[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-253288-105":53,"doc-detail-253288-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},105,"en","targetsearch-a-ranking-friendly-xml-keyword-search-engine","TargetSearch - A Ranking Friendly XML Keyword Search Engine","","TargetSearch is an XML keyword search engine designed to address composing query results for effective ranking in XML search. It targets open challenges where prior composition strategies yield either overwhelmingly large result sets or fragmentary outputs that hinder meaningful ranking. The approach defines each query result around a single search target instance, ensuring atomicity and intactness by composing atomic and intact results driven by users’ search targets, with clear evidence aggregation for top-k processing.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,80,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":11,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/targetsearch-a-ranking-friendly-xml-keyword-search-engine/253288/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/targetsearch-a-ranking-friendly-xml-keyword-search-engine/253288.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"McGucket","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-09-13",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":101},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"What problem does TargetSearch address in XML keyword search?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"TargetSearch addresses how to compose XML keyword query results properly so they can be effectively ranked and understood by users. It focuses on the granularity of each individual query result rather than returning static documents.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"What are the two key properties of desirable query results in the paper?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Desirable results must be atomic, containing exactly one target instance, and intact, containing the whole target instance together with all supporting evidence.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How do existing composition methods fail compared with TargetSearch?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Subtree Result generally fails atomicity because one result may contain multiple target instances, making ranking unreasonable. Pattern Match generally fails intactness by splitting evidence for the same target instance across multiple results.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},253288,1791736151,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":9,"category_id":8,"category_name":11,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":101,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":79,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":73},1236954412713,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","TargetSearch: A Ranking Friendly XML Keyword Search Engine  \nZiyang Liu, Yichuan Cai, Yi Chen  \nSchool of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University  \nfziyang.liu,yichuan.cai,[yi](yig@asu.edu)[g](yig@asu.edu)[@asu.edu](yig@asu.edu)  \nAbstract—This demo illustrates an XML search engine TargetSearch that addresses an open problem in XML keyword search: given relevant matches to keywords, how to compose query results properly so that they can be effectively ranked and easily digested by users. The approaches adopted in the literature generate either overwhelmingly large results or fragmentary results, both of which may cause the ranking schemes to be ineffective. Intuitively, each query has a search target and each result should contain exactly one instance of the search target along with its evidence. We developed TargetSearch which composes atomic and intact query results driven by users’ search targets.  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nCompared with text search engines where the returned results are static documents, XML keyword search engines are able to provide 􀀂ner-grained query results than the whole XML documents due to the availability of the structure information, which provides opportunities to better satisfy the users’ information needs. However, since everything is represented as a subtree in an XML database, how to identify the individual query result’s granularity is a new challenge that is unaddressed. As shown in the following example, appropriate result composition is a key to ranking. Example 1.1: A user seeking the award information of a student named Mike Smith in Arizona would issue query Q 1 in Table I,“Arizona, Mike, Smith, award”. The schema of the XML tree is shown in Figure 1 . Note that our system can handle XML documents without DTDs also.  \nIdeally each query result should contain one instance of student, along with the related keyword matches, such as the two query results shown in Figure 3 . Besides, results should be properly ranked. For instance, most of the ranking schemes, such as [3], will rank the student that has two awards higher than the student with one award, as this is the only difference  \nof these two query results.  \nIntuitively, each keyword search has a goal, which is usually the information of a real world entity or relationship among entities, as observed in [1], [2] . We use the term search target to refer to the information that the user is looking for, and target instance to denote each instance of the search target in the data. Each desirable query result should have exactly one target instance along with all associated evidence, so that ranking and top-k query processing can be based on target instances, and thus become meaningful. Speci􀀂cally, query  \nTABLE I  \nSAMPLE KEYWORD SEARCHES  \n\n| Q1\u003Cbr>Q2\u003Cbr>Q3 | Arizona, Mike, Smith, award\u003Cbr>Arizona, undergraduate ASU, SFAz Fellowship |\n| --- | --- |\n\nuniversities *  \nuniversity  \nname state country students * student  \n*  \nname type award  \nFig. 1. Schema of an XML Document  \nresults of an XML keyword search should satisfy the following two properties:  \nAtomicity. A query result should be atomic: it should consist of a single target instance. In the above sample query, each result should correspond to a distinct student. Atomicity enables the ranking method to rank target instances and show the top-k most relevant ones to the user.  \nIntactness. Each query result should be intact: containing the whole target instance as well as all its supporting information. In the above sample query, all keyword matches related to the same student should be in one result. With intactness, a ranking method has the whole view of each target instance to give a fair ranking.  \nHowever, the query composition methods adopted in existing XML keyword search engines, named as Subtree Result and Pattern Match respectively in this paper, fail to satisfy the atomicity and/or intactness properties. Subtree Result de􀀂nesa query ","cbCaig48YBAKv3l0","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaig48YBAKv3l0","pdf",125485,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## XML keyword search and the granularity challenge\n## Atomicity and intactness properties\n## Existing composition methods and limitations","[{\"question\":\"What problem does TargetSearch address in XML keyword search?\",\"answer\":\"TargetSearch addresses how to compose XML keyword query results properly so they can be effectively ranked and understood by users. It focuses on the granularity of each individual query result rather than returning static documents.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the two key properties of desirable query results in the paper?\",\"answer\":\"Desirable results must be atomic, containing exactly one target instance, and intact, containing the whole target instance together with all supporting evidence.\"},{\"question\":\"How do existing composition methods fail compared with TargetSearch?\",\"answer\":\"Subtree Result generally fails atomicity because one result may contain multiple target instances, making ranking unreasonable. Pattern Match generally fails intactness by splitting evidence for the same target instance across multiple results.\"}]","TargetSearch - A Ranking Friendly XML Keyword Search Engine | PDF",1789265132]