Dual Learning for Query Generation and Query Selection in Query