MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507254902 · doi:10.1145/2956234

TopPRF

2016· article· en· W2507254902 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance feedbackRelevance (law)Information retrievalSelection (genetic algorithm)Probabilistic logicReliability (semiconductor)Key (lock)Entropy (arrow of time)Identification (biology)Data miningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional pseudo relevance feedback (PRF) models choose top k feedback documents for query expansion and treat those documents equally. When k is determined, feedback terms are selected without considering the reliability of these documents for relevance. Because the performance of PRF is sensitive to the selection of feedback terms, noisy terms imported from these irrelevant documents or partially relevant documents will harm the final results extensively. Intuitively, terms in these documents should be considered less important for feedback term selection. Nonetheless, how to measure the reliability of feedback documents is a difficult problem. Recently, topic modeling has become more and more popular in the information retrieval (IR) area. In order to identify how reliable a feedback document is to be relevant, we attempt to adapt the topical information into PRF. However, topics are hard to be quantified and therefore the identification of topic is usually fuzzy. It is very challenging for integrating the obtained topical information effectively into IR and other text-processing-related areas. Current research work mainly focuses on mining relevant information from particular topics. This is extremely difficult when the boundaries of different topics are hard to define. In this article, we investigate a key factor of this problem, the topic number for topic modeling and how it makes topics “fuzzy.” To effectively and efficiently apply topical information, we propose a new probabilistic framework, “TopPRF,” and three models, TS-COS, TS-EU, and TS-Entropy, via integrating “Topic Space” (TS) information into pseudo relevance feedback. These methods discover how reliable a document is to be relevant through both term and topical information. When selecting feedback terms, candidate terms in more reliable feedback documents should obtain extra weights. Experimental results on various public collections justify that our proposed methods can significantly reduce the influence of “fuzzy topics” and obtain stable, good results over the strong baseline models. Our proposed probabilistic framework, TopPRF, and three topic-space-based models are capable of searching documents beyond traditional term matching only and provide a promising avenue for constructing better topic-space-based IR systems. Moreover, in-depth discussions and conclusions are made to help other researchers apply topical information effectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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