MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040396444 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2013.6732579

Expoliting rich features for promoting diversity in biomedical information retrieval

2013· article· en· W2040396444 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiajin Wu, Jimmy Xiangji Huang, Zheng Ye

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInformation retrievalComputer scienceLearning to rankRedundancy (engineering)Ranking (information retrieval)NoveltyRelevance (law)Diversity (politics)Rank (graph theory)SalientPerspective (graphical)Artificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 TREC12006 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207