<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Introduction to the Working Notes</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Italy carol.peters@isti.cnr.it</string-name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2008</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>The objective of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum1 is to promote research in the field of multilingual system development. This is done through the organisation of annual evaluation campaigns in which a series of tracks designed to test different aspects of mono- and cross-language information retrieval (IR) are offered. The intention is to encourage experimentation with all kinds of multilingual information access - from the development of systems for monolingual retrieval operating on many languages to the implementation of complete multilingual multimedia search services. This has been achieved by offering an increasingly complex and varied set of evaluation tasks over the years. The aim is not only to meet but also to anticipate the emerging needs of the R&amp;D community and to encourage the development of next generation multilingual IR systems. These Working Notes contain descriptions of the experiments conducted within CLEF 2008 - the ninth in a series of annual system evaluation campaigns. The results of the experiments will be presented and discussed in the CLEF 2008 Workshop, 17-19 September, Aarhus, Denmark. The final papers - revised and extended as a result of the discussions at the Workshop - together with a comparative analysis of the results will appear in the CLEF 2008 Proceedings, to be published by Springer in their Lecture Notes for Computer Science series. Since CLEF 2005, the Working Notes are published in electronic format only and are distributed to participants at the Workshop together with a printed volume of Extended Abstracts. In previous years, this was in form of a CD-ROM; this year the Working Notes will be distributed on a memory stick. We're moving with the times! Both Working Notes and Book of Abstracts are divided into ten sections, corresponding to the seven main evaluation tracks, the two pilot tasks, and an additional section describing another evaluation initiative using CLEF data: MorphoChallenge 2008. In addition appendices are included containing run statistics for the Ad Hoc, Domain-Specific, and GeoCLEF tracks, plus a list of all participating groups showing in which track they took part. The main features of the 2008 campaign are briefly outlined here below in order to provide the necessary background to the experiments reported in the rest of the Working Notes. CLEF 2008 offered seven tracks designed to evaluate the performance of systems for: • multilingual textual document retrieval (Ad Hoc) • mono- and cross-language information retrieval on structured scientific data (Domain-Specific) • interactive cross-language retrieval (iCLEF) • multiple language question answering (QA@CLEF) • cross-language retrieval in image collections (ImageCLEF) • multilingual retrieval of web documents (WebCLEF) • cross-language geographical information retrieval (GeoCLEF) Two new tracks were offered as pilot tasks: • cross-language video retrieval (VideoCLEF) • multilingual information filtering (INFILE@CLEF) In addition, Morpho Challenge 2008 was organized in collaboration with CLEF as part of the EU Network of Excellence Pascal Challenge Program2. The Morpho Challenge participants will meet separately before the main CLEF workshop on the morning of Wednesday 17 September, to discuss their results. 1 Since the beginning of 2008, CLEF is included in the activities of the TrebleCLEF Coordination Action, funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission. For information on TrebleCLEF, see www.trebleclef.eu. 2 See http://www.cis.hut.fi/morphochallenge2008/</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Here below we give a brief overview of the various activities.</p>
      <p>Multilingual Textual Document Retrieval (Ad Hoc): The aim of this track is to promote the development of
monolingual and cross-language textual document retrieval systems. From 2000 - 2007, the track exclusively used
collections of European newspaper and news agency documents. This year the focus of the track was considerably
widened: we introduced very different document collections, a non-European target language, and an information
retrieval (IR) task designed to attract participation from groups interested in natural language processing (NLP).
The track was thus structured in three distinct streams. The first task offered monolingual and cross-language
search on library catalog records and was organized in collaboration with The European Library (TEL)3. The
second task resembled the ad hoc retrieval tasks of previous years but this time the target collection was a Persian
newspaper corpora. The third task was the robust activity which this year used word sense disambiguated (WSD)
data. The track was coordinated jointly by ISTI-CNR and Padua University, Italy; Hildesheim University,
Germany; and the University of the Basque Country, Spain, with the collaboration of the Database Research
Group, University of Tehran, Iran.</p>
      <p>Cross-Language Scientific Data Retrieval (Domain-Specific): The focus of the track is research into how the
structure of data in collections (i.e. metadata, controlled vocabularies) can be exploited to improve search.
