WORKSHOP REPORT

Frontiers, Challenges, and Opportunities
for Information Retrieval

Report from SWIRL 2012
The Second Strategic Workshop on Information Retrieval in Lorne
February 2012
Editors
James Allan, Bruce Croft, Alistair Moffat, and Mark Sanderson

Authors and Participants (listed alphabetically)
James Allan, Jay Aslam, Leif Azzopardi, Nick Belkin, Pia Borlund,Peter Bruza, Jamie Callan, Mark Carman, Charles L.A. Clarke,
Nick Craswell, W. Bruce Croft, J. Shane Culpepper, Fernando Diaz,
Susan Dumais, Nicola Ferro, Shlomo Geva, Julio Gonzalo,
David Hawking, Kalervo Jarvelin, Gareth Jones, Rosie Jones,
Jaap Kamps, Noriko Kando, Evangelos Kanoulas, Jussi Karlgren,
Diane Kelly, Matthew Lease, Jimmy Lin, Stefano Mizzaro,
Alistair Moffat, Vanessa Murdock, Douglas W. Oard, Maarten de Rijke,
Tetsuya Sakai, Mark Sanderson, Falk Scholer, Luo Si, James A. Thom,
Paul Thomas, Andrew Trotman, Andrew Turpin, Arjen P. de Vries,
William Webber, Xiuzhen (Jenny) Zhang, and Yi Zhang

Abstract
During a three-day workshop in February 2012, 45 Information Retrieval
researchers met to discuss long-range challenges and opportunities within thefield. The result of the workshop is a diverse set of research directions, projectideas, and challenge areas. This report describes the workshop format, provides
summaries of broad themes that emerged, includes brief descriptions of all theideas, and provides detailed discussion of six proposals that were voted “mostinteresting” by the participants. Key themes include the need to: move beyond
ranked lists of documents to support richer dialog and presentation, represent
the context of search and searchers, provide richer support for information
seeking, enable retrieval of a wide range of structured and unstructured content,
and develop new evaluation methodologies.

ACM SIGIR Forum2

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

1 Introduction
A three-day residential workshop brought together 45 Information Retrieval researchers in Lorne,
Australia, to discuss challenges and opportunities within the field. The workshop ran February 14-17,
2012. The sponsors – RMIT University, The University of Melbourne, the ELIAS network (funded by
the European Science Foundation), and the National Science Foundation – provided local arrangements
and organizational support, and contributed to the travel costs of some of the participants.
The purpose of the workshop was to explore long-range issues of the field, to recognize challenges thatare on (or even over) the horizon, to build consensus on those that are key, and to disseminate theresulting information to the research community. The goal of the participants is that this resulting
description of the issues will inspire researchers and graduate students to address the questions raised,
will stimulate debate, and will provide funding agencies data to focus and coordinate support for
information retrieval research.
This workshop builds on and expands past gatherings that considered the future of the field as a whole:•

In September, 2002, a workshop was held at the University of Massachusetts to identify major
challenges in Information Retrieval. The challenges identified were users and their context,
multiple languages and media, clearer task definitions, improved evaluations, acquisition of
better and more training data, and improved formal models. Details of those issues were reported
in the workshop’s report: Challenges in Information Retrieval and Language Modeling, ACM
SIGIR Forum, 37(1):31-47, Spring 2003.1•

The first SWIRL workshop was held in December, 2004. The aim of that workshop was to foster
a better understanding of the field by identifying key “contributions, challenges, and turning
points” from the past to understand future directions. The outcome of that meeting was a list ofrecommended readings for researchers and particularly students: Recommending Reading for IR
Research Students, SIGIR Forum, 39(2):3-14, December 2005.2•

In November 2006 and February 2007, a small number of researchers met to identify criticalissues that would have broad impact on the field and applications of the field’s technology. This
group identified challenges in dealing with heterogeneous data, heterogeneous contexts,
availability of usage data, evaluation, and IR as a service to other areas of Human Language
Technology. The results of the meeting are reported in Meeting of the MINDS: An Information
Retrieval Research Agenda.3

Throughout the decade covered by those reports, the field of Information Retrieval has continued tochange and grow: collections have become larger, computers have become more powerful, broadband
and mobile internet is widely assumed, complex interactive search can be done on home computers ormobile devices, and so on. Furthermore, as large-scale commercial search companies find new ways to
exploit the user data they collect, the gap between the types of research done in industry and academics
has widened, leading to tension about “repeatability” and “public data” in publications. These changes inenvironment and shifts in attitude mean the time is ripe for the field to re-evaluate its assumptions, its
purposes, its goals, and its methodologies. The SWIRL 2012 workshop aimed to do just that.

1

http://sigir.org/forum/S2003/ir-challenges2.pdf or http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/945546.945549
http://sigir.org/forum/2005D/2005d_sigirforum_moffat.pdf or http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1113343.1113344
3
http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/MINDS/FINAL/IR.web.pdf. This report was part of a larger collection of workshops on
directions for Human Language Technology. The complete set of reports, including an executive summary, is available at
http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/minds.html.
2

ACM SIGIR Forum

3

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

2 Workshop format
The workshop was by invitation. Participants were chosen to be a mixture of established and early
career Information Retrieval researchers from Europe, the Americas, and the Asia-Pacific region. The
workshop involved pre-meeting and kickoff discussions to encourage thinking about problems inInformation Retrieval research, at-meeting nomination, discussion, and selection of major new
directions and research areas, and a post-meeting report.
Information about the workshop is available on-line at http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/swirl12/.

2.1 Pre-meeting “homework”
Participants were asked to nominate three papers that, in their opinion, represented important new
directions, research areas, or results in the IR field. Each of the papers was annotated with a sentence
describing the reason why the paper was chosen. The papers were not intended to represent older,“classic” IR papers, but rather to represent important directions for the future of the Information
Retrieval field.
A total of 136 papers were selected. Eleven were selected two or three times, yielding 122 uniquesuggested papers. Although there was little agreement about the papers themselves, there were several
themes apparent in the group: a range of IR tasks, exploration of alternate modalities, models of IR,
evaluation issues, query representation, user representation, document representation, answer
representation, architectural issues, and a scattering of other topics. Compared to previous “IRchallenges” reports (see the previous Section), there was little emphasis on cross-language issues, eventlevel processing, “factoid” question answering, and vertical search. The workshop did not investigate or
discuss why those topics did not arise this time; the explanation could range from issues that are solved,that had no significant papers, that are out of fashion, or that turned out to be too hard.
The papers with their “why chosen” annotations are listed on the workshop web site.

2.2 Meeting structure
On the preliminary evening of the workshop, the organizers summarized the areas that the 122 submitted
papers covered and encouraged casual discussion about the key areas that were represented. The nextmorning the group relocated to Lorne for the workshop proper.
To continue the process of provoking thought and discussion, six participants were pre-selected by theorganizers to make 5-minute presentations reflecting those individuals’ views of some important newideas and directions for Information Retrieval. The presentations were grouped into two sets withdiscussion following each set. Participants discussed and debated these ideas informally for the rest of
the day.
On Thursday, the second day of the workshop, participants were assigned to one of six groups, witheach group tasked to come up with no more than six ideas for research areas/directions/initiatives thatthey would then “sell” to the whole workshop. A research direction was described as something more
specific than a topic – e.g., an elevator story or a lead-off paragraph in a proposal – but large enough torepresent a significant, multi-year effort. Participants were asked to focus on efforts that could be
handled in an academic setting, without the requirement of large-scale commercial data. Such was theenthusiasm of the participants that this exercise resulted in 37 “pitches.”
After additional informal discussion, the participants voted for the six that they felt were “mostinteresting.” The organizers presented the results of the vote which the participants then used to identify
the six main topics for further discussion – some proposals were sufficiently similar that it made sense tocombine them.

ACM SIGIR Forum

4

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

A breakout session was held for these six topics, with participants selecting the one that interested themthe most. The rest of day was spent fine-tuning the content of these topics, culminating in a summary
presentation for the entire workshop that evening.
Friday morning started with discussion of the topics, followed by writing assignments and work on
drafts of the report. The six major topics were allocated two pages of content for the report. The
remaining 21 topics – combined when they were sufficiently similar – were allowed a half page. All of
the reports are included in Sections 0 and 5 below.

3 Summary of workshop results
The workshop participants selected a number of topics – research areas or directions – as “interesting”
and prepared short descriptions of each of them. Looking at the areas, it is clear that the focus ofattention was largely on “tasks” or problems that can perhaps be solved with substantial Information
Retrieval research. Within each, though, are recent or new Information Retrieval challenges – e.g.,
privacy, mobility, social networks – and often classic challenges – e.g., evaluation, context, scale, users– that require research to be adapted to new domains, new settings, or new modes of interaction.
It is important to highlight that the selected topics reflect the interests and backgrounds of the workshop
participants and are not meant to be an exhaustive list of Information Retrieval challenges. Furthermore,
except for selecting six of the topics as “most interesting” to the attendees, this is a non-prioritized list of
potentially fruitful research directions. A set of broad themes emerged within and across the topics,
which are described here:•

Not just a ranked list. This theme incorporates topics that move beyond the classic “single adhoc query and ranked list” approach, considering richer modes of querying, models of interaction,
and approaches to answering.

•

Help for users. This theme brings together topics reflecting ways that Information Retrieval
technology can be extended to support users more broadly, including ways to bring IR to
inexperienced, illiterate, and disabled users.

•

Capturing context. This theme touches topics that look at ways to incorporate what is happening
with and around a user to affect querying and result presentation. In particular, this theme treatspeople using search systems, their context, and their information needs as critical aspects
needing exploration.

•

Information, not documents. This theme crosses topics that seek to push Information Retrieval
research beyond document retrieval and into more complex types of data and more complicatedresults.

•

Domains. This theme is part of topics that consider information that is not simply text and thathas not been thoroughly explored by IR research so far – data with restricted access, collectionsof “apps,” and richly connected workplace data.

•

Evaluation. A perennial issue in Information Retrieval, evaluation remains important,particularly as the field expands into new challenges. This theme includes topics that require orsuggest new techniques for evaluation as well as those that need evaluation in the context of newchallenges.

The table on the next page identifies where those themes occur in the described topics. The six selected
topics are listed first; topics are otherwise listed in alphabetical order.

