Promoting ranking diversity for genomics search with relevance-novelty combined model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the biomedical domain, the desired information of a question (query) asked by biologists usually is a list of a certain type of entities covering different aspects that are related to the question, such as genes, proteins, diseases, mutations, etc. Hence it is important for a biomedical information retrieval system to be able to provide comprehensive and diverse answers to fulfill biologists' information needs. However, traditional retrieval models assume that the relevance of a document is independent of the relevance of other documents. This assumption may result in high redundancy and low diversity in the retrieval ranked lists. RESULTS: In this paper, we propose a relevance-novelty combined model, named RelNov model, based on the framework of an undirected graphical model. It consists of two component models, namely the aspect-term relevance model and the aspect-term novelty model. They model the relevance of a document and the novelty of a document respectively. We show that our approach can achieve 16.4% improvement over the highest aspect level MAP reported in the TREC 2007 Genomics track, and 9.8% improvement over the highest passage level MAP reported in the TREC 2007 Genomics track. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed combination model which models aspects, terms, topic relevance and document novelty as potential functions is demonstrated to be effective in promoting ranking diversity as well as in improving relevance of ranked lists for genomics search. We also show that the use of aspect plays an important role in the model. Moreover, the proposed model can integrate various different relevance and novelty measures easily.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".