Monoand cross-language domain-specific retrieval is studied in the domain of social sciences using structured data (e.g.
bibliographic data, keywords, and abstracts) from scientific reference databases. This year, the target collections
provided were: GIRT-4 for German/English, Cambridge Sociological Abstracts for English, and the INION
corpus ISISS provided by the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of
Science. A multilingual controlled vocabulary (German, English, Russian) suitable for use with GIRT-4 and ISISS
together with a bi-directional mapping between this vocabulary and that used for indexing the Sociological
Abstracts was provided. Topics were offered in English, German and Russian. The track was coordinated by
GESIS-IZ Social Science Information Centre, Bonn, Germany.</p>
      <p>Interactive Cross-Language Retrieval (iCLEF): In iCLEF, cross-language search capabilities are studied from
a user-inclusive perspective. A central research question is how best to assist users when searching information
written in unknown languages, rather than how best an algorithm can find information written in languages
different from the query language. Since 2006, iCLEF has moved from news collections (a standard for text
retrieval experiments) in order to explore user behaviour in a collection where the cross-language search necessity
arises more naturally for average users. The choice fell on Flickr4, a large-scale, online image database based on a
large social network of WWW users, with the potential for offering both challenging and realistic multilingual
search tasks for interactive experiments. The search interface provided by the iCLEF organizers was a basic
cross-language retrieval system for the Flickr image database presented as an online game: the user is given an
image, and must find it again without any a priori knowledge of the language(s) in which the image is annotated.
The game was publicized on the CLEF mailing list and prizes were offered for the best results in order to
encourage participation.</p>
      <p>The main novelty of the iCLEF 2008 experiments was the shared analysis of a search log from a single search
interface provided by the organizers (i.e. the focus was on log analysis, rather than on system design). Search logs
were harvested from the search interface described above and iCLEF participants could essentially do two things:
- Search log analysis: participants had access to the search logs, and could freely perform data mining studies on
them, such as looking for differences in search behaviour according to language skills, or looking for
correlations between search success and search strategies, etc.
- Interactive experiments: participants could recruit their own users and conduct their own experiments with the
interface. For instance, they could recruit a set of users with passive abilities and another with active abilities
in certain languages and, besides studying the search logs, could perform observational studies on how they
search, conduct interviews, etc.</p>
      <p>The track was coordinated by UNED, Madrid, Spain; Sheffield University, UK; Swedish Institute of Computer
Science, Sweden.</p>
      <p>Multilingual Question Answering (QA@CLEF): This track has been offering monolingual and cross-language
question answering tasks since 2003. QA@CLEF 2008 proposed both main and pilot tasks. The main scenario was
event-targeted QA on a heterogeneous document collection (news articles and Wikipedia). A large number of
questions were topic-related, i.e. clusters of related questions possibly containing anaphoric references. Besides
the usual news collections, articles from Wikipedia were also considered as sources of answers. Many
monolingual and cross-language sub-tasks were offered: Basque, Bulgarian, Dutch, English, French, German,
3 See http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/
4 See http://www.flickr.com/
Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish were proposed as both query and target languages; not all were used in
the end. The additional exercises were the following:
- The Answer Validation Exercise (AVE) in its third edition was aimed at evaluating answer validation systems
based on recognizing textual entailment.
- QAST was focused on Question Answering over Speech Transcriptions of seminars. In this 2nd year pilot
task, answers to factual and definitional questions in English were to be extracted from spontaneous speech
transcriptions related to separate scenarios in English, French and Spanish.
- QA-WSD provided questions and collections with already disambiguated Word Senses in order to study their
contribution to QA performance.</p>
      <p>The track was organized by a number of institutions (one for each target language) and jointly coordinated by
CELCT, Trento, Italy and UNED, Madrid, Spain.</p>
      <p>Cross-Language Retrieval in Image Collections (ImageCLEF): This track evaluated retrieval of images from
multilingual collections; both text and visual retrieval techniques were exploitable. Five challenging tasks were
offered in 2008:
- A photo retrieval task: a good image search engine ensures that duplicate or near duplicate documents
retrieved in response to a query are hidden from the user. Ideally the top results of a ranked list will contain
diverse items representing different sub-topics within the results. This task focused on the study of successful
clustering to provide diversity in the top-ranked results. The target collection contained images with captions
in English and German; queries were in English.
- A medical image retrieval task: this is a domain-specific retrieval task in a domain where many ontologies
exist; the target collection was a subset of the Goldminer collection containing images from English articles
published in Radiology and Radiographics with captions and html links to the full text articles. Queries were
provided in English, French and German.