ACM SIGIR Forum

5

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

New domains

Evaluation

Not just documents

Capturing context

Help for users

Not just a ranked list

X

X

X

X

X

4.1

Conversational Answer Retrieval

X

4.2

Empowering Users To Search and Learn

X

4.3

Finding What You Need with Zero Query Terms

X

4.4

Mobile Information Retrieval Analytics

4.5

The Structure Dimension

4.6

Understanding People in Order to Improve I(R) Systems

5.1

Abstracting Information Retrieval Evaluation

5.2

Adapting to Various Sites, Tasks and Contexts

5.3

Axiometrics – Foundations of Evaluation Metrics in IR

5.4

Before and After the Mobile Query

5.5

Community Evaluation Service

5.6

Exploring the Intersection of Social and Algorithmic Search

5.7

Getting Your Life Back: … Personal Data

5.8

Information Retrieval

5.9

IR4ALL: Addressing … Divides to Search

5.10

Information Retrieval for the Ecosystem of Apps

5.11

Information Seeking Stage Aware Search

5.12

Protecting Users’ Privacy in Search

5.13

Search Among Secrets

5.14

Simulation of Interaction

5.15

Spoken Information Retrieval

5.16

Super Models of Information Retrieval Interaction

X

5.17

Supporting Complex Search Tasks

X

5.18

Time Changes Everything

X

X

5.19

Understanding and Evaluating Rich Aggregated Answers

X

X

5.20

Understanding Opinion Engineering

5.21

Understanding Search in the Workplace

ACM SIGIR Forum

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X
X
X

X

6

X

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4 Topics Discussed At Length
This section presents summaries of the six research directions, project ideas, and challenge areas thatwere discussed extensively at the workshop. As described in Section 2.2, these topics were selected by
the workshop participants from a larger group of 37 that were proposed. These six were then discussed
in additional breakout groups as well as plenary session. After highly similar topics of the remaining 31
were merged, 21 remained. They are briefly described in Section 5 of this report.
The topics are listed in alphabetical order.

4.1 Conversational Answer Retrieval: QA Meets IR
Current IR systems provide ranked lists of documents in response to a wide range of keyword queries
with little restriction on the domain or topic. Current question answering (QA) systems, on the other
hand, provide more specific answers to a very limited range of natural language questions. Both types ofsystem use some form of limited dialogue to refine queries and answers. The aim of this proposed
research area is to combine the advantages of these two approaches to provide effective retrieval of
appropriate answers to a wide range of questions expressed in natural language, with rich user-system
dialogue as a crucial component for understanding the question and refining the answers. We call thisnew area conversational answer retrieval.
1.1.1 Motivation
Conversational answer retrieval has, to some extent, been the underlying goal of information retrieval
for many years. Systems with these types of capabilities have been imagined many times in literatureand film. The huge success of web search engines using keyword queries and ranked lists of documents
led some to speculate that the web approach was information retrieval. Recently, however, thisassumption has been challenged by the instant popularity and positive reaction to systems such as
Apple’s Siri and IBM’s Watson. These systems, at least from the public perspective, respond to spoken
natural language interaction and questions with accurate answers in a conversational style. This,
combined with the popularity of natural language interaction in social question answering services, suchas Yahoo! Answers, strongly suggests that the time has come for designers of information retrieval
systems to take on the challenges of developing effective techniques for providing answers throughopen-domain, person-machine conversations.
4.1.1 Proposed research
Many aspects of this challenge will require definition and explanation in order to make progress andconstruct a common research agenda. Even defining the basic terms such as what constitutes a question,an answer, and a dialogue in this context can be difficult. One approach to understanding the problem is
to look at what these terms mean in current systems and then use this as a basis for defining the new
type of system. The following list summarizes the characteristics (and differences) of current IR and QA
systems along three dimensions: the question, the dialogue, and the answer.
•

Questiono IR: Queries are open domain and typically consist of “keywords” (important words and phrases).
Query processing includes stemming, stopword removal, and expansion.
o QA: Questions are natural language and cover a limited range of question “types”, such as some“wh-“ questions (when, who). Query processing includes parsing and “understanding” based ontype classification.

•

Dialogueo IR: Limited forms of dialogue supported such as query suggestion used to refine the query.
Relevance feedback is a dialogue-based technique that is used to refine results. Faceted search

ACM SIGIR Forum

7

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

systems allow result tuning by metadata values. So-called “Boolean” search engines support theuse of previous queries and results in new queries.
o QA: Limited natural language dialogue used to clarify question by resolving anaphora, coreferences, and other forms of ambiguity.
•

Answero IR: Answers are typically ranked lists of documents, but may also be snippets or passages indocuments.
o QA: Answers are extracted from text and are typically “factoids” or named entities of specifictypes matching question requirements. Answers are more constrained than IR document lists
and consequently can often be judged as “correct” more definitively than a document is judged“relevant”.

Given this list, what are the desired characteristics of a conversational answer retrieval (CAR) system,
striking a balance between significant new capabilities and feasibility in a five-year research program?
On the question dimension, we should clearly aim for open-domain, natural language text questions. We
want to avoid, as much as possible, the problem of the system suddenly switching modes when it
encounters a question it cannot handle. In order to be able to identify more specific and appropriate
answers, we need to have some level of understanding as in current QA systems. This does not mean,
however, that we need to develop specific techniques for processing every possible type of question andanswer. Instead, we need to develop more general approaches to identifying as many constraints as
possible on the answers for questions, based on question processing and dialogue.
The dialogue in the CAR system should be primarily natural language although actions such as pointing
and clicking would also be useful. Dialogue would be initiated by the searcher and proactively by thesystem. The dialogue would be about questions and answers, with the aim of refining the understandingof questions and improving the quality of answers. Previous parts of the dialogue, such as previous
questions or answers, should be able to be referred to in the dialogue, also with the aim of refining andunderstanding. Dialogue, in other words, should be used to fill the inevitable gaps in the system’sknowledge about possible question types and answers.
The answers in the CAR system should be extracted from the corpus (or corpora) being searched, andmay be at different levels of granularity, depending on the question. For some questions, a short text
fragment such as a named entity may be appropriate, although the context of the answer is also
important. For other questions, text passages, clustered groups of passages, documents, or even groupsof documents may be appropriate answers. Even tables, figures, images, or videos might be a preferred
response: answers should match what is known about the question requirements and should be as
constrained as possible. The goal should be that ranking is a secondary characteristic of the answers
rather than a primary one as in current IR systems.
4.1.2 Research challenges
There are many research challenges to be addressed in developing the framework for a CAR system.
Some of those challenges are:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Definitions of question and answer for open domain searching
Techniques for representing questions and answers
Techniques for reasoning about and ranking answers
Techniques for representing a mixed-initiative CAR dialogue
Effective dialogue actions for improving question understanding
Effective dialogue actions for refining answers

ACM SIGIR Forum

8

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4.1.3 Broader impact
A major initiative to develop a CAR system would have a significant impact on the IR researchcommunity and would lead to many exciting new research directions. The development of an effective
framework to accomplish the goals of CAR would also have a major impact on the search industry andhas the potential of leading to many possible commercial products.
4.1.4 Obstacles and risks
NLP is difficult, as is text understanding and inferring answers. If the ideas in CAR were easy, theywould already have been done, because the motivation to do them is very strong. This is at least a fiveyear initiative and requires more than one team of researchers to work on the associated problems.

4.2 Empowering Users to Search and Learn
IR systems can and should play a more central role in helping people develop their search skills, in
supporting a larger variety of more sophisticated search strategies, and in supporting deeper learning
experiences through the provision of integrative work environments that include a variety of tools for
exploring information and a variety of interfaces that support different types of information behaviors,interactions and outcomes.
4.2.1 Motivation
While the convenience of contemporary search engines enables fast, easy and efficient access to certain
types of information, the search behaviors learned through such interactions, when translated to tasks
where deeper learning is required, often fail. Search engines are currently optimized for look-up tasks
and not tasks that require more sustained interactions with information. We submit that whencompleting other types of search tasks, users automatically engage in the mode in which they have been
conditioned to interact; however, this mode is unlikely to lead to useful outcomes for tasks that require
deeper learning and retention. Over time, search behavior has converged on a small number of tactics
that transform the user into a passive information receiver rather than an active information seeker.
Users do not even have to create their own queries anymore and soon they may not even have to think of
their own information needs (see Section 4.3).
Search engines are powerful intellectual technologies that structure people’s thinking and activities. This
proposal is focused on the cognitive consequences of search and posits that contemporary search engines
have conditioned users to interact with information in ways that are suboptimal for many types of searchtasks and for deeper learning. Central to this proposal is the idea of agency. We seek to empower users
to be more proactive and critical thinkers during the information search process. In order to achieve this,
we believe it is necessary to help users develop better information search skills and provide bettersupport for information interaction and understanding.
4.2.2 Proposed research
The proposed research can be divided into three major areas: (1) understanding the cognitive
consequences of search, (2) helping people become better and more critical searchers and consumers of
information, and (3) helping people achieve higher levels of learning through the provision of moresophisticated, integrative, and diverse search environments.
The first research area is related to understanding and documenting the problem put forward by this
proposal, which is that people have been conditioned by contemporary search engines to interact inparticular ways that prevent them from achieving higher levels of learning. Example research questions
include: (1) What cognitive biases are fostered by search systems? How do these inhibit/foster particularbehaviors and outcomes? (2) In what ways do current IR systems condition users to interact in aparticular way? How persistent is this mode of interaction? Does it interfere with users’ abilities tosuccessfully complete other types of search tasks? (3) In what ways do current IR systems affect users’

ACM SIGIR Forum

9

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012learning processes? Do current IR systems lead to deep processing or do they mostly support superficial
consumption of nuggets? There is a growing body of writing, both critical and empirical, that examines
the cognitive consequences of search. We believe the IR community should proactively respond bylaunching our own investigations of these issues and developing new technologies that foster additional
types of interaction and learning.
The second research area is related to helping users become better and more critical searchers andconsumers of information. While the acquisition of search skills is a topic that has been primarily
addressed in the library science literature and in practice, by librarians, there has been little integrationof information literacy education with search systems. Typically, instructional methods consist of faceto-face classes or online tutorials which are not very engaging. We propose that search systems can playa more integral role in helping users acquire better search skills through the provision of tips, tools,
feedback and games that help users develop their skills in a more fluid and fun way. These include
general search skills, as well as specialized search skills that might be appropriate for particular domains
or tasks (e.g., medical search). We further propose that search systems support a wider range of morediverse search tactics and provide users with different views of information.
The third major research area is concerned with helping people achieve higher levels of learning throughthe provision of more sophisticated, integrative and diverse search environments that support greater
information immersion and more nuanced types of learning. Systems should go beyond the provision of
static results lists for query resolution to the provision of dynamic search results lists that allow different
views and rankings of information based on different properties of the information and the user’s worktasks. Systems should also provide tools that allow users to explore, analyze and synthesize information,and interact and engage with information in more meaningful ways.
4.2.3 Research challenges
The proposed search system will need some awareness of individual users, especially given that theconcept of learning underpins much of the proposed research. Users come to the system with particularsearch expertise, domain expertise, cognitive abilities, and motivations. It is expected that thesecharacteristics will change over time with increased interaction with the system and information.
Understanding how to diagnosis, represent, and update this information over time is an importantresearch challenge. This type of information will get represented in the system by user models; how to
do this is another obvious challenge.
The system should further contain task models that represent an understanding of the processes and steps
required to complete particular types of tasks. Understanding the composition of such models, as well as
how to represent and update these models over time are also important research challenges. Furthermore,
understanding how to provide task specific support (and what this means) is a challenge. We envisionthat many current models of the information search process, and in particular models that divide search
into different stages or phrases (see Section 5.9), will provide a foundation for this component.
The system should also contain content models to represent different types of content (e.g., newspaper
articles, images, videos) and the important characteristics of such content (e.g., authority, diversity) thatcan be used to facilitate users’ interactions with this content. The system should employ different
methods of analysis for processing, representing and using this content. Finally, new search
environments, including search techniques and interfaces, will need to be created to support thedevelopment of search skills and deeper and more meaningful interactions with information.
Finally, this proposal raises several challenges including evaluating the tools’ impact – both those
designed to help people become better searchers and those designed to help people more deeply interact
with information – on learning outcomes such as long-term retention of information and improved
critical thinking skills. Of course, holistic and diverse measures and methods will need to be developed.

