MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990321249 · doi:10.1111/coin.12248

A topic‐based term frequency normalization framework to enhance probabilistic information retrieval

2019· article· en· W2990321249 on OpenAlexafffund
Fanghong Jian, Jimmy Xiangji Huang, Jiashu Zhao, Zhiwei Ying, Yuqi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYenepoya Research Centre
KeywordsComputer scienceDivergence-from-randomness modelNormalization (sociology)Term DiscriminationProbabilistic logicArtificial intelligenceTerm (time)Language modelNatural language processingEmbeddingSentenceVector space modelInformation retrievalVisual Word

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many well‐known probabilistic information retrieval models have shown promise for use in document ranking, especially BM25. Nevertheless, it is observed that the control parameters in BM25 usually need to be adjusted to achieve improved performance on different data sets; additionally, the assumption in BM25 on the bag‐of‐words model prevents its direct utilization of rich information that lies at the sentence or document level. Inspired by the above challenges with respect to BM25, we first propose a new normalization method on the term frequency in BM25 (called BM25 QL in this paper); in addition, the method is incorporated into CRTER 2 , a recent BM25‐based model, to construct CRTER 2 QL . Then, we incorporate topic modeling and word embedding into BM25 to relax the assumption of the bag‐of‐words model. In this direction, we propose a topic‐based retrieval model, TopTF, for BM25, which is then further incorporated into the language model (LM) and the multiple aspect term frequency (MATF) model. Furthermore, an enhanced topic‐based term frequency normalization framework, ETopTF, based on embedding is presented. Experimental studies demonstrate the great effectiveness and performance of these methods. Specifically, on all tested data sets and in terms of the mean average precision (MAP), our proposed models, BM25 QL and CRTER 2 QL , are comparable to BM25 and CRTER 2 with the best b parameter value; the TopTF models significantly outperform the baselines, and the ETopTF models could further improve the TopTF in terms of the MAP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational IntelligenceSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207