MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153390169 · doi:10.1145/3404835.3463049

Improving Transformer-Kernel Ranking Model Using Conformer and Query Term Independence

2021· article· en· W3153390169 on OpenAlexaff
Bhaskar Mitra, Sebastian Hofstätter, Hamed Zamani, Nick Craswell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInferenceTransformerArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Transformer-Kernel (TK) model has demonstrated strong reranking performance on the TREC Deep Learning benchmark---and can be considered to be an efficient (but slightly less effective) alternative to other Transformer-based architectures that employ (i) large-scale pretraining (high training cost), (ii) joint encoding of query and document (high inference cost), and (iii) larger number of Transformer layers (both high training and high inference costs). Since, a variant of the TK model---called TKL---has been developed that incorporates local self-attention to efficiently process longer input sequences in the context of document ranking. In this work, we propose a novel Conformer layer as an alternative approach to scale TK to longer input sequences. Furthermore, we incorporate query term independence and explicit term matching to extend the model to the full retrieval setting. We benchmark our models under the strictly blind evaluation setting of the TREC 2020 Deep Learning track and find that our proposed architecture changes lead to improved retrieval quality over TKL. Our best model also outperforms all non-neural runs ("trad") and two-thirds of the pretrained Transformer-based runs ("nnlm") on [email protected]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207