows selecting the mostsimilar
situation, from the past ones from the
casebase. When the computed similarity is
above athreshold value, we re-rank the
search results ofthe query using the user
profile associated to themost similar
situation. After the user clicks orviews
interesting documents, the user feedbackis
Teduu is Search Engine For Next
Generation
When you search on www.teduu.com,
search beyond limit, you get
 All searches of google, yahoo,
bing, youtube, meta cafe etc, in the
most sophisticated manner ever
you ever cherished for.The
searches from all of them are
reflected with proper
differentiation on single screen.
 You can listen music while you
search any information.
 Your searches are more result
oriented as you have choice and
ease of information
 You ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
earn point when you search
images, videos, news etc(coming
very soon).
 Your points gets you rewards,
prizes and eligibility to take part in
contests.(coming very soon).
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
2015

used to maintain the case base.

5. CONCLUSION AND
FUTURE WORK
This chapter gives an overview of a number
ofrepresentative state-of-the-art contextual
IR techniquesin the mobile environment and
describes ourspatio-temporal based
personalization approachfor mobile search.
Our approach for personalizingmobile
search consists of three basic steps:
(1)inferring semantic situations from low
level locationand time data, (2) learning and
maintaininguser interests based on his
search history relatedto the identified
situations, (3) selecting a profileto use for
personalization given a new situationby
exploiting a CBR technique. We have
presenteda novel evaluation framework
based on adiary study approach devoted for
a context-awarepersonalization approach for
mobile search. Weevaluated our approach
according to the proposedevaluation
framework and show that it is effective.In
future work, we plan to extend this protocol
byusing real user data provided from a
search enginelog file. Extending the protocol
aims at testing theeffectiveness of the
personalized search based on
real mobile search contexts and click-
through dataavailable in the log file.

References
[1] K. Tamsin Maxwell, “Pushing the
Envelope: Innovation in Legal Search,”
in VoxPopuLII, Legal Information Institute,
Cornell University Law School, 17 Sept.

ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5
 National Conference on Advances in Computer Applications
2009.http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/200
9/09/17/pushing-the-envelope-innovation-
in-legal-search/
[2] Howard Turtle, “Natural Language vs.
Boolean Query Evaluation: A Comparison
of Retrieval Performance,” In Proceedings
of the 17th Annual International ACM-
SIGIR Conference on Research &
Development in Information Retrieval
(SIGIR 1994) (Dublin, Ireland), Springer-
Verlag, London, pp. 212-220, 1994.
[3] West’s Key Number
System: http://info.legalsolutions.thomsonre
uters.com/pdf/wln2/L-374484.pdf
[4] West’s KeyCite Citator
Service: http://info.legalsolutions.thomsonre
uters.com/pdf/wln2/L-356347.pdf
[5] Peter Jackson and Khalid Al-Kofahi,
“Human Expertise and Artificial Intelligence
in Legal Search,” inStructuring of Legal
Semantics, A. Geist, C. R. Brunschwig, F.
2015
Lachmayer, G. Schefbeck Eds., Festschrift
ed. for Erich Schweighofer, Editions
Weblaw, Bern, pp. 417-427, 2011.
[6] On Cluster definition and
population: Qiang Lu, Jack G. Conrad,
Khalid Al-Kofahi, William Keenan, “Legal
Document Clustering with Build-in Topic
Segmentation,” In Proceedings of the 2011
ACM-CIKM Twentieth International
Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management (CIKM 2011)(Glasgow,
Scotland), ACM Press, pp. 383-392, 2011.
[7] On Cluster association with individual
documents: Qiang Lu and Jack G.
Conrad, “Bringing order to legal documents:
An Issue-based Recommendation System
via Cluster Association,” In Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on
Knowledge Engineering and Ontology
Development (KEOD 2012) (Barcelona,
Spain), SciTePress DL, pp. 76-88, 2012.
ISBN:978-81-927765-0-5