ACM SIGIR Forum

10

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4.2.4 Broader impact
This proposed research has the potential to empower people through the attainment and mastery of
better information search skills and the provision of search environments that support deeper learning.
This should lead to better work products, more fulfilling leisure pursuits, increased opportunities for lifelong learning, and greater self-actualization. The work of this proposal also brings together researchers
from many different areas including IR, interactive IR, human-computer interaction, informationseeking behavior, psychology, education, and library science.
4.2.4.1 Obstacles and risks
There are several obstacles and risks. First, users must make an explicit choice to use these tools. These
tools are likely to interrupt and disrupt a comfortable searching style. We will need to make tools thatwill lead to meaningful and positive outcomes to motivate adoption. Another risk is that thedevelopment of tools that highlight particular characteristics of content, such as authority, might lead toadversarial web page authoring and/or introduce other types of search bias. Such tools might also beviewed as overly paternalistic and controlling. Finally, such tools might lead to the establishment of new
comfort zones that do not actually lead to higher levels of learning.

4.3 Finding What You Need with Zero Query Terms (or Less)
Future information retrieval systems must anticipate user needs and respond with information
appropriate to the current context without the user having to enter a query  or even initiate aninteraction with the system. In a mobile context such a system might take the form of an app thatrecommends interesting places and activities based on the user’s location, personal preferences, pasthistory, and environmental factors such as weather and time. In a traditional desktop environment, sucha system might monitor ongoing activities and suggest related information, or track news, blogs, andsocial media for interesting updates. In any case, such systems must allow users to quickly act on theinformation and suggestions. While such systems would generally remain unobtrusive, waiting for theuser to initiate an interaction (but providing “zero query terms”), sometimes the system mightproactively interrupt the user to provide critical information (which we call “less than zero query terms”).
4.3.1 Motivation
The need for these systems increases in mobile environments, where the user’s ability to interact withthe system is hampered by the physical limitations of the devices. On the other hand, development ofthese technologies is enabled by the context provided by mobile devices, which can provide a detailed
account of the user’s location, movements, activities and interests. Overall, much more of a person’s life
is online and always available, particularly through social media and other online interactions.
In contrast to traditional search engines, these systems must function without an explicit query,depending on context and personalization in order to understand user needs. In contrast to traditional
recommender systems, these systems must be open domain, ideally able to make suggestion andsynthesize information from multiple sources, involving multiple people, objects and actions.
In one form, we imagine a personal assistant who provides a key document at just the right time, sends a
meeting summary to someone’s mobile device just as they sit down, or even “whispers in one’s ear”
short biographical facts about the people at a meeting. While few people can afford to hire a personal
assistant to perform these tasks, core technologies are now in place to automate them. For example, the
DARPA CALO project  and Apple’s Siri, its iPhone spin-off  has already examined core tasks inthis area. Here, we propose a stronger, IR-oriented focus on automating the search process in the context
of current activities.
In another form, we imagine a system that automatically gathers information related to an upcoming task.
For example, if someone were planning to write a report during a long plane trip, they might find the

ACM SIGIR Forum

11

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

necessary background information already available in a folder on their laptop. In order to achieve thisgoal, the system would need to be aware of current and planned activities, automatically gathering andorganizing information in a forward looking fashion.
In an extreme version, we imagine someone’s phone ringing as they walk down the street, interrupting
their thoughts with the message that the love of their life is sitting in café they are just walking past. In
this case, the urgency of the information need is judged to outweigh the annoyance of the interruption.
In order to reach this level of performance, deep insights into personality and preference are required.
4.3.2 Proposed research
Many core IR issues are related to this problem, particularly given the increasingly rich, personal andheterogeneous signals and domains involved in these systems. Research in this area requires new
representations of information and user needs, along with methods for matching the two and presenting
the results.
Other problems include methods for modeling person, task, and context; methods for finding “objects ofinterest”, including content, people, objects and actions; and methods for determining what, how andwhen to show material of interest.
4.3.3 Research challenges
This research requires efforts to study users, interpret user behavior, prototype systems, and develop
appropriate evaluation methodologies, and there are substantial challenges in all of these areas.
User-related challenges include: methods for dealing with rich interaction sequences; use of multi-modal
sensor data; open domain, time- and geo-sensitivity; trust, transparency, privacy; determining
interruptibility; summarization – e.g., why the system made this suggestion for this person, now andhere; amount of time or information required – e.g., 5 minutes to kill vs. 15 hours on a plane; and log
and interaction analysis.
Prototype development challenges include data gathering and synthesis; power management in mobile
contexts; user interface/interaction, particularly in mobile contexts; and deployment and logging of data.
Evaluation challenges include the development of methodologies to assess the quality of specificsystems and suggestions, as well as the creation of appropriate test collections and methodologies toallow results to be compared across research groups.
4.3.4 Broader impact
We foresee three broad areas of impact:
1. Filling information gaps on demand: For example, a desktop app might populate a start screenwith personalized information and updates, or a mobile app might suggest ideas to fill free time.
Neither app would require the user to enter a query; interaction may be limited to browsing
information and rejecting ideas.
2. Proactively whispering in one’s ear, perhaps through a screen on mobile device, or by literally
whispering in one’s ear through a headset. Proactive information gathering might also take place
on a non-real time basis, such as gathering information for a forthcoming plane trip.
3. I Really Mean It Now! Identifying when and how a user can and should be interrupted to provide
essential information, either because of a negative event, such as an emergency, or a positive
event, such as finding the love of one’s life.
4.3.5 Obstacles and risks
Achieving success requires a close interaction with numerous fields of computer science, including
information agents, data mining, ubiquitous computing, NLP, and HCI.

ACM SIGIR Forum

12

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4.4 Mobile Information Retrieval Analytics (MIRA)
During the last decade people have begun carrying mobile devices and using them for a variety ofcommunication, social interaction, information seeking, and other routine tasks. In spite of their ubiquity,
no company or researcher has an understanding of mobile information access that spans a variety oftasks, modes of interaction, or software applications. This lack of understanding is an obstacle toscientific study and the development of new tools that provide more effective information access.
The first stage of this project develops a methodology and tools for large-scale collection of data about
mobile information access. The information gathered provides the foundation for a second stage, inwhich we will develop benchmark tasks, test collections, and evaluation methodologies for communitywide research initiatives. The project will be a success when the tools and resources developed are usedby subsequent research projects that develop improved information access technologies.
4.4.1 Motivation
Mobile devices are an important source of information for much of the public. Tools and technologies
developed for desktop and fixed computing platforms can’t capture much of the information about how
people use mobile devices. A company that provides mobile devices, software, or services can capturesome types of information, but usually is unable to construct a view that spans multiple applications. For
example, a search service provider might know that a query was issued, but not know whether the
results it provided resulted in consequent action. The lack of a more comprehensive understanding of aperson’s mobile information seeking and usage prevents progress on a variety of important researchquestions.
How a person’s information need (e.g., a query) interacts with contextual features, such as the person’s
location, platform, and behavioral pattern is an important topic for research, one that has been studied as
an issue of interaction design, but is largely unexplored within the IR community.
People have large social networks, however the role and value of each individual is context-specific.
The mobile environment is ideal for studying social network activation dynamics and how a person’s
global social network is refined into task- or setting-specific social networks.
The identification of common types of web search queries led to query classification and algorithms
tuned for different purposes, which improved web search accuracy. A similar understanding for mobile
information seeking would focus research on the problems of highest value to mobile users.
The mobile environment enables study of how information seeking spans apps and services. For
example, a person may check foursquare to find restaurants, search for restaurant reviews on yelp, andthen phone to make a reservation. Understanding cross-app interaction patterns enables development ofcontext-specific authority metrics, study of cross-modal information seeking (e.g., text, voice), andresearch on how online activities lead to user action (and vice versa).
Mobile devices have small screens and can be difficult to hear in noisy environments, thus they are aunique environment in which to study what information, what kind of information, and what granularity
of information to deliver for different tasks and contexts.
4.4.2 Proposed research
The project consists of a first phase that develops a methodology and tools for collecting data about
mobile information access, and a second phase that develops benchmark tasks, test collections, andevaluation methodologies that enable reproducible research.
4.4.2.1 Developing a Holistic View of Mobile Information Access
The first project component is a methodology and tools for doing large-scale collection of data about
mobile information access. The methodology uses software applications installed on a person’s mobile
device to capture information about how the device is used. A toolkit is developed to provide basic