- A visual concept deception task: the objective was to identify language-independent visual concepts that
would help in solving the photo retrieval task. A training database was released with approximately 1,800
images classified according to a concept hierarchy. This data was used to train concept detection/annotation
techniques. For each of the 1,000 images in the test database, participating groups were required to determine
the presence/absence of the concepts.
- An automatic medical image annotation task: automatic image annotation or image classification can be an
important step when searching for images from a database of radiographs. The aim of the task was to find out
how well current language-independent techniques can identify image modality, body orientation, body
region, and biological system on the basis of the visual information provided by the images.
- A Wikipedia image retrieval task: this was an ad hoc image search task where the information structure can be
exploited for retrieval. The aim was to investigate retrieval approaches in the context of a larger scale and
heterogeneous collection of images (similar to those encountered on the Web) that are searched for by users
with diverse information needs.</p>
      <p>The University and University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland; RWTH Aachen, Germany; Oregon Health and
Science University, USA; Victoria University, Australia; Sheffield University, UK; Vienna University of
Technology, Austria; CWI, The Netherlands, collaborated in the track organization.</p>
      <p>Multilingual Web Retrieval (WebCLEF): In the past three years this track has focused on evaluation of systems
providing multi- and cross-lingual access to web data. WebCLEF 2008 repeated the track setup of the 2007
edition. In 2008, a multilingual information synthesis task was offered, where, for a given topic, participating
systems were asked to extract important snippets from web pages (fetched from the live web and provided by the
task organizers). The systems had to focus on extracting, summarizing, filtering and presenting information
relevant to the topic, rather than on large scale web search and retrieval per se. The focus was on refining the
assessment procedure and evaluation measures. WebCLEF 2008 had lots of similarities with (topic-oriented)
multi-document summarization and with answering complex questions. An important difference is that at
WebCLEF, topics could come with extensive descriptions and with many thousands of documents from which
important facts have to be mined. In addition, WebCLEF worked with web documents, that may be very noisy and
redundant. The track was coordinated by the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.</p>
      <p>Cross-Language Geographical Retrieval (GeoCLEF): The purpose of GeoCLEF is to test and evaluate
cross-language geographic information retrieval for topics with a geographic specification. How best to transform
into a machine readable format the imprecise description of a geographic area found in many user queries is still an
open research problem. As in previous years, GeoCLEF 2008 examined geographic search of a text corpus. Some
topics simulated the situation of a user who poses a query when looking at a map on the screen. For these topics,
the system received the content part and a rectangular shape which defines the geographic context.</p>
      <p>Cross-Language Video Retrieval (VideoCLEF): The VideoCLEF Vid2RSS feed task was a classification task
performed on a video corpus containing episodes of a dual language television program in Dutch and English.
Participants were provided with speech recognition transcripts, metadata and keyframes for the video data. It is
important to note that the languages occur side by side in the program and are not translations of the same content.
The task was to group videos into topic categories and generate an RSS-feed for each category. The videos were
classified (i.e. assigned to the topic categories) using the speech recognition transcripts for both languages.
Keyframes and metadata could support the generation of the RSS-feeds, but could also be used to support
classification, if participants so chose. The dual language programming of Dutch TV offered a unique scientific
opportunity, presenting the challenge of how to exploit speech features from both languages. The track was
coordinated by the University of Amsterdam; data was provided by The Netherlands Institute of Sound and
Vision; University of Twente, The Netherlands, provided the speech transcripts; Dublin City University, Ireland,
provided the shot segmentations and the key frames.</p>
      <p>Multilingual Information Filtering (INFILE@CLEF): INFILE (INformation, FILtering &amp; Evaluation) was a
cross-language adaptive filtering evaluation track sponsored by the French National Research Agency. INFILE
extended the last filtering track of TREC 2002 in the following ways:
- Monolingual and cross-language tasks were offered using a corpus of 100,000 Agence France Press (AFP)
comparable newswire stories for Arabic, English and French;
- Evaluation was performed by an automatic interrogation of test systems with a simulated user feedback. A
curve of the evolution of efficiency was computed along with more classical measures tested in TREC. The
track was coordinated by the Evaluation and Language resources Distribution Agency (ELDA), France.
