Evaluating the Trade-Offs between Diversity and Precision for Web Image Search Using Concept-Based Query Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though Web image search queries are often ambiguous, traditional search engines retrieve and present results solely based on relevance ranking, where only the most common and popular interpretations of the query are considered. Rather than assuming that all users are interested in the most common meaning of the query, a more sensible approach may be to produce a diversified set of images that cover the various aspects of the query, under the expectation that at least one of these interpretations will match the searcher's needs. However, such a promotion of diversity in the search results has the side-effect of decreasing the precision of the most common sense. In this paper, we evaluate this trade-off in the context of a method for explicitly diversifying image search results via concept-based query expansion using Wikipedia. Experiments with controlling the degree of diversification illustrate this balance between diversity and precision for both ambiguous and specific queries. Our ultimate goal of this research is to propose an automatic method for tuning the diversification parameter based on degree of ambiguity of the original query.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".