ACM SIGIR Forum

13

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

logging capabilities. The toolkit can be deployed within different types of applications, for example, apassive monitor, a game, or an application that provides a useful service. The toolkit can also be used tocapture different types of information, to support different research agendas. The goal is to develop
applications that might be installed on several thousand devices.
There is precedent for this activity in other settings. Commercial search engines use browser toolbars tocollect information that is used to improve search services; the public generally considers this acceptableand benign. Spyware is embedded within software without a user’s knowledge to capture information
for unknown purposes; the public generally considers this unacceptable and a threat. Capturing broad
mobile information in a socially-acceptable manner requires research on several topics.
Research on incentive mechanisms is required to understand situations in which people are willing toallow their behavior to be monitored. For example, small monetary rewards, free games, social good,
and a useful free service are all incentives that are used successfully in other settings. Research on
acceptable practices is required to understand what features and practices provide a sense oftransparency for consumers, for example, periodic opt-in, and easy removal. Research on privacy isrequired to understand what can be protected by dataset licenses alone, what must be anonymized, andtradeoffs between anonymization and data utility.
The result of the first phase of the project is a methodology, a set of tools, and a set of best practices that
support the collection of useful data about mobile information access in a variety of situations.
4.4.2.2 Community-Wide Evaluation and Participation
A large data gathering effort is only worthwhile if it enables high-quality research, thus the second
project component is the development of well-defined information seeking tasks and supporting datacollections that represent important real-world mobile information seeking situations. The tasks and datacollections would be designed to support quantitative evaluation in well-defined evaluation frameworks
that lead to repeatable scientific research. They would be deployed in large-scale community-wide
evaluations of information retrieval research such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR, or FIRE.
Annual evaluations such as those attract many of the best researchers from around the world. They focus
the attention of a broad and high-quality research community on a small set of specific problems. They
also involve that community in establishing well-defined problems and evaluation methodologies that
produce repeatable science and become standards for the scientific community. Engaging theseevaluation forums to shape scientific research and establish a long-term research agenda for mobile
information seeking is of the highest priority.
4.4.3 Broader impact
This project is enabling technology that is a catalyst for groundbreaking research on mobile information
access. It develops a data-gathering framework, a software toolkit, and a set of “best practices” thatenable data collection about information seeking on mobile platforms in a manner that university
internal review boards (IRBs) will find acceptable. It uses the collected data to develop a set ofrepresentative and well-defined tasks and data collections that can be used in community-wide researchforums, thus enabling and supporting research by a broad scientific community.
4.4.4 Obstacles and risks
The project will need to address four important obstacles. First is developing incentive mechanisms thatwill cause enough people (several thousand people) to install software that allows their activity to bemonitored. Second is developing data collections that are sufficiently detailed to be useful while still
protecting people’s privacy. Third is collection of data in a manner that university internal review boards
will consider acceptable ethically. Fourth is collection of data in a manner that does not violate theTerms of Use restrictions of commercial service providers. None of these obstacles are insurmountable.

ACM SIGIR Forum

14

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4.4.5 Related initiatives
There are several potentially-related initiatives. The TREC 2012 Contextual Suggestion Track will study
how context and user interests affect web search. The zero-query research task (Section 4.3) also studies
how to deliver information proactively, using only information about a user’s interests and context. The
Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS) at UCLA has developed projects and tools that capture
data from mobile phones, and thus might have expertise and resources that would contribute to theproject.

4.5 The Structure Dimension
A key research question to be addressed by IR researchers in the next decade is: How do we movebeyond simple document retrieval? Better integration of structured and unstructured information toseamlessly meet a user’s information needs is a promising, but underdeveloped area of exploration. Can
we take advantage of the synergies between linked data, information extraction, collaborative editing,and other structured information to improve search breadth and quality?
4.5.1 Motivation
All data has structure, whether it is explicit or implicit. Even classic document retrieval assumes a
structure where full-text documents are delineated. However, the structural dimension stretches beyond
plain document layout to include type information identifying entities, user profiles, contextual
annotations, as well as (typed) links between information objects ranging from web pages to social
media messages. Users routinely access and amalgamate information from multiple inputs whileinteracting continuously within a virtual environment. While harmonizing various heterogeneous inputs
from a user’s environment is a major challenge, new opportunities to improve the search experiencearise – humans can take an active role in the information seeking processes. For example, human
computation in a crowd-sourcing platform or “friend-sourcing” information requests in a person’s own
social network could be integrated into the search experience. Mixing structured and unstructured data
representations is not a new research idea. However, recent changes in how users access information on
the Internet are increasing the importance of moving beyond traditional ranked documents retrieval. The
real challenge is that the underlying structure may be hidden in the data or even in the representation.
Related fields are making progress in uncovering this structure – incrementally driven by human effort,
as in the data spaces abstraction proposed for data management or the development of the semantic web;or, automatically created from natural language processing by machines reading the web and theheterogeneous information networks discovered with techniques originated in the data mining
community. In spite of the increasing availability of structural information, considerable work must be
done before we can fully utilize these new models to significantly improve the information seeking
experience.
Clearly, the information retrieval community is well positioned to investigate and remove uncertainties
arising in this process, whether these are caused by the selection of heterogeneous resources or by theunification of varying structure and quality of these resources and their annotations.
4.5.2 Proposed research
Are user information needs really answered by a list of documents without further processing? Consider
a variety of everyday contexts that may trigger information seeking: pruning an apple tree, going on atrip, assessing a job applicant, or deciding whether the beach one is visiting is safe for swimming. In allof these scenarios, structural information may help scope the information need to the most relevant
subset of resources to consider, and improve the results presented by giving more focused answers.
Modern web search engines can already identify verticals to provide better answers for queries involving
products, locations, restaurants, movies and artists. E-commerce systems can dynamically select andcreate facets to support interactive exploration. Domain-specific websites, like IMDB and Rotten

ACM SIGIR Forum

15

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

Tomatoes for movies, consider a rich result list constructed from different answer types. Entities are key;
relatively unambiguous pieces of information, as anchors for or pivots between the user’s informationneed and the representations available to the system. Named entities have an equally important role indigital cultural heritage, where they are the key to provide access to multimedia artifacts.
4.5.3 Research challenges
A fundamental challenge in synthesizing structured and unstructured collections is the development ofbetter approaches to represent information. Here, we consider three dimensions of representation: query,collection, and result presentation.
Move beyond simple keyword queries. For a system to accurately find and rank different informationfrom disparate collections, a new approach to mixing term queries, Boolean operations, or otherrelational constraints more intuitively is needed.
Design storage representations capable of supporting efficient free form queries. Collections may behighly dynamic, privacy preserving, or contain various types of unrefined data. How can we represent
the collection in a way that would allow imposing a desired structure at query time? Can we defer
statistical modelling (or even support exact matching) efficiently to query time?
Improve result presentation. How do we construct a result that mixes aesthetic and functional aspects
appropriately? What type of evaluation framework is needed to quantify the quality of the new
integrated results?
Many related challenges arise. How do we conduct effective and efficient search in hybrid networks ofstructured and unstructured data, and apply constraints at query time to find, process, and synthesize
multiple, loosely cooperating data repositories simultaneously? Query processing techniques such as
SPARQL, XQuery, SQL, NEXI, XIRQL and the INDRI query language are useful for inspiration – but
are these languages sufficient for our needs? How to deal with uncertain information within structured
and unstructured data? Links between entities in knowledge sources in repositories such as Wikipedia
may be incomplete and noisy. Sampling from heterogeneous and distributed sources inherently leads touncertainties about the underlying structure. Structured data generated by information extraction
components may be associated with confidence scores. It is important to design a framework that cannaturally deal with the uncertain information. Inquery’s inference networks and semi-structured
relevance models provide a starting point, but we need new approaches to dealing with the uncertainty
about the imposed structure; the (semantic) gap between structured data and unstructured data; and,efficient solutions that generate desired results in interactive time.
For all three dimensions - queries, collections, and presentation - we need new evaluation methodologies
that allow us to determine how effectively and efficiently we are delivering the expected results to endusers. In this context, we need to go beyond the traditional evaluation paradigm and strive fordeveloping benchmarks and tasks which are able to combine the assessment of structured retrieval, as
they do in the semantic and database communities, with unstructured retrieval, as it is traditionally donein the IR community. Evaluation must address efficiency and effectiveness in concert, not independently
as is the usual case in our field. Also, the capacity of handling heterogeneous sources would be a highly
desirable feature to consider. The goal is to reduce the barrier-to-entry and better utilize structure inanswering complex information needs. Can we design a system that is flexible enough to express themodels used in approaches to TREC, INEX, and CLEF?
4.5.4 Broader impact
The potential impact is seamless support for complex information seeking tasks. Envision an example
application “Sherlogue”: a computer generated Wiki, where each user’s search result is an interactive
wiki page that presents multi-faceted answers. For example, the query “Design a new course offering on
Information Retrieval” would produce a result page including a syllabus, lectures slides, assignment test

ACM SIGIR Forum

16

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

banks, videos, tutorial write-ups, useful references, links to area experts, source code and tools; editing
the wiki result interacts directly with both the retrieval engine (machine) and the user’s social networks(human).
4.5.5 Obstacles and risks
Addressing heterogeneous structural views over multiple data collections will require advances inalmost every sub-discipline of IR, varying from efficiency to understanding and evaluating multi-valued
relevance.

4.6 Understanding People in Order to Improve Information (Retrieval) Systems
Despite widespread acknowledgement that the understanding of users is essential for the creation,
improvement and evaluation of IR systems, there is still a large gap between the study of users and thestudy of IR algorithms. Hence, we propose the development of a research resource for the IR community,from which hypotheses about how to support people in information interactions can be developed, andin which IR system designs can be appropriately evaluated.
4.6.1 Motivation
All IR systems have the purpose of supporting people, through interactions with information, to achieve
their goals and underlying intentions in work, academic, everyday life situations. In order to design andevaluate such systems, it is necessary to understand the goals that lead people to engage in various
interactions with information, as the goals of systems must be commensurate with the goals of thepeople whom the systems are designed to support. Such systems will need to “understand” people’s
behaviors during their interactions with information, the problems they have in realizing their intentions,and the general nature of their information problems. Although there has long been a consistent call for
IR research and practice to base their activities on understanding of the people for whom the systems areintended, both the theoretical arguments for this, and the empirical results which have resulted, havebeen largely ignored by the IR system design and evaluation community. As a consequence, both IR
research and IR evaluation standards and methods are proving to be inadequate for the new types ofinteractions with information in which people engage, and the new types of support systems envisioned
for the future. Thus, the goals of our proposed program are to: provide basic data according to whichcharacteristics of goals, intentions, behaviors can be identified across a variety of contexts; develop a
research resource for the IR community, from which hypotheses about how to support people in
information interactions can be developed, and in which IR system designs can be appropriately
evaluated; and, provide insight as to how search interaction characteristics are shared or differ among,for instance, different user groups, search tasks, cultures, and languages of searching.
What is required to achieve the goals of the program is the systematic investigation and characterizationof the goals, intentions, and information interaction behaviors of people across a wide variety ofcontexts and situations, with specific reference to IR system design and evaluation. To date, there has
not been such research; this program aims explicitly to address this gap.
4.6.2 Proposed research
In order to achieve these goals, we propose an integrated program of studies of people before, during,
and after engagement with information systems, at a variety of levels, using a variety of methods. Theseshould include (but not be limited to) a range of levels from the individual, the group, and thecommunity; and a range of methods from ethnography, in situ observation, controlled observation,
experiment and large-scale logging.
The basis of the proposed program is the establishment of a set of standard, minimum protocols for the
conduct of studies and of data collection relevant to different levels and contexts of study, applicable todifferent types of methods.

