A robust approach to optimizing multi-source information for enhancing genomics retrieval performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The users desire to be provided short, specific answers to questions and put them in context by linking original sources from the biomedical literature. Through the use of information retrieval technologies, information systems retrieve information to index data based on all kinds of pre-defined searching techniques/functions such that various ranking strategies are designed depending on different sources. In this paper, we propose a robust approach to optimizing multi-source information for improving genomics retrieval performance. RESULTS: In the proposed approach, we first consider a common scenario for a metasearch system that has access to multiple baselines with retrieving and ranking documents/passages by their own models. Then, given selected baselines from multiple sources, we investigate three modified fusion methods in the proposed approach, reciprocal, CombMNZ and CombSUM, to re-rank the candidates as the outputs for evaluation. Our empirical study on both 2007 and 2006 genomics data sets demonstrates the viability of the proposed approach for obtaining better performance. Furthermore, the experimental results show that the reciprocal method provides notable improvements on the individual baseline, especially on the passage2-level MAP and the aspect-level MAP. CONCLUSIONS: From the extensive experiments on two TREC genomics data sets, we draw the following conclusions. For the three fusion methods proposed in the robust approach, the reciprocal method outperforms the CombMNZ and CombSUM methods obviously, and CombSUM works well on the passage2-level when compared with CombMNZ. Based on the multiple sources of DFR, BM25 and language model, we can observe that the alliance of giants achieves the best result. Meanwhile, under the same combination, the better the baseline performance is, the more contribution the baseline provides. These conclusions are very useful to direct the fusion work in the field of biomedical information retrieval.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".