Unsupervised Morpheme Analysis (Morpho Challenge): The objective of Morpho Challenge is to design a
statistical machine learning algorithm that discovers which morphemes (smallest individually meaningful units of
language) form words. The scientific goals are:
- to understand the phenomena underlying word construction in natural languages
- to discover approaches suitable for a wide range of languages
- to advance machine learning methodology
The aim of Morpho Challenge 2008 was similar to that of Morpho Challenge 2007, where the goal was to find the
morpheme analysis of the word forms in the data. Two tasks were offered. CLEF data for English, Finnish and
German was used in the second task in which information retrieval experiments were performed where the words
in the documents and queries were replaced by their proposed morpheme representations. The search was then
based on morphemes instead of words. The activity was coordinated by Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland.</p>
      <p>Details on the technical infrastructure and the organisation of all these tracks can be found in the track overview
reports in this volume, collocated at the beginning of the relevant sections.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Test Collections</title>
      <p>The CLEF test collections are made up of documents, topics and relevance assessments. The topics are created to
simulate particular information needs from which the systems derive the queries to search the document
collections. System performance is evaluated by judging the results retrieved in response to a topic with respect to
their relevance, and computing the relevant measures, depending on the methodology adopted by the track.
A number of different document collections were used in CLEF 2008 to build the test collections:
- CLEF multilingual corpus of more than 3 million news documents in 14 European languages. This corpus is
divided into two comparable collections: 1994-1995 - Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian,
Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish; 2000-2002 - Basque, Bulgarian, Czech, English, Hungarian. The
Basque data was new this year. Parts of this collections were used in the AdHoc, QuestionAnswering,
GeoCLEF and Morpho Challenge tracks.
- Data from The European Library /TEL): approximately 3 million library catalog records in English, French
and German, used in the Ad Hoc track.
- Hamshahri Persian newspaper corpus; nearly 170,000 documents used in the Ad Hoc track;
- The GIRT-4 social science database in English and German (over 300,000 documents) and two Russian
databases: the Russian Social Science Corpus (approx. 95,000 documents) and the Russian ISISS collection</p>
      <p>for sociology and economics (approx. 150,000 docs). The RSSC corpus was not used this year. Cambridge
Sociological Abstracts in English (20,000 docs). These collections were used in the domain-specific track.
Online Flickr database, used in the iCLEF track
The ImageCLEF track used collections for both general photographic and medical image retrieval:
» IAPR TC-12 photo database of 20,000 still natural images (plus 20,000 corresponding thumbnails)
with captions in English, and German;
» ARRS Goldminer database – nearly 200,000 images published in 249 selected peer-reviewed
radiology journals
» IRMA collection in English and German of 12,000 classified images for automatic medical image
annotation
» INEX Wikipedia image collection, approximately 150,000 images associated with unstructured and
noisy textual annotations in English
Videos in Dutch and English of documentary television programs, approximately 30 hours, used in the
VideoCLEF track.</p>
      <p>Agence France Press (AFP) comparable newswire stories in Arabic, French and English for the INFILE track</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>CLEF &amp; TrebleCLEF</title>
      <p>CLEF is organized mainly through the voluntary efforts of many different institutions and research groups. Section
1 lists the groups responsible for the coordination of this year’s tracks. A full list of the people and groups involved
in the organization of CLEF2008 is given at the end of this paper. However, the central coordination has always
received some support from the EU IST programme under the unit for Digital Libraries and Technology Enhanced
Learning, mainly within the framework of the DELOS Network of Excellence 5 . CLEF 2008 and 2009 are
organized under the auspices of TrebleCLEF, a Coordination Action of the Seventh Framework Programme,
Theme ICT 1-4-1.</p>
      <p>TrebleCLEF intends to build on and extend the results already achieved by CLEF. The objective is to support the
development and consolidation of expertise in the multidisciplinary research area of multilingual information
access and to promote a dissemination action in the relevant application communities.</p>
      <p>TrebleCLEF thus intends to promote research, development, implementation and industrial take-up of
multilingual, multimodal information access functionality in the following ways:
• by supporting the annual system evaluation campaigns of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum with tracks
and tasks designed to stimulate R&amp;D to meet the requirements of the user and application communities, with
particular focus on the following key areas:
o user modeling, e.g. what are the requirements of different classes of users when querying
multilingual information sources;
o language-specific experimentation, e.g. looking at differences across languages in order to derive
best practices for each language, best practices for the development of system components and best
practices for MLIA systems as a whole;
o results presentation, e.g. how can results be presented in the most useful and comprehensible way to
the user.