ACM SIGIR Forum

17

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

We provide general descriptions of two such protocols, as examples of how such a program would work,and how the results of different types of studies could inform one another.
Controlled observation of people engaged in interactions with information. A standard protocol would
include: detailed specification of the tasks that participants in the investigation are asked to perform,
where these tasks are presented as “simulated work tasks”; detailed demographic description of theparticipants in the investigation, and instruments that elicit participants’ prior experience with relevant
systems; instruments which elicit the participants’ knowledge of the tasks and their topics, their
expectations of difficulty of the task and estimates of their likely success, prior to engaging in theinteraction; complete client-side logging of the information interaction associated with the task;
instruments which elicit participants’ evaluation of task difficulty, of their success in the task, and of thevalue of system features (if relevant) for task accomplishment; instruments which elicit evaluations of
the usefulness of information encountered during the interaction for task performance;
Large-scale logging of search session interactions. A standard protocol for server-side search logging
would include: no task specification, just completely natural search behavior; logging the content of thesearch results page and clicks on that page; logging of limited contextual information, such as the user’s
location, time of day; logging of implicit indicators including: 1) did they click, 2) did they dwell, 3) did
they return next week.
Large-scale logging on the server side gives a less rich record of individual actions than the detailed
observation described before. However, because it incorporates many people’s actions, it is extremely
valuable for: 1) Distribution of queries, 2) Distribution of clicks for each query, indicating user “intent”,
3) How query-click distributions vary according to other factors such as location or time, 4) Identifying
overall use cases, based on patterns in the logs.
By following protocols as in the two examples, it will be possible to link large-scale, server-side logging,which has limited kinds of data, but lots of examples; to smaller-scale, client-side studies, which havevery rich data, but very few examples.
A result of this program will be establishment of a research resource consisting of the records ofinformation interactions collected by many groups, at many sites, in a large variety of specific contexts
and situations. This resource will be made available to the IR research community at large, and will
enable the principled study of similarities and differences in goals, intentions, associated behaviors, andsuccess in task performance for many different types of tasks, in many different situations. This resource
will also provide an infrastructure for evaluation of IR systems, at both traditional levels of evaluation(e.g. relevance-based), and more especially, evaluation of support for information interaction episodes(e.g. search sessions) as a whole, which has not been possible before.
An integral aspect of this program will be sharing tools that help to implement the protocols among allgroups who participate in this endeavor. It must be noted that our proposal requires a site that is
responsible for maintaining and distributing the protocols, receiving and curating the data from thecooperating sites, integrating the reports into a single database, and affording access to the resulting
database to the IR research community.
4.6.3 Research challenges
Developing a framework for the research resource that is easy to understand and use will be a major
issue.
Challenges facing the research program include the following: agreement on standard protocols amongst
the research community; construction of the research resource, and its maintenance; cost of datacollection; dirtiness and sparseness of data; coordination of data collection for at least minimallycompatible data; instrumenting logging; and anonymizing.

ACM SIGIR Forum

18

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

4.6.4 Broader impact
A systematic categorization of the goals, tasks and intentions of common information interaction tasks
that people actually undertake is essential for building and evaluating systems for information retrieval
in an increasingly diverse information ecology. Furthermore, the establishment of a research resource ofrecords of information interaction sessions will enable such research in ways that have previously been
impossible.
More widespread adoption of user investigation will not only support and inform the development ofspecific approaches; having a common base of data that is collected will also enable a wider
examination of information seeking behavior that can contribute to the development of the field as awhole.
4.6.5 Obstacles and risks
IR community inertia, lack of expertise in appropriate methods, cost of relevant studies, finding a siteand people to maintain the research resource, funding for such a site.

5 Topics Discussed Briefly
This section includes short discussions of research directions, project ideas, or challenge areas that werediscussed in less detail at the workshop. In particular, these represent the 21 areas that were nominatedas interesting by the first-round breakout groups but were not voted as “most” interesting (see Section
2.2).
It is important to highlight that this list is not expected to be exhaustive, even when combined with theprevious section. There are many ideas that were presented within individual breakout sessions that are
exciting and interesting, but did not receive enough support from that session to be nominated to thelarger group. Nonetheless, this represents an exciting group of proposals.
The topics are listed in alphabetical order.

5.1 Abstracting Information Retrieval Evaluation
This project aims at abstracting the constituents of IR evaluation to allow for easier understanding,comparison, re-use and application of experimental results. It will develop methods, algorithms, and an
open infrastructure to address the diversity of different evaluation tasks, activities, and systems.
Motivation. IR evaluation is challenged by variety and fragmentation in many respects – diverse tasks
and metrics, heterogeneous collections, different systems, alternative approaches for managing theexperimental data. Not only does this hamper the generalizability and exploitability of the results but it
also increases the effort and cost needed to produce such experimental results and to further exploit them.
Currently, the development of new data sets, tasks, and metrics requires large overhead for organizers
and participants. Abstracting over these constituents as well as over the obtained results is crucial toscale-up evaluation. While defining these abstractions is not new, the problem has not been addressed
systematically as a community and the existence of partial or overlapping solutions favors fragmentation
rather than shared understanding and re-use.
Proposal. Abstracting evaluation infrastructure requires new data models, modular architectures,
scalable solutions, and interoperability to manage, make accessible, curate, and enrich ever increasing
amounts of experimental data. Abstracting across evaluation tasks requires shared representations of
information units across tasks and their associated metrics as well as efficient assessment of a(presumably) larger set of information units than documents. Abstracting across evaluation runs requires
dealing with sampling bias, non-stationary collections and relevance, and re-using data from historicinteraction sequences.

ACM SIGIR Forum

19

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

Challenges. The proposed abstractions require both (1) cross-disciplinary competencies, coming frominformation retrieval, databases, and statistics, and (2) combining them in an effective way which ranges
from creating unifying models to designing and developing infrastructures supporting them.
Furthermore, openness and community involvement are fundamental to ensure that a consensus isreached and approaches are shared. Finally, funding is crucial for the generation of ideas, for thedevelopment, and for the sustainability over the time of the resulting infrastructures.
Related efforts. Nugget-based test collection creation represents an example of abstraction over tasks
and information units. Evaluation infrastructures, such as the DIRECT system used in CLEF,
community repositories, such as EvaluatIR.org, or the Open Relevance Project by the Apache Software
Foundation are cases of systems trying to abstract over collections, evaluation activities, and evaluationruns.

5.2 Adapting to Various Sites, Tasks, and Contexts
Numerous tasks and applications cannot be served by standard off-the-shelf search engines. We lack themethodology and tool support to adapt an engine to its usage context, be it automatic or through expert
intervention. We need approaches for the design, evaluation and deployment of adaptive systems.
Motivation. The presumption that a general purpose search engine can fulfill all needs of a specific site,a specific user group, or a specific collection without parameter tuning is wrong. Search as encounteredin its most general form on the web is highly effective and convenient for a majority of searchtransactions. However, for the numerous specific needs and tasks in various organizations and selfselected user groups and communities, information seeking can be a cumbersome process which is only
partially supported: multi-lingual and cross-cultural issues, quality assurance requirements, in-housejargon, etc., interact to make site-specific and adaptable search technology a necessity. Since users
nowadays expect similar convenience and effectiveness from in-house system that they are used to in a
web context, many organizations outsource their search needs to web search site-level indexes. In
practice however, a tailored enterprise search solution would be most effective, if not too costly.
Proposal. This activity aims to formulate a design, testing, evaluation, and application framework forthe intersection of task models, use cases, dynamic knowledge representations, and structured
information, including existing installed systems.
As an example evaluation of the resulting work, consider pointing a set of adaptable enterprise searchsystems at a new site. Compare their representation of the site with respect to index terms, inferredconcepts, identified and highlighted divergence from general language use, relation of inside
information to outside information such as other known sites, conceptual models, and relevant data
streams.
Challenges. There are countless ways in which sites, tasks, and contexts can vary, and settling on one ormore to explore will require the availability – preferably broad availability – of data and users. It is notclear in advance how to evaluate the success of adaptive systems given the interplay between thevariables.

5.3 Axiometrics – Foundations of Evaluation Metrics in Information Retrieval
Already around 100 IR effectiveness metrics exist, and more keep appearing. This project aims at
understanding the relationships among them, in terms of both axiomatic properties and statistical
relations, for both metric science (understanding of metrics) and engineering (development of metrics).
Motivation. The choice of the effectiveness metric that we use in our evaluation experiments depends
on the current fashion. From a practical point of view, the current situation is that many researchers
simply use the most popular metric, without further investigation into its suitability for the problem athand. There is also the temptation for researchers to choose, among all available metrics, those that help

ACM SIGIR Forum

20

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012to corroborate their claims. To avoid this situation, we need a better understanding of metrics. In
addition, new metrics are being proposed continuously, and many of them rely on an arbitrary choice ofparameters (for example, the logarithm discount function in (n)DCG). A more complete understandingof these factors would help researchers to make more informed choices.
Both companies and stakeholders will benefit from Axiometrics because of the better understanding of
the properties and suitability of a metric for the task at hand. Companies will not waste time and money
in tuning their systems according to the wrong metric for their purposes. Stakeholders and customers
will be able to better interpret and understand whether the performance reported according to a given
metric are really representative of their needs and whether a reported improvement will have an actual
impact on their business.
Proposal. There have been some studies in this direction, which are the natural starting points: someapply formal constraints to define suitable metrics, a few present their evaluation metrics using aprobabilistic framework. Measurement theory is also a useful tool. The ultimate goal would be to devise
a general framework capable of taking into account the various notions of relevance (binary, categories,etc.), retrieval (binary/set, ranking, categories, etc.), and metric requirements (axioms, formal constraints
and empirical properties that any metric must/should satisfy). Models of users and tasks can be used as astarting point for designing the axioms. Such a framework would help to increase the transparency andunderstandability of metrics.

