MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535211222 · doi:10.1145/2983323.2983894

Learning to Rank System Configurations

2016· preprint· en· W2535211222 on OpenAlex
Romain Deveaud, Josiane Mothe, Jian‐Yun Nie

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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsComputer scienceRank (graph theory)Learning to rankSet (abstract data type)Task (project management)Information retrievalQuery expansionState (computer science)Data miningRanking (information retrieval)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information Retrieval (IR) systems heavily rely on a large number of parameters, such as the retrieval model or various query expansion parameters, whose values greatly influence the overall retrieval effectiveness. However, setting all these parameters individually can often be a tedious task, since they can all affect one another, while also vary for different queries. We propose to tackle this problem by dealing with entire system configurations (i.e. a set of parameters representing an IR system) instead of single parameters, and to apply state-of-the-art Learning to Rank techniques to select the most appropriate configuration for a given query. The experiments we conducted on two TREC AdHoc collections show that this approach is feasible and significantly outperforms the traditional way to configure a system, as well as the top performing systems of the TREC tracks. We also show an analysis on the impact of different features on the model's learning capability.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.278 · 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