Expoliting rich features for promoting diversity in biomedical information retrieval
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Prompting diversity in ranking for information retrieval (IR) becomes an important topic in the past decade [2], [4] because of the increasing demand of personalization and disambiguation of user's queries. Beyond counting on relevance between documents and query, diversity IR takes consideration of relationship among documents in ranking order to promote diversity and reduce redundancy. To promote diversity means to provide various aspects of information in the ranking results list and to reduce redundancy aims to deduce repeatedly mentioned information. The application of diversity IR has drawn great attention and shown beneficial in previous studies when query turns out to be ambiguous, especially in the scenario of biomedical IR investigated in TREC <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> 2006 and 2007 Genomics Tracks where biologists tend to query a certain type of entities covering different aspects that are related to the question, for example, genes, proteins, diseases, and mutations [1]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no learning-to-rank algorithm that processes the biomedical information retrieval in the perspective of addressing the domain specific features that may reflect the novelty of single document and the diversity of whole ranking list. We argue that it is promising to define and make use of diversity reflecting features to better model diversity information. Unlike previous studies, we tackle this problem in the learning-to-rank [3] perspective view. The main challenges are how to find salient features for biomedical data and how to tackle the problem of utilizing dynamic features with learning-to-rank technology. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to combine the dynamic diversified features with the learning-to-rank technology. Firstly we rank results using a general learning-to-rank model. Second, using Wikipedia, the topics of each retrieved results are detected which facilitate the generation of diversity-biased features. (Table I lists example of diversity features.) Then a diversity-favored ranking model which awards high novelty and low redundancy ranking results is learned from dataset represented by all features. Final results will be given by combination of both models. Experiment results conducted on the TREC 2006 and 2007 Genomics collections show our proposed method outperforms BM25, Language Model with Dirichlet Smoothing and general learning-to-rank model. The major contributions of this paper are two-fold. First, we propose several diversity-reflecting features by studying the relationship among documents. Second, we propose a learning to rank framework to combine the diversity-biased model with a general ranking model learned from the common features. Extensive experiments on the TREC 2006 and 2007 Genomics Tracks[1] demonstrate that the using of diversity-based features is beneficial for promoting diversity in biomedical IR.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».