5.4 Before and After the Mobile Query: A Holistic Approach to User Context
Understanding a user’s offline and online context is the key to increasing user engagement with mobile
information and media applications. Furthermore, in mobile devices, user engagement is a better metricfor the success of a search application than traditional precision/recall-based approaches.
Motivation. Because of the limited real estate on a mobile device, metrics based on precision and recall
are of limited utility. We propose that the user’s engagement with the application is a more reliable
metric for relevance and success in this domain. Users engage with an application because it provides
them a satisfying experience in their interaction with information and media. Because mobile devices
are carried with the user on the go, the user’s engagement with an application is just as dependent on
their offline context as it is on their online context.
Proposal. We propose a study of offline context and its relation to the online context of a user’s
interaction. This involves employing a wide range of sensors in the device (gathering ambient sounds,
spatial directionality, temperature, etc.) as well as cross-application data gathering, and ethnographic
studies to know what a user was doing at the time of interaction. We propose to use this knowledge todesign better experiences by understanding the user’s engagement with the device as a whole, and with agiven application in particular.
Challenges. Ethnographic studies are difficult to do on a large scale. Users themselves may not beaware of why they find an application engaging, which will make it difficult to elicit information fromthem about this. As for engagement, there are many variables that affect engagement (the user’s offline
context, the application interface, whether the user has an information need or an entertainment need)which will need to be decoupled in order to be understood. Finally, we need to understand therelationship between engagement and satisfaction.
Related efforts. Related initiatives include the context-aware cell phone within MIT’s MIThril project,
the University of Helsinki’s freely available ContextPhone platform, and the “reality mining” effort ofEagle and Pentland that seeks to mine data collected from cell phones. This topic is also strongly related
to the Mobile IR Analytics (Section 4.4) and Zero Query Terms (Section 4.3) topics.

ACM SIGIR Forum

21

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

5.5 Community Evaluation Service
This project will provide an “experimental IR evaluation service” available to the community for
research and educational purposes. The critical challenge is to provide funding resources and on-goingsupport.
Motivation. Evaluation using large data sets is often desirable in Information Retrieval in order toprovide corroboration of claimed improvements in search effectiveness, search efficiency, or both. But
running experiments on terabyte-sized datasets requires sophisticated software tools, non-trivial
computing hardware, and access to suitable data sets. Large research groups acquire these resources overmulti-year multi-project spans, and experimental momentum and know-how is passed from one cohortof students and postdocs to the next; often with ongoing professional software engineering support, andextensive codebases. But small research groups lack these resources, and face ever-mounting barriers toentry. Even the largest of research groups face occasional “drought” periods when key personnel leave,or when funding is temporarily unavailable.
Proposal. This project will provide an “experimental IR evaluation service” that has the following
desiderata: low barriers to entry for standard collections and tasks, recording and validation ofexperimental runs (for future baselines), incorporation of new data sets as quickly as possible, need for
only limited local resources for researchers, and flexibility of processing. The project will be a success if
a new graduate student is able to do their first experimental run against a ClueWeb-sized collection
within a month of commencing.
Challenges. Provision of ongoing funding for such a service is clearly a challenge. We suggest that the
project be funded via a combination of modest subscription fees or membership fees from researchers
making use of the services, of the order of perhaps US$1-2k per year per user; specific research grantfunding, of the order of perhaps US$10-50k per year, from national or international funding bodies; andphilanthropic donations from major search services, of the order of perhaps US$50-100k per year fromeach of three or more companies.
Related efforts. Search systems and toolkits such as Lemur and Terrier provide related support. A
workshop on open-source IR will occur at SIGIR 2012.

5.6 Exploring the Intersection of Social and Algorithmic Search
Global growth in Internet connectivity and participation is driving a renaissance in human computation:use of people rather than machines to perform certain computations for which human competency
exceeds that of state-of-the-art algorithms (e.g. AI-hard tasks such as interpreting text or images). While
integrating human computation with algorithms has potential to greatly improve state-of-the-art
performance over today’s IR systems, realizing this potential will require new research to ascertain how
this emerging computing paradigm can be most effectively employed in the field of IR.
Motivation. Just as cloud computing enables us to utilize vast Internet computing resources on demand
and at-scale, crowdsourcing lets us similarly call upon the online crowd to perform human computation
tasks on-demand and at-scale. This newfound ability to integrate human computation alongsidealgorithms greatly expands traditional accuracy-time-cost tradeoffs and represents a disruptive shift indesign and implementation of computing systems. New hybrid, socio-computational systems canharness the collective intelligence (or wisdom) of the crowd in concert with automation to better tackle
large and/or difficult processing tasks. While the IR community already has a rich understanding ofsystems and user-centered design issues, crowd-based computing represents a significant departure fromexisting knowledge and practice. How can we innovate design, implementation, and evaluation IR
systems in order to effectively incentivize, incorporate, and benefit from crowd participation?
Proposal. New IR research is needed to determine how to most effectively blend algorithms and crowd
participation to quickly, accurately, and affordably: (i) collect IR-specific data, such as topical relevanceACM SIGIR Forum

22

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

judgments or search logs; (ii) conduct human subjects research, such as interactive IR studies; and (iii)
deliver enhanced search solutions which blend traditional search algorithms with social search via
community portals, social networks, and/or dynamically-formed online collaborations. In comparison to
current approaches, we anticipate crowd-based solutions will yield superior data-collection, research
infrastructure, and search systems that are faster, more accurate (or diverse), and/or cheaper.
Challenges. Effectively integrating human computation in IR systems represents a broadinterdisciplinary challenge, spanning information and computer science, psychology, sociology, andeconomics. How can we facilitate productive cross-disciplinary knowledge dissemination andcollaborations? While human computation for simple tasks like image tagging is well-established, how
can we effectively accomplish more complex or specialized tasks with crowds (where anonymity may
limit our knowledge of participants’ relevant skills and experience)? How do we effectively recruit, train,
and retain participants for effective, sustainable hybrid computing models? How can we best scale up
crowd participation? How can we best address quality assurance issues in data collection, differentiating
objective errors vs. legitimate data diversity? As online human computation creates new potential for
worker exploitation and digital sweat shops, we must also develop conscientious practices which
mitigate legal and ethical risks.
Related efforts. Crowdsourcing workshops were organized at SIGIR 2010 and 2011, WSDM 2011, and
WWW 2012. A crowdsourcing NIST TREC track will run for the 2nd year in 2012.

5.7 Getting Your Life Back: Capturing, Searching, and Synthesizing Personal Data
This project will design tools for capturing and indexing the online data streams encountered by users,
including data currently stored in external silos; for searching this data; and for making sense of it.
Motivation. An increasing proportion of peoples' lives is lived online, sending and receiving data
through personal digital computers. This data is, in principle, readily capturable, but is not currently
captured in any unified, user-accessible way. Capturing these data streams offers users an aid andextension to their own memory, providing opportunities for re-finding, reflection, interpretation, andself-presentation. The importance of such tools is emphasized by the documented tendency for our
online life to dissipate our attention, keeping us in shallow working memory, and distracting us from thedeep processing necessary for understanding and retention of information.
Proposal. We will develop tools that users can run on their own devices that will capture and index thedata they receive and send. Initially, this may be as a browser plugin, recording only textual data.
Further tools will be provided for searching and exploring this data. We believe that the novelty of thesetools, and the opportunity for self-exploration they offer, will drive widespread adoption. Immediate
research-engineering questions will be posed about how to collect, index, and selectively preserve thisinformation. Observational and interview-based studies will be performed on how users employ thetools we provide. Retrieval methods will be developed across this heterogeneous but personal data, anduser-based experiments performed. Users will be invited to perform data deposits of redacted personal
data for collaborative experiments.
Challenges. There is a growing body of work exploring how best to use and evaluate personal data, butwhen we consider complete “life logs” the problems are only more complicated. A first challenge, ofcourse, is attracting users to our tools and encouraging them to adopt them. Protocols must be extended
for performing experiments on unshared personal data. For data collection and aggregation,
anonymization and semi-automated redaction will be critical.
Related efforts. There has been recent work on desktop search and personal information management;
this project goes beyond this to include all personally experienced digital information. Collaboration
with researchers in HCI, and in cognitive and neurological theories of memory and recall, will be sought.

ACM SIGIR Forum

23

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

5.8 Information Retrieval
This project will provide effective algorithms for providing relevant information to the user, as opposed
to relevant documents. Systems will be evaluated based on “information units.”
Motivation. Information needs are often not about a ranked list of documents or snippets. The user
wants information. The information may be scattered across documents. It may be explicit or implicit.
Providing just the right information to the user in the right format is especially important in a mobile
environment.
Proposal. This project will first provide a clear guideline for systematically defining information units.
The guideline will not be about blindly tearing a given document into pieces – it will define information
units based on specific information needs. The information units will serve both as the basis for building
models for information retrieval, and as the basic unit of evaluation. The information retrieval models
and the evaluation framework should aim to handle redundancy/novelty, diversity, dependency between
information units, and even information discovery through inference.
Challenges. The evaluation based on information units is challenging. Relevant information units would
differ depending on users (e.g. background knowledge and interests) and contexts (i.e. anything besides
the query such as physical surroundings that may help specify the user’s information need). Also,
relevant information changes over time. Handling dependency across information units is difficult bothfor the retrieval model and for the evaluation. Moreover, if a system is able to infer and synthesize
information from multiple sources, how can it convince the user?
Related efforts. The NTCIR-10 One Click Access task evaluates system output based on information
units. The TREC 2012 Contextual Suggestion track asks systems to respond to complex informationneeds with “suggestions” rather than documents. This topic is also strongly related to the Conversational
Answer Retrieval (Section 4.1) and Structure Dimension (Section 4.5) topics.

5.9 IR4ALL: Addressing Digital, Physical, Cognitive and Cultural Divides to SearchThis project is about offering specific search support for a diversity of physical, cognitive, and culturaluser profiles that require specific search assistance. In other words, the goal is breaking information
access barriers and making search facilities available to everyone.
Motivation. Most IR research to date has implicitly assumed an archetype of user that has no physical,
cognitive, economic or contextual (age, culture, native language) handicaps to engage in an informationseeking task. But that leaves a substantial proportion of potential users out of the loop: for instance, thebillions of illiterate people across the globe or the 10-15% of the US population with dyslexia. Making
search facilities available to everyone has, then, an obvious and measurable impact.
Proposal. This project topic focus on providing and evaluating dedicated search support facilities for adiversity of physical, cognitive and contextual user profiles that require specific search assistance,
including: (i) user’s education level and background knowledge: in particular, illiterate users andchildren (IR for education); (ii) people with impaired physical abilities –vision, hand movement, etc.; (iii)people with cognitive disabilities (such as aphasia or dyslexia); (iv) people without access to a computer–but with access to a phone; (v) people with cultural and linguistic backgrounds that do not match thoseof the target information (such as an immigrant trying to find his way in the regulations of a country in aforeign language and a foreign culture).
Challenges. The basic challenges associated with IR4ALL are related to interaction design broadly:•

Resource selection, adaptation and presentation. Besides relevance and authority, an essential
factor is adequacy of the source to the user: a document suitable for an expert or an adult ispossibly not suited for a child (particularly if engaged in a learning process). If the relevant
information is only present in a document which is not suited for the target set of users, it must be

ACM SIGIR Forum

24

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

enriched, or simplified, or in general transformed. A document for children, for instance, mightneed to be simplified in terms of vocabulary and enriched with links to basic explanations of theconcepts in the document. A legal document for an immigrant might need to be simplified,summarized, translated, and linked to relevant external regulations.
•

Assistance in query formulation and refinement. There are a wide range of challenges here
depending on the type of users, many of them hard to tackle. In the immigrant example, considertranslating a non-expert spoken query in Chinese into the vocabulary of the Spanish legal systemand back; this requires sophisticated term suggestion technologies (together with educational styleconcept explanations) that are beyond current IR capabilities.

