Exploiting query logs for cross-lingual query suggestions
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
Query suggestion aims to suggest relevant queries for a given query, which helps users better specify their information needs. Previous work on query suggestion has been limited to the same language. In this article, we extend it to cross-lingual query suggestion (CLQS): for a query in one language, we suggest similar or relevant queries in other languages. This is very important to the scenarios of cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) and other related cross-lingual applications. Instead of relying on existing query translation technologies for CLQS, we present an effective means to map the input query of one language to queries of the other language in the query log. Important monolingual and cross-lingual information such as word translation relations and word co-occurrence statistics, and so on, are used to estimate the cross-lingual query similarity with a discriminative model. Benchmarks show that the resulting CLQS system significantly outperforms a baseline system that uses dictionary-based query translation. Besides, we evaluate CLQS with French-English and Chinese-English CLIR tasks on TREC-6 and NTCIR-4 collections, respectively. The CLIR experiments using typical retrieval models demonstrate that the CLQS-based approach has significantly higher effectiveness than several traditional query translation methods. We find that when combined with pseudo-relevance feedback, the effectiveness of CLIR using CLQS is enhanced for different pairs of languages.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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