• by constituting a scientific forum for the MLIA community of researchers enabling them to meet and discuss
results, emerging trends, new directions:
o providing a scientific digital library to make accessible the scientific data and experiments produced
during the course of an evaluation campaign. This library will also provide tools for analyzing,
comparing, and citing the scientific data of an evaluation campaign, as well as curating, preserving,
annotating, enriching, and promoting the re-use of them;
• by acting as a virtual centre of competence providing a central reference point for anyone interested in
studying or implementing MLIA functionality and encouraging the dissemination of information:
o making publicly available sets of guidelines on best practices in MLIA (e.g. what stemmer to use,
what stop list, what translation resources, how best to evaluate, etc., depending on the application
requirements);
o making tools and resources used in the evaluation campaigns freely available to a wider public
whenever possible; otherwise providing links to where they can be acquired;
o organising workshops, and/or tutorials and training sessions.
5 The DELOS Network closed at the end of 2007 and a self-sustaining DELOS Association was launched.
The aim is to
• Provide applications that need multilingual search solutions with the possibility to identify the technology
which is most appropriate
• Assist technology providers to develop competitive multilingual search solutions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Technical Infrastructure</title>
      <p>As mentioned in the previous section, TrebleCLEF supports a data curation approach within CLEF as an
extension to the traditional methodology in order to better manage, preserve, interpret and enrich the scientific data
produced, and to effectively promote the transfer of knowledge. The current approach to experimental evaluation
is mainly focused on creating comparable experiments and evaluating their performance whereas researchers
would also greatly benefit from an integrated vision of the scientific data produced, together with analyses and
interpretations, and from the possibility of keeping, re-using, and enriching them with further information. The
way in which experimental results are managed, made accessible, exchanged, visualized, interpreted, enriched and
referenced is an integral part of the process of knowledge transfer and sharing towards relevant application
communities.</p>
      <p>The University of Padua has thus developed DIRECT: Distributed Information Retrieval Evaluation Campaign
Tool6, a digital library system for managing the scientific data and information resources produced during an
evaluation campaign. A preliminary version of DIRECT was introduced into CLEF in 2005 and subsequently
tested and developed in the CLEF 2006 and 2007 campaigns. It is now being further developed under TrebleCLEF.
DIRECT currently manages the technical infrastructure for several of the CLEF tracks: Ad Hoc, Domain-Specific,
GeoCLEF, providing procedures to handle:
- the track set-up, harvesting of documents, management of the registration of participants to tracks;
- the submission of experiments, collection of metadata about experiments, and their validation;
- the creation of document pools and the management of relevance assessment;
- the provision of common statistical analysis tools for both organizers and participants in order to allow the
comparison of the experiments;
- the provision of common tools for summarizing, producing reports and graphs on the measured performances
and conducted analyses.</p>
      <p>An extension to also manage the technical infrastructure for ImageCLEF is now under discussion.
In the CLEF 2008 campaign, DIRECT has been used by over 130 participants from 20 countries, who have
submitted 490 experiments. Within the DIRECT framework, 80 assessors have created over 200 topics in seven
different languages and have assessed about 250,000 documents, including documents in languages like Russian,
which uses the Cyrillic alphabet, and Persian, which is written from right to left.</p>
      <p>DIRECT is designed and implemented by Giorgio Di Nunzio and Nicola Ferro.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Participation</title>
      <p>A total of 105 groups submitted runs in CLEF 2008, a big increase on the 81 groups of CLEF 2007: 71(51) from
Europe, 13(14) from N.America; 17(14) from Asia, 3(1) from S.America and 1(0) from Africa. The breakdown of
participation of groups per track is as follows: Ad Hoc 31(22); Domain-Specific 6(5); iCLEF 6(na); QAatCLEF
29(28); ImageCLEF 42(35); WebCLEF 4(4); GeoCLEF 10(13); VideoCLEF 6 (na); INFILE 1 (na); Morpho
Challenge 6(6).7. A list of groups and indications of the tracks in which they participated is given in the Appendix
to these Working Notes. Figure 1 shows the variation in participation over the years and Figure 2 shows the shift in
focus as new tracks are added.</p>
      <p>It can be seen that the increase in participation in CLEF this year is almost entirely due to a massive rise in the
participation from Europe – the other continents remained more of less stable. It was great to have our first
participation from an African country: Uganda, but we missed out on Oceania this year.. It is interesting to note
once again that the most popular track at CLEF, ImageCLEF, is also probably the least multilingual track as much
of the work is done in a language-independent context. The participation in the WebCLEF and INFILE tracks was
very disappointing and it is not expected that these two tracks will be continued next year.
6 http//direct.dei.unipd.it/
7 Last year’s figures are between brackets where applicable; we did not register Morpho Challenge as a CLEF activity in 2007.
50
45
40
s
p35
u
ro30
G
g25
n
i
ta20
p
iic 15
t
ra 10
P
5
0
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Oceania</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-2">
        <title>Africa</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-3">
        <title>South America</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-4">
        <title>North America</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-5">
        <title>Asia</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-5-6">
        <title>Europe</title>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Workshop</title>
      <p>CLEF aims at creating a strong CLIR/MLIA research and development community. The Workshop plays an
important role by providing the opportunity for all the groups that have participated in the evaluation campaign to
get together comparing approaches and exchanging ideas. The work of the groups participating in this year’s
campaign will be presented in plenary and parallel paper and poster sessions. There will also be break-out sessions
for more in-depth discussion of the results of individual tracks and intentions for the future. The final sessions will
include discussions on ideas for new tracks in future campaigns. Overall, the Workshop should provide an ample</p>
      <sec id="sec-6-1">
        <title>AdHoc</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-2">
        <title>Dom Spec iCLEF CL-SR</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-3">
        <title>QA@CLEF</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-4">
        <title>Im ageCLEF</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-5">
        <title>WebClef</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-6">
        <title>GeoClef</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-7">
        <title>VideoClef</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-8">
        <title>InFile</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-6-9">
        <title>MorphoChall</title>
        <p>panorama of the current state-of-the-art and the latest research directions in the multilingual information retrieval
area. I very much hope that it will prove an interesting, worthwhile and enjoyable experience to all those who
participate.</p>
        <p>The final programme and the presentations at the Workshop are posted on the CLEF website at
http://www.clef-campaign.org.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>It would be impossible to run the CLEF evaluation initiative and organize the annual workshops without
considerable assistance from many groups. CLEF is organized on a distributed basis, with different research
groups being responsible for the running of the various tracks. My gratitude goes to all those who have been
involved in the coordination of the 2008 campaigns. A list of the main institutions involved is given in the
following pages. Here below, let me thank just some of the people responsible for the coordination of the different
tracks. My apologies to all those I have not managed to mention:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•</p>
      <p>Abolfazl AleAhmad, Hadi Amiri, Eneko Agirre, Giorgio Di Nunzio, Nicola Ferro, Thomas Mandl,
Nicolas Moreau, Alessandro Nardi and Vivien Petras for the Ad Hoc Track
Vivien Petras and Maximillian Stempfhuber for the Domain-Specific track
Paul Clough, Julio Gonzalo and Jussi Karlgren for iCLEF
Danilo Giampiccolo Pamela Forner, Dan Cristea, Corina Forascu, Nicolas Moreau, Petya Osenova,
Anselmo Peñas, Iñaki Alegria, Bogdan Sacaleanu, Prokopis Prokopidis, Paulo Rocha and Richard
Sutcliffe for QA@CLEF
Allan Hanbury, Paul Clough, Thomas Arni, Mark Sanderson, Henning Müller, Thomas Deselaers ,
Thomas Deserno, Michael Grubinger, Jayashree Kalpathy–Cramer, and William Hersh for ImageCLEF
Valentin Jijkoun and Maarten de Rijke for Web-CLEF
Thomas Mandl, Fredric Gey, Ray Larson, Mark Sanderson, Diana Santos, Paula Carvalho for GeoCLEF
Martha Larson and Gareth Jones for VideoCLEF
Djamel Mostefa for INFILE
Marco Duissin, Giorgio Di Nunzio and Nicola Ferro for developing and managing the DIRECT
infrastructure.</p>
      <p>I should also like to thank the members of the CLEF Steering Committee who have assisted me with their advice
and suggestions throughout this campaign. Furthermore, I gratefully acknowledge the support of all the data
providers and copyright holders. Without their contribution, this evaluation activity would be impossible.
Finally, I should like to express my gratitude to Francesca Borri and Alessandro Nardi in Pisa and Jette Junge in
Aarhus for their assistance in the organisation of the CLEF 2008 Workshop.
CLEF is run mainly on a voluntary basis and is coordinated by the Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie
dell'Informazione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa. The following institutions have contributed to the
organisation of the different tracks of the CLEF 2008 campaign:</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>CLEF Steering Committee</title>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <article-title> Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (TT) SE-105 12 Stockholm, Sweden for the Swedish newspaper data</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>