5.10 Information Retrieval for the Ecosystem of Apps
There is a growing trend towards the use of apps ranging from entertainment to government andfinancial services. Some describe this new dynamic world of apps via an ecosystems metaphor. Whatconstitutes IR in such an ecosystem?
Motivation. Propelled by smart devices and service marketplaces (e.g., apps stores) and the growing
number of services that are being more generally exposed (e.g., whole-of-government service
frameworks), there is a growing number of process objects to be retrieved, rather than classic documents.
Proposal. We suggest a project that aims to explore indexing and retrieval of services or apps. Complex
needs would involve the retrieval of a number of relevant apps that would need to be appropriately
choreographed to satisfy the need. Consider a complex goal like opening up a coffee shop. Pertinent
services span a spectrum of issues such as occupational health and safety, tax, employment etc. IR in
this environment is exploratory. A target “app IR system” should help the user navigate the ecosystemby providing suggestions for apps which they may not be able to formulate themselves.
Such a project will require investigation of how to classify the functional aspects of services or apps, toexplore whether and how service needs are related to information needs, how to model the “ecosystem”
of apps, and how to evaluate all of this work.
Challenges. Exploratory search for complex service agendas is interactive and so brings with it all of
the complications of interactive user evaluation. Ideally such a system would support users as they learn
about apps and how to search them, raising new problems of adaptation and user context.

5.11 Information Seeking Stage Aware Search Tools
A search session for a non-trivial search task consists of stages with different sub-goals (e.g., problem
identification) and specific search tactics (e.g., reading introductory texts, familiarizing withterminology). Can we make a retrieval system aware of the searcher’s stage in the information seeking
process, tailor the results to each stage, and guide the searcher through the overall process?
Motivation. Making a system aware of a searcher’s information seeking stage has the potential tosignificantly improve the search experience. Searchers are stimulated to actively engage with thematerial, to get a grasp on the information need and articulate effective queries, to critically evaluate
retrieved results, and to construct a comprehensive answer. This may be of particularly great help for
those searchers having poor information or media literacy. This is of obvious importance in many
situations: e.g., education, medical information, and search for topics “that matter.” Some special
domains, such as patent search and evidence based practices in medicine, have clearly prescribed aparticular information seeking process in great detail. Here building a systems to support (and enforce)
this process is of obvious value.
Proposal. Likely a coarse-grained model (problem identification stage, information collection stage,
search closure stage) is sufficient. There are obvious resources that are particularly suitable in a

ACM SIGIR Forum25

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

particular stage (e.g., Wikipedia as introductory), also demanding different evaluation measures(precision versus recall). Related genre/reading level classification methods have been proposed. Usecases can inform specific progression models. System design may vary from lightweight (unobtrusive
grouping/labeling of search results on a search result page) to systems that guide a searcher through therelevant stages.
Challenges. Information seeking processes have attracted much attention over the last decades in
information science, resulting in a range of theories and models that identify different stages in theprocess. Although there is family resemblance between the different models, there is no universally
agreed upon form.

5.12 Protecting Users’ Privacy in Search
The research topic develops effective and efficient solutions in protecting users’ privacy in search
applications.
Motivation. Imagine that we could create a machine into which many people would type their hopes,
dreams, aspirations, and interests. How would we protect this intensely personal information? We haveindeed built such a machine; we call it a “search engine.” And we have seen how remarkably easy it is
to associate search behavior with a specific individual, from news accounts of users being identified in
AOL query log data and in Netflix logs. Attribution of specific queries to specific users can have serious
consequences, for example in personal health and national security applications.
Two broad lines of research have been pursued to protect users’ privacy in search applications. One
approach is to allow knowledge of the query but to obscure the identity of the searcher. For example, it
is possible to forward each user’s query through a randomly generated path of cooperative network
nodes before reaching a search engine. The alternative approach is to obscure the content of the query.
Examples of this include (1) “private information retrieval”, which encodes users’ information requests
using security protocols of high computational complexity, and (2) “plausibility deniable search”, which
substitutes each actual user query with a set of standard queries that together cover the actual
information need and some other topics. Some other research builds distributed and private user log for
helping search engines to improve search results without disclosing sensitive user information.
Challenges. We need to better understand the ecosystem of users, and in particular how values
involving privacy, effectiveness and cost are balanced in different applications. We need to develop
systems that can help users to understand and to control those tradeoffs in different ways when working
on different tasks. We need ways of combining strategies that protect users’ privacy and confidentialityof searchable contents in a unified setting.

5.13 Search among Secrets
Massive collections of informal interactions (e.g., email or recorded meetings) are now accumulating inpersonal collections, business information systems, and government archives. Leveraging this new
cornucopia requires not only that we find what should be found, but that we not find what should not befound!
Motivation. Segregating sensitive documents was a 20th-century concept in business and governmentthat relied on skilled administrative staff; today’s information systems often contain an undifferentiatedmishmash of sharable and sensitive user-generated content. The result is a conundrum: we can easily
retain this intermixed content for its potential value, but we will fail to leverage that value because welack the technology to find the sharable content among the comingled thicket of sensitive information.
Proposal. Requests for archived information closely follow a power law distribution, with most content
never being requested. Thus, tremendous efficiencies can be achieved by rapidly segregating sensitive
content only in response to specific access requests. We can view this as first finding relevant content,

ACM SIGIR Forum

26

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

and second finding which among those relevant items are sensitive. For example, relevance search might
be fully automated, while sensitive content removal might be performed by experienced professionals
using advanced tools that help them to make rapid and accurate decisions.
Challenges. Holders of sensitive information are naturally risk averse, so broad adoption will requirevery accurate, and demonstrably very accurate, detection of sensitive information. New evaluation
designs that reflect the nature of sensitive content detection (automated or human-in-the-loop) will beneeded. New work on information seeking behavior is also called for, since search strategies developedin an era of instant response may not work well if on-demand review imposes latency constraints.
Potential attacks on system integrity (e.g., collusion among searchers) will need to be modeled andmitigated. Since costs (e.g., for review) and benefits (of access to otherwise unavailable content) may
accrue to different parties, economic models that result in rational resource allocation will also beneeded.

5.14 Simulation of Interaction
The simulation of interaction provides a powerful and flexible way to study the interaction between auser and a retrieval system towards the construction of an evaluation framework that can potentiallybridge lab-based and user-based evaluation. The challenge is to develop the appropriate abstractions
given the complexities of the environment to be simulated.
Motivation. Search in the real world is inherently interactive. Yet much of the research conducted in IR
follows the Cranfield paradigm, where interaction is typically restricted to a single search. This labbased approach suffers from being static in nature, but it provides cheap, controlled, and re-usable
evaluation resources. In contrast, studies directly involving users show the rich sequence of interactions
between users and IR systems; however, they are much more costly, and less generalizable because they
are conducted in particular contexts under particular conditions. Simulation of interaction offers a way
to improve lab-based research and open it up to the study of interaction, and also offers user-based
research a way to transfer and encode their understanding of users within simulated users.
The major outcome of this project will be a portable test-bed that can dynamically solicit, and react to,system actions. This will give the ability to researchers and practitioners to build systems that optimize
for multi-step, multi-session, multi-task, multi-mission information-seeking episodes.
Proposal. The proposed directions in this project are: (a) identifying and modeling the interactions,behaviors, and factors that affect the search process; (b) formalizing evaluation methodologies for thedifferent kinds of simulation of interaction (what-if studies); (c) developing an Evaluation-throughSimulation Framework, which paves the conceptual and logical path for undertaking and integratinguser-based, systems-based and simulation-based research; (d) determining the limits of simulation andhow applicable it is in practice and theory for quantifying, generalizing, repeating, reducing bias, and (e)implementing a simulation toolkit.
Challenges. Interaction is a complex process and its simulation is even more complicated. Some degreeof understanding and recognition of the limits of simulation will be needed for its results to be accepted.

5.15 Spoken Information Retrieval
This project aims to extend IR systems such that they can accept spoken queries and generate spoken
results, thereby helping the visually impaired as well as anyone in a setting where speech is a morenatural interface.
Motivation. An estimated 285 million people are visually impaired. At present, these people mustsearch using information retrieval systems built for sighted users, brought into their world using socalled “screen readers.” We can, and we do, today build systems that accept spoken input and thatgenerate spoken output, but the potential exists to build systems that manipulate speech with a facility

ACM SIGIR Forum

27

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

similar to the way in which present search engines manipulate written text. Fully actualizing thispotential can also benefit sighted users in hands-free/eyes-free situations such as driving, low-literacy
users who have access only through cell phones, and speakers of some minority languages for which
spoken content may be far more easily collected than written content (e.g., Australian Aboriginal
languages)
Proposal. This research aims to build spoken IR conversational models, for deployment on a mobile
platform. The input is speech; the output is audio. In addition to help everyone in settings where speech
is a preferred interaction mode, this is a “public good” project to facilitate information access to a large
section of the population that is currently disadvantaged by visual impairment, low literacy, or a
primarily spoken language.
Challenges. There are numerous scientific and engineering challenges: HCI models for spoken IR;
extracting short meaningful snippet suitable for spoken interaction; user interaction with spoken IRinterfaces; focused IR – delivering the best entry point to documents (BEP); text/audio summarization;text-to-speech; speech storage, indexing, search, and delivery; building the software with restrictive andwith innovative mobile devices; mobile technology challenges (noisy environment, bandwidth, power,cost); incorporating into the spoken IR models the global positioning and derived contexts that areaccessible on mobile devices; building collections of spoken IR for end users (e.g. consider text-tospeech of a Wikipedia document: what should a spoken Wikipedia document look like for delivery on amobile device?); as well as building test collections and evaluation platforms. User interaction over asequential and slow speech communication channel presents new challenges.

