A simple kernel co‐occurrence‐based enhancement for pseudo‐relevance feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudo‐relevance feedback is a well‐studied query expansion technique in which it is assumed that the top‐ranked documents in an initial set of retrieval results are relevant and expansion terms are then extracted from those documents. When selecting expansion terms, most traditional models do not simultaneously consider term frequency and the co‐occurrence relationships between candidate terms and query terms. Intuitively, however, a term that has a higher co‐occurrence with a query term is more likely to be related to the query topic. In this article, we propose a kernel co‐occurrence‐based framework to enhance retrieval performance by integrating term co‐occurrence information into the Rocchio model and a relevance language model (RM3). Specifically, a kernel co‐occurrence‐based Rocchio method (KRoc) and a kernel co‐occurrence‐based RM3 method (KRM3) are proposed. In our framework, co‐occurrence information is incorporated into both the factor of the term discrimination power and the factor of the within‐document term weight to boost retrieval performance. The results of a series of experiments show that our proposed methods significantly outperform the corresponding strong baselines over all data sets in terms of the mean average precision and over most data sets in terms of P@10. A direct comparison of standard Text Retrieval Conference data sets indicates that our proposed methods are at least comparable to state‐of‐the‐art approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".