Report of MIRACLE team for the Ad-Hoc track in CLEF 2006

This paper presents the 2006 MIRACLE’s team approach to the AdHoc Information Retrieval track. The experiments for this campaign keep on testing our IR approach. First, a baseline set of runs is obtained, including standard components: stemming, transforming, filtering, entities detection and extracting, and others. Then, a extended set of runs is obtained using several types of combinations of these baseline runs. The improvements introduced for this campaign have been a few ones: we have used an entity recognition and indexing prototype tool into our tokenizing scheme, and we have run more combining experiments for the robust multilingual case than in previous campaigns. However, no significative improvements have been achieved. For the this campaign, runs were submitted for the following languages and tracks: - Monolingual: Bulgarian, French, Hungarian, and Portuguese. - Bilingual: English to Bulgarian, French, Hungarian, and Portuguese; Spanish to French and Portuguese; and French to Portuguese. - Robust monolingual: German, English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch. - Robust bilingual: English to German, Italian to Spanish, and French to Dutch. - Robust multilingual: English to robust monolingual languages. We still need to work harder to improve some aspects of our processing scheme, being the most important, to our knowledge, the entities recognition and normalization

Miracle’s 2005 Approach to Cross-lingual Information Retrieval

This paper presents the 2005 Miracle’s team approach to Bilingual and Multilingual Information Retrieval. In the multilingual track, we have concentrated our work on the merging process of the results of monolingual runs to get the multilingual overall result, relying on available translations. In the bilingual and multilingual tracks, we have used available translation resources, and in some cases we have using a combining approach

Dublin City University at CLEF 2006: Experiments for the ImageCLEF Photo Collection Standard Ad Hoc Task

We provide a technical description of our submission to the CLEF 2006 Cross Language Image Retrieval(ImageCLEF) Photo Collection Standard Ad Hoc task. We performed monolingual and cross language retrieval of photo images using photo annotations with and without feedback, and also a combined visual and text retrieval approach. Topics are translated into English using the Babelfish online machine translation system. Our text runs used the BM25 algorithm, while our visual approach used simple low-level features with matching based on the Jeffrey Divergence measure. Our results consistently indicate that the fusion of text and visual features is best for this task, and that performing feedback for text consistently improves on the baseline non-feedback BM25 text runs for all language pairs

Dublin City University at CLEF 2004: experiments in monolingual, bilingual and multilingual retrieval

The Dublin City University group participated in the monolingual, bilingual and multilingual retrieval tasks this year. The main focus of our investigation this year was extending our retrieval system to document languages other than English, and completing the multilingual task comprising four languages: English, French, Russian and Finnish. Results from our French monolingual experiments indicate that working in French is more effective for retrieval than adopting document and topic translation to English. However, comparison of our multilingual retrieval results using different topic and document translation reveals that this result does not extend to retrieved list merging for the multilingual task in a simple predictable way

MIRACLE at Ad-Hoc CLEF 2005: Merging and Combining Without Using a Single Approach

This paper presents the 2005 Miracle’s team approach to the Ad-Hoc Information Retrieval tasks. The goal for the experiments this year was twofold: to continue testing the effect of combination approaches on information retrieval tasks, and improving our basic processing and indexing tools, adapting them to new languages with strange encoding schemes. The starting point was a set of basic components: stemming, transforming, filtering, proper nouns extraction, paragraph extraction, and pseudo-relevance feedback. Some of these basic components were used in different combinations and order of application for document indexing and for query processing. Second-order combinations were also tested, by averaging or selective combination of the documents retrieved by different approaches for a particular query. In the multilingual track, we concentrated our work on the merging process of the results of monolingual runs to get the overall multilingual result, relying on available translations. In both cross-lingual tracks, we have used available translation resources, and in some cases we have used a combination approach

The effects of separate and merged indexes and word normalization in multilingual CLIR

Multilingual IR may be performed in two environments: there may exist a separate index for each target language, or all the languages may be indexed in a merged index. In the first case, retrieval must be performed separately in each index, after which the result lists have to be merged. In the case of the merged index, there are two alternatives: either to perform retrieval with a merged query (all the languages in the same query), or to perform distinct retrievals in each language, and merge the result lists. Further, there are several indexing approaches concerning word normalization. The present paper examines the impact of stemming compared with inflected retrieval in multilingual IR when there are separate indexes / a merged index. Four different result list merging approaches are compared with each other. The best result was achieved when retrieval was performed in separate indexes and result lists were merged. Stemming seems to improve the results compared with inflected retrieval

The effects of separate and merged indexes and word normalization in multilingual CLIR

Multilingual IR may be performed in two environments: there may exist a separate index for each target language, or all the languages may be indexed in a merged index. In the first case, retrieval must be performed separately in each index, after which the result lists have to be merged. In the case of the merged index, there are two alternatives: either to perform retrieval with a merged query (all the languages in the same query), or to perform distinct retrievals in each language, and merge the result lists. Further, there are several indexing approaches concerning word normalization. The present paper examines the impact of stemming compared with inflected retrieval in multilingual IR when there are separate indexes / a merged index. Four different result list merging approaches are compared with each other. The best result was achieved when retrieval was performed in separate indexes and result lists were merged. Stemming seems to improve the results compared with inflected retrieval