5.16 Super Models of Information Retrieval Interaction
This project aims to develop powerful and rich formal models of IR that incorporate users, systems, andthe interaction between them.
Motivation. Information Retrieval has had a long history in the development of formal models. While
such models have been developed mainly for ranking information objects, significantly less attention has
been paid to developing models (and theories) for interactive Information Retrieval. In recent keynotes
at the European Conference on Information Retrieval, Belkin (2008) and Jarvelin (2011) have stressed
the growing need for and grand challenge aspect of formal models and theories that include and cater tothe user and the interaction between users and systems. This is because having theories and models of IR
is intrinsically important to IR as a science. Furthermore, such models would provide the basis tounderstand, explain and predict what is likely to happen during the course of interaction and how it islikely to happen. Also, such models and theories would enable the generation of testable hypotheses that
help to guide and direct our science. We hope that super models of Information Retrieval Interaction
would lead to scientific laws, which enable the relationships between observables to be characterized
and better understood.
Proposal. We propose a program driven by these questions: (i) How can we develop models andtheories that adequately capture retrieval, search and information-interactions: going beyond just ranking?
(ii) What steps should we take to nurture and cultivate theories and models within IR, and how can we
progress towards theoretically driven research? (iii) Will it be possible to develop an over-archingframework in which emerging theories can co-exist or be combined into a grand unifying theory? (iv)
What kinds of empirical research, evidence and validation of super models of Information RetrievalInteraction will be required to provide adequate support for such theories? (v) And will such supermodels and grand theories manifest useful and intuitive laws that govern Information Retrieval, andenable the prediction of information interactions between users and systems?
Challenges. Being able to answer these difficult research questions presents many pragmatic challenges
such as: (i) theory and model development are very time consuming, require a lot of effort to construct,

ACM SIGIR Forum

28

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

with an unknown pay-off (i.e. may be very successful, but likely to be rather unsuccessful). (ii) finding
the right level of abstraction and catering for a large number of variables may lead to overly simple
models which lack predictive power (iii) there are few forums for theory and models to be presented or
the routes to publications are not very clear, and (iv) the nature of the models may be too complex torepresent, or rather, to illustrate the complexity will require a serious and dedicated research program.

5.17 Supporting Complex Search Tasks
This project aims to build an information access tool that actively supports a searcher to articulate awhole search task, and to interactively explore the results of every stage of the process.
Motivation. There is a striking difference in how we ask a person for information, giving context andarticulating what we want and why, and how we communicate with current search engines. Current
search technology requires us to slice-and-dice our problem into several queries and sub-queries, andlaboriously combine the answers post hoc to solve our tasks. Combining different sources requires
opening multiple windows or tabs, and cutting-and-pasting information between them. Current searchengines may have reached a local optimum for answering micro information needs with lighting speed.
Supporting the overall task opens up new ways to significantly advance our information access tools, bydevelop tools that are adapted to our overall tasks rather than have searchers adapt their search tactics tothe “things that work.”
Proposal. A complex task could be formulated as a complex query or search strategy expressed in a
structured query language. This query could be interactively constructed based on an initial plan andfurther feedback, combining several constraints on content as well as on structure (collection structure
and annotations). Different task constraints offer also different points of entry into this process. We can
exploit implicit and explicit contextual information on the specific search request, the specificlocation/time/IP, the searcher and her preferences, etc. Mobile devices are the natural setting for richcontextual information, with a preference for easy interaction rather than entering text. Often, theprocess will be iterative, with the task leading to another (sub)task.
Challenges. Search with task and person context requires a novel mixture of search andrecommendation methods, novel retrieval models, and evaluation methods (beyond topical relevance).
Structured querying and semantic annotation become crucial, but can be hidden from the searcher.
Interactive search requires user-centered evaluation or grounded simulations. Storing personal profiles
can invade privacy and hence this type of data requires special care (e.g., TREC 2012 Contextual
Suggestion Track).

5.18 Time Changes Everything: Dynamics and Time in Search
Time is a crucial parameter for understanding human-generated information and information needs. Yet
few information access systems represent information dynamically or leverage time for their services.
Motivation. An information system is affected by time in many ways. The information it processeschanges continuously both in content and form, the world that information references evolves, andinformation needs and usage scenarios change and evolve. In a big data context, modeling the character,
content and evolution of a steadily changing immense information stream requires a perspective of
information as something dynamic over time, not as something constant to be extracted. Awareness oftime in information access scenarios can be of many types: real-time issues (“I need to know what ishappening right now!”), semantic drift (“Are there new ways of referring to my topic of interest?”),temporally specific data (“Give me information about what happened at this specific date”), andtemporal references (“What documents mention this specific point in time?”). Temporal awarenessrequires systems to process time references on multiple scales in both content and queries. Temporal
dynamics—the volume and content churn in the data stream under analysis—necessitates a processing
model and a representation that can handle changing meaning of items in the index, changing

ACM SIGIR Forum

29

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

associations between index keys and the items being indexed, and changing information needs. Systems
need to be aware of time and leverage that awareness to enable entirely new services, not only to serve
documents in response to a query but to model and present the state of the world as it changes.
Proposal. Search and retrieval must have time as a core dimension. In a dynamic environment, every
single ingredient of the retrieval pipeline needs to be on-line modifiable, without lengthy test-traindeploy-update cycles. To make this happen systematically we need a framework to talk about time andto test system performance vis-à-vis time. There are excellent first steps taken along these paths andseveral systems for time-aware information retrieval are in the market but there is no collected research
effort to talk about them.
Challenges. The traditions of the IR field are not well equipped to deal with experimentation andevaluation of dynamic data. Making the shift from set and collection based testing to evaluating situation
awareness will be a major challenge.

5.19 Understanding and Evaluating Rich Aggregated Answers
This project aims to move research beyond evaluating ranked lists of documents, in order to understandthe usefulness of richer answers. Rich aggregated answers are search results that might include multigranular information objects: combinations of paragraphs, summaries, tables, graphics, images, and soon.
Motivation. Search systems are becoming more complicated and are presenting richer results (forexample, combinations of documents, images, and videos). Simple summaries (title, snippet, and URL)
are no longer sufficient for emerging application areas. While the academic IR community has a goodunderstanding of rigorous evaluation approaches, these need to be expanded to encompass new answer
modes. The risk of not doing this is that IR research will remain focused on a particular searchevaluation approach that does not reflect important new directions that search is taking. Out-dated
evaluation models may lead to incorrect conclusions about which approaches are better. Comparing theusefulness and impact of new rich complex answer systems is particularly important in non-traditional
domains, for example satisfying deep information needs in education, providing screen space-efficientanswers for mobile search.
Proposal. We seek to study the way in which rich answers support different information tasks and todevelop a taxonomy of information needs. Subsequently, this project could model how systems can
exploit this taxonomy (for example, integrating structured and unstructured data) and develop
appropriate task-oriented evaluation paradigms.
Challenges. How to conduct meaningful, rigorous, and repeatable experiments in this environment is achallenge. It is not clear that test collections with traditional relevance judgments are suitable for
evaluating rich aggregated answers. To be useful, any new evaluation approach will need to gainwidespread acceptance. The ultimate outcome will be to build a practical test-bed that supports
repeatable experiments.
Related efforts. This research cuts across a wide range of new search approaches and tools that generateanswers beyond simple ranked lists of text snippets, including mobile search, integrating structured andunstructured data, and dialogue systems. It is also related to the broader issue of understanding users.

5.20 Understanding Opinion Engineering
This project aims to study mass online opinion-influencing mechanisms such as “viral advertisement
campaigns” and “computational astroturfing” (aka fake grass-roots campaigns).
Motivation. Many powerful entities in society such as large corporations and political interest groups
have a vested interest in influencing public opinion. The rise of online social media, which facilitates

ACM SIGIR Forum30

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

interactions between large groups of relative strangers, has resulted in an unprecedented opportunity forthese entities to influence and possibly misinform opinion. By paying individuals to comment in forums
and social networks, these entities can influence the opinions of large percentages of the population.
Furthermore automated “bots” can be used for similar purposes, creating “fake users” who strategicallyplace comments in such a way as to maximize influence over the desired population. As this technology
matures, campaigns will likely become more focused on certain target demographics, and given theimportance of influencing individuals’ opinions, this progression toward targeted opinion engineering
may result in a social engineering arms race.
Proposal. The project will tackle important questions such as whether it is possible to detect opinion
engineering automatically, and if so, what signals are the best indicators of it and how reliable can suchdetection systems be? Having detected influence, another important question is whether it is possible tomeasure the amount of influence that each particular entity is having. Then on an individual level, afurther question is whether it is possible to identify those users who are “fake” or have been"compromised"? Having identified fake users, what would the ethical ramifications (if any) be ofattempting to discredit such individuals online?
Challenges. Building an opinion engineering test collection will be necessary to compare automatedsystems.

5.21 Understanding Search in the Workplace
The project will attempt to characterize the search problems typical of modern workplaces, and todevelop models which can underpin realistic evaluations and lead to more effective search tools.
Motivation: Traditional IR tools have not been designed or optimized for use in the diverse information
environments found in knowledge-rich workplaces. Workers performing their duties may now need tosearch across personal, departmental, corporate, outsourced, and public information sources and content
types ranging from database records, office documents, email, and webpages, to microblog posts, instantmessaging, and continuous media clips. This heterogeneity of data and the wide range of searchmediated tasks are not well modeled in current IR test collections.
Proposal: This project involves an initial phase of ethnographic study of a representative range of
workplaces, leading to the development of test collections which more faithfully model real world
search scenarios. The availability of test collections is expected to promote community research into
retrieval systems which better serve workers and promote the productivity and competitiveness of theirorganizations.
Challenges: The ethnographic study needs to be extensive and well-planned to ensure that its findings
are indeed representative of the full range of workplace search problems. This may best be achieved
through a large-scale collaboration between research groups. The non-public nature of the majority of
documents in most workplaces and of the queries and answers poses a huge challenge for creation of
public data sets. However, if the ethnographic study is able to precisely characterize the data and theinformation needs, it will hopefully be possible accurately simulate the interesting problems using nonsensitive data.

ACM SIGIR Forum

31

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012

6 Conclusion
It is 62 years since Calvin N. Mooers first defined the term “information retrieval” in the academic
literature. In each of the six decades that followed, IR researchers have produced substantially improved
search systems. As demonstrated by the volume of ideas proposed during this workshop, here at the startof the seventh decade of IR research, the field of information retrieval continues to be both a strong andvibrant research area. The themes in the proposals show a worldwide research community identifying
topics of future work that go far beyond the abilities of existing commercial search providers. The
opportunities to extend the abilities of IR systems are wide ranging and diverse.
While heterogeneous in their views of where future trends in IR lie, delegates were consistent in theirview that the SWIRL 2012 workshop was a stimulating opportunity to discuss and debate new ideas aswell as to interact with other leading researchers.

The organizers and participants would like to thank and acknowledge the following sponsors who
provided partial support for arrangements and travel: the University of Melbourne, the ELIAS network(funded by the European Science Foundation), the National Science Foundation by grant number
1216764, and RMIT University.

ACM SIGIR Forum

32

Vol. 46 No. 1 June 2012