MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015139571 · doi:10.1145/3341105.3374002

Iterative learning to rank from explicit relevance feedback

2020· article· en· W3015139571 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExpert finding and Q&A systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)Rank (graph theory)Learning to rankInformation retrievalRelevance feedbackInfinite impulse responseQuality (philosophy)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceRanking (information retrieval)Image retrievalFilter (signal processing)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactive information retrieval (IIR) models consider the implicit or explicit user feedback in order to understand their intent and improve the quality of retrieved documents. We are proposing an IIR model that combines explicit relevance feedback and learning to rank techniques to improve the quality of retrieved documents. Besides evaluating the proposed method in general information retrieval cases using LETOR datasets, we have applied it to the special case of Community Question Answering (CQA) systems using SemEval challenge data. The proposed method outperforms other existing learning to rank techniques on most of these datasets.

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 score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExpert finding and Q&A systemsFrench-language works237,207