<!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>Task-Based User Modelling for Personalization via Probabilistic Matrix Factorization</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Rishabh Mehrotra</string-name>
          <email>r.mehrotra@cs.ucl.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Emine Yilmaz</string-name>
          <email>emine.yilmaz@ucl.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Manisha Verma</string-name>
          <email>m.verma@cs.ucl.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>University College London</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2014</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>We introduce a novel approach to user modelling for behavioral targeting: task-based user representation and present an approach based on search task extraction from search logs wherein users are represented by their actions over a task-space. Given a web search log, we extract search tasks performed by users and nd user representations based on these tasks. More speci cally, we construct a user-task association matrix and borrow insights from Collaborative Filtering to learn low-dimensional factor model wherein the interests/preferences of a user are determined by a small number of latent factors. We compare the performance of the proposed approach on the task of collaborative query recommendation on publicly available AOL search log with a standard term-similarity baseline and discuss potential future research directions.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>As a consumer of the informational content, di erent users
have distinct preferences of information for decision
making; thus accurately understanding their respective
information needs and decision preferences is crucial for
providing e ective decision support. While human behaviours are
largely determined by their own goals and preferences, the
mined knowledge reveals users' underlying intentions and
behaviour patterns, which provide unique signals for human
centric optimization and personalization. Web search
personalization has recently received a lot of attention by the
research community. Personalized search leverages
information about an individual to identify the most relevant
recommendations for that person. A challenge for personalization
is in collecting user pro les that are su ciently rich to be
useful in settings such as result ranking, query
recommendations, etc, while balancing privacy concerns.</p>
      <p>
        A prominent line of prior research uses long term histories
to directly improve retrieval e ectiveness. Various authors
have considered topic based representations for
personalization [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] making use of hand picked Open Directory Project
(ODP) topical categories. While such topics are easily
speci ed, signi cant human e ort is required in labelling queries
for each topic. Additionally, topical category based
methods restrict user's pro le coverage in a major way as di erent
users might share the same topical pro le yet perform di
erent search tasks for di erent informational needs. Another
line of research for personalization has focused on using term
based representations wherein user interests pro les are built
using terms extracted from user's browsing history following
which term weights are generated using di erent weighing
schemes. While query terms are representative of user
interests, they often limit the scope of personalization as di erent
users inherently follow di erent distributions over words and
queries belonging to the same topic might not contain any
overlapping terms which makes nding similar users di cult
in such settings.
      </p>
      <p>In this work, we focus on learning user pro les based on
the search tasks users are involved with. Users interact with
search engines to accomplish some task such as arrange a
trip, plan a wedding etc. Such broad requirements prompts
the use of multiple queries, sometimes spanning multiple
sessions. We de ne search tasks as the group of queries
a user issues to accomplish such overall intended task and
advocate the use of such search tasks to build individual
user models. We postulate that in a web search setting,
a user representation based on the search tasks users'
perform would better capture user actions, interests and
preferences. Given a search log, we extract search tasks
performed by users and nd user representations based on these
tasks. More speci cally, we construct a user-task
association matrix and borrow insights from Collaborative
Filtering to learn a low-dimensional factor model wherein the
actions/interests/preferences of a user are determined by
a small number of latent factors. By applying
probabilistic matrix factorization to the user-task association matrix,
we learn task-based user representations for each user and
evaluate the quality of the learnt user representations by
making use of these representations for the task of
Collaborative Query Recommendation wherein we suggest queries
to a particular user based on queries issued by other similar
users. We compare the performance of the proposed
approach against a term similarity based baseline on publicly
available AOL search logs.
2.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>TASK BASED USER MODELLING</title>
      <p>Our objective is to build succinct user pro les from the
search task information embedded in search logs. Existing
user modelling methods for web search rely heavily on per
user topical interests and hence, fail to di erentiate between
users which share similar topical interests. We postulate
that in web search setting, search logs contain information
about various actions that users perform and pro ling users
based on search tasks would better capture the
heterogeneity in user information.</p>
      <p>
        Task Discovery in Search Logs: Our goal here is to use
search log data to create a list of global search tasks.
