A luhn-inspired vector re-weighting approach for improving personalized web search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—A fundamental problem with current Web search technology is that in the absence of any additional information, the same query provided by two different searchers will produce the same set of search results, even if the information needs of the searchers are different. Web search personalization has been proposed as a solution to this problem, whereby the interests and preferences of individual users are modelled and used to affect the outcomes of their subsequent searches. A common approach is to generate vector-based models of searchers ’ interests, and re-rank the search results based on the similarity of the documents to these models. In this paper, a novel approach is proposed to automatically identify and re-weight significant dimensions in vector-based models in order to improve the personalized order of Web search results. This approach is inspired by Luhn’s model of term importance, which is rooted in Zipf’s Laws. Evaluations with a set of ambiguous queries illustrate the effectiveness of this approach. Keywords-search personalization; vector-based personaliza-tion models; automatic vector re-weighting. I.
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 | 0.000 | 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".