Combining Information from Multiple Internet Sources

More documents

Recommendations

Info

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4106395/ 4106396/04106417.pdfisnumber=4106396&pr od=CNF&arnumber=4106417&arSt=96&ared=101 &arAuthor=Muhammad Nawaz Table 4.2.5 Results of Consensus method and search engines for more complex query 10 http://www.madison.k12.ct.us/publication s/shareddesic.htm Consensus Ask.com Live Interia Yahoo! Google Set Coverage 50% 30% 70% 40% 60% URL to URL 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% Table 4.2.6 Coverage of Consensus method and search engines for more complex query It can be observed that the answer of Consensus method covers in some extent every engine. The most covered engine is Interia (70% set-coverage) while the Live engine is the least setcovered one (30%). URL to URL coverage is very low – that is why the final result was considered as inconsistent. As stated before, Levenshtein distance is highly dependent on URL positions, thus leading to the large distances between each of the engines’ result sets and the consensus answer. Consensus method is highly rank based one. Like in the previous example, the URLs which the final result set is comprised of, are highly ranked URLs in general. So if the URL was on the top places throughout the engines’ result sets it will be contained in the final answer of the Consensus method. If the ranking was low, it will not be contained as its average rank will be very low. The problem with consistence of the answer is like with the previous case. Low URL to URL coverage, results in Levenshtein distance to grow, thus leading the average of distances to grow. The URL to URL coverage also means that the result sets were highly dispersed when measuring distances using Levenshtein distance. If the URL to URL coverage was about 60-80% for each search engine, probably the answer would be marked as consistent. 56
The following part presents comparison of the result sets provided by the each of the algorithms. Afterwards, comparison between result sets returned by methods and result set returned by MySpiders system will be described. # Auction Game theory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 http://www.actupny. org/documents/CDdoc uments/Consensus.ht ml http://www.exedes.c om/ http://www.crcvt.or g/mission.html http://www.managing wholes.com/-- consensus.htm http://www.ic.org/p np/ocac/ http://www.teachnology.com/teachers /lesson_plans/healt h/conflict/ http://www.educatio n- world.com/a_curr/cu rr171.shtml http://www.vernalpr oject.org/papers/pr ocess/ConsensNotes. pdf http://www.peacemak ers.ca/bibliography /bib50resolution.ht ml 10 http://www.treegrou p.info/topics/ Table 4.2.7 Results of methods and MySpiders system for more complex query Auction Consensus Game theory Auction - 40% 20% Consensus 10% - 60% Game theory 10% 10% - Table 4.2.8 Coverage of methods for more complex query Table above presents the set–coverage and URL to URL coverage, between result sets returned by those methods. Set coverage values are placed in the upper-right corner while URL to URL values are in the lower-left corner. http://www.actupny. org/documents/CDdoc uments/Consensus.ht ml http://www.npdsolutions.com/conse nsus.html http://allentech.ne t/techstore/related _1560521996.html http://www.exedes.c om/main.htm http://www.exedes.c om/ http://www.urbanmin istry.org/esa/maint aining-unitydecision-makingproblem-solving http://www.au.af.mi l/au/awc/awcgate/nd u/strat-ldrdm/pt3ch11.html http://www.hrdq.com /products/25problem solving.htm http://www.sasked.g ov.sk.ca/docs/nativ e30/nt30app.html http://www.hrdq.com /products/40decisio nactivitiesSB.htm It can be observed that the highest set-coverage of result sets is 60%. This coverage is observed between Consensus and Game theory. Lowest set-coverage is observed between Auction and Game theory (20%). Auction and Consensus method are covered in 40%. As for URL to URL coverage all sets are covered with each other in 10%. Like for the previous query, to compare quality of those results the 3 top most URLs <strong>from</strong> 57 Consensus (inconsistent) http://www.exedes.c om/main.htm http://www.exedes.c om/ http://www.colorado .edu/conflict/peace /glossary.htm http://www.policy.r utgers.edu/CNCR/pdm cm.html http://www.npdsolutions.com/conse nsus.html http://www.actupny. org/documents/CDdoc uments/Consensus.ht ml http://www.au.af.mi l/au/awc/awcgate/nd u/strat-ldrdm/pt3ch11.html http://www.managing wholes.com/-- consensus.htm http://www.hrdq.com /products/40decisio nactivitiesSB.htm http://www.ic.org/p np/ocac/ MySpiders http://www.exedes. com/main.htm http://www.peacema kers.ca/bibliograp hy/bib50resolution .html http://www.managin gwholes.com/-- consensus.htm http://www.managin gwholes.com/glossa ry-p/c.htm http://www.actupny .org/documents/CDd ocuments/HistoryNV .html
Page 1 and 2:
WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FAC
Page 3 and 4:
POLITECHNIKA WARSZAWSKA WYDZIAŁ MA
Page 5 and 6:
Combining Information from Multiple
Page 7 and 8:
Table of contents 1. Introduction..
Page 9 and 10:
application presented in this paper
Page 11 and 12: 2. Design of the tool used for test
Page 13 and 14: 2.2.1 Design of the Client module 2
Page 15 and 16: module. At the end of this section
Page 17 and 18: there are set up search engines. Af
Page 19 and 20: UTILITY CLASSES: AgentController -
Page 21 and 22: ) If initial step of the algorithm
Page 23 and 24: 2.3 Design of the database part Thi
Page 25 and 26: Table search_engine: This table con
Page 27 and 28: 3. Algorithms This part of the thes
Page 29 and 30: Example: Let us consider the follow
Page 31 and 32: During algorithm processing there i
Page 33 and 34: Fig 3.1.1 Game theory Method Activi
Page 35 and 36: Example: Consider the following ini
Page 37 and 38: Listing 3.2.3 presents the pseudo c
Page 39 and 40: 3.3 Consensus method The Consensus
Page 41 and 42: Depending on the outcome of the con
Page 43 and 44: 3.4 Common algorithms This part of
Page 45 and 46: is multiplied by 0.01. 3 If the alg
Page 47 and 48: Input: Two lists with URLs Output:
Page 49 and 50: 4.1 Tests with simple query Followi
Page 51 and 52: top enough positions in all result
Page 53 and 54: The following section presents resu
Page 55 and 56: This part will present comparison o
Page 57 and 58: As the first URL MySpiders returns
Page 59 and 60: was yield. However most of the retu
Page 61: The following part presents compari
Page 65 and 66: complexity of the query. As the fir
Page 67 and 68: 7 http://www.calresco.org/lucas/pmo
Page 69 and 70: 5 6 http://www.virtualschool.edu/mo
Page 71 and 72: 10 http://www.mises.org/story/2451
Page 73 and 74: Auction Consensus Game theory Aucti
Page 75 and 76: 5. Final remarks In this thesis app
Page 77 and 78: [15] Kessler R.R., Griss M.L., Maki
Page 79: Warszawa, dnia 21.04.2008r. Oświad
show all

Combining Information from Multiple Internet Sources

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?