A learning to rank approach for quality‐aware pseudo‐relevance feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudo relevance feedback ( PRF ) has shown to be effective in ad hoc information retrieval. In traditional PRF methods, top‐ranked documents are all assumed to be relevant and therefore treated equally in the feedback process. However, the performance gain brought by each document is different as showed in our preliminary experiments. Thus, it is more reasonable to predict the performance gain brought by each candidate feedback document in the process of PRF . We define the quality level ( QL ) and then use this information to adjust the weights of feedback terms in these documents. Unlike previous work, we do not make any explicit relevance assumption and we go beyond just selecting “good” documents for PRF . We propose a quality‐based PRF framework, in which two quality‐based assumptions are introduced. Particularly, two different strategies, relevance‐based QL ( RelPRF ) and improvement‐based QL ( ImpPRF ) are presented to estimate the QL of each feedback document. Based on this, we select a set of heterogeneous document‐level features and apply a learning approach to evaluate the QL of each feedback document. Extensive experiments on standard TREC (Text REtrieval Conference) test collections show that our proposed model performs robustly and outperforms strong baselines significantly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it