Following the approach of task discovery as proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ],
a task is de ned as the maximal subsequence of possibly
nonconsecutive queries in referring to the same latent user
need which makes the set of all user tasks a partitioning of
the set of all user queries. We formulate the task discovery
problem as follows: given a query log QL and a user u, let
Tu be the set of user tasks discovered by a query
partitioning scheme ; the user task discovery problem can then be
described as nding the best query partitioning strategy
that approximates the actual set of user tasks such that:
= argmax ( ; T; ) (1)
where function (:) is an accuracy measure which evaluates
how well the query partitioning strategy approximates the
actual user tasks . We use cosine similarity to measure this
accuracy. This step is followed by clustering the user tasks
identi ed to obtain universal tasks across all users. The
nal set of user tasks obtained are represented by a set of
query terms and henceforth de ne the set of tasks used for
experiments. For details, please refer Lucchese et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
User-Task Association Matrix: Based on the extracted
search tasks, we construct a user-task association matrix
which represents the search tasks users have been involved
with. For each user ui, we create a bag-of-queries
representation from the list of queries issued by the user and
compare each user with each of these search tasks tj obtained
above. For each user-task &lt;ui; tj&gt; pair, we populate the
corresponding value in the user-task association matrix (R)
with the cosine similarity score (rij ) we obtain for the pair.
For tasks in which users do not have any matching queries,
we assign a score of 0 to the corresponding pair.
Probabilistic Matrix Factorization for User
Representations: We wish to extract task-based user vector
representations by jointly mapping users and tasks to a joint
latent factor space. Following Salakhutdinov et al [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ], we
model the user-task association in terms of probabiltic
matrix factorization problem and learn latent vector
representation for each user from the user-task association matrix by
tting a probabilistic model. Given the user-task association
matrix R, we nd the user feature matrix U = [ui] and task
feature matrix T = [tj]. The conditional distribution over
the observed user-task associations R 2 &lt;N M is given by:
      </p>
      <p>N M
P (RjU; T; ) = Y Y hN (RijjUiT Tj; 2iIij</p>
      <p>i=1 j=1
where N denotes the Gaussian distribution and Iij is the
indicator function which is 1 if the user i was involved in
search task j. The user matrix U obtained as a result,
contains vector representations of each of the users which is
used in further experiments.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION</title>
      <p>A good user pro le for query recommendation should
capture a user's speci c interests &amp; informational needs. Based
on this intuition, we evaluate performance of the proposed
approach on Collaborative Query Recommendation where
0.85
Task Based</p>
      <p>TermSim
40
45
50
the goal is to recommend queries to a user based on queries
issued by similar users. We calculate the weighted frequency
of a candidate query for 10 most similar users of the
target user u, and selected the top n queries as
recommendation. We make use of the AOL log dataset which consists
of 20M web queries collected over three months and use
data for about 1200 users who have issued more than 550
queries. We run our Task Discovery algorithm on the set
of queries for each of these users which results in a total of
0.12M tasks which we cluster using cosine similarity score
to obtain a set of 1529 search tasks using which we create
the user-task association matrix. Our baseline(TermSim) is
a method that only uses bag-of-words based representation
for each user where the terms are extracted from user queries
&amp; similar users found using cosine similarity between each
user's bag-of-word based representations. We consider the
test-set of queries in the target user as relevant, and
computed average number of relevant queries matched in the
recommendation query set as the performance metric.</p>
      <p>We plot the average number of query matches between
the recommended set of queries and user's own test set of
queries against n where n refers to the top-n query
suggestions from 10 most similar users. Our initial results
(Figure 1) show that the proposed Task-Based user
modelling approach(Task-Based ) performs better than TermSim
which demonstrates that search tasks can serve as potent
user modelling tools. Since TermSim relies strictly on term
matching for measuring user similarities, its coverage is
limited: it might not capture insights for the users with too few
queries or those who shared the same search interest but
issued di erent queries or performed di erent tasks. Task
based user modelling can help in better di erentiating
between users which have similar topical interests but perform
di erent tasks. To better leverage the topical user pro les, it
would be interesting to combine user topical-interest
information with user task-associations to come up with a uni ed
user model. We leave this as potential future work.
(2)</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</title>
      <p>This work was supported in part by a Google Faculty
Research Award.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P. N.</given-names>
            <surname>Bennett</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R. W.</given-names>
            <surname>White</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Chu</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S. T.</given-names>
            <surname>Dumais</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
            <surname>Bailey</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Borisyuk</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            <surname>Cui</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Modeling the impact of short-and long-term behavior on search personalization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ACM SIGIR</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Lucchese</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Orlando</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Perego</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
            <surname>Silvestri</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
            <surname>Tolomei. Identifying</surname>
          </string-name>
          task
          <article-title>-based sessions in search engine query logs</article-title>
          .
          <source>In WSDM</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mnih</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Salakhutdinov</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Probabilistic matrix factorization</article-title>
          .
          <source>In NIPS</source>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>