Finding a good query‐related topic for boosting pseudo‐relevance feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pseudo‐relevance feedback (PRF) via query expansion (QE) assumes that the top‐ranked documents from the first‐pass retrieval are relevant. The most informative terms in the pseudo‐relevant feedback documents are then used to update the original query representation in order to boost the retrieval performance. Most current PRF approaches estimate the importance of the candidate expansion terms based on their statistics on document level. However, a document for PRF may consist of different topics, which may not be all related to the query even if the document is judged relevant. The main argument of this article is the proposal to conduct PRF on a granularity smaller than on the document level. In this article, we propose a topic‐based feedback model with three different strategies for finding a good query‐related topic based on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation model. The experimental results on four representative TREC collections show that QE based on the derived topic achieves statistically significant improvements over a strong feedback model in the language modeling framework, which updates the query representation based on the top‐ranked documents.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".