Inferential language models for information retrieval
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
Language modeling (LM) has been widely used in IR in recent years. An important operation in LM is smoothing of the document language model. However, the current smoothing techniques merely redistribute a portion of term probability according to their frequency of occurrences only in the whole document collection. No relationships between terms are considered and no inference is involved. In this article, we propose several inferential language models capable of inference using term relationships. The inference operation is carried out through a semantic smoothing either on the document model or query model, resulting in document or query expansion. The proposed models implement some of the logical inference capabilities proposed in the previous studies on logical models, but with necessary simplifications in order to make them tractable. They are a good compromise between inference power and efficiency. The models have been tested on several TREC collections, both in English and Chinese. It is shown that the integration of term relationships into the language modeling framework can consistently improve the retrieval effectiveness compared with the traditional language models. This study shows that language modeling is a suitable framework to implement basic inference operations in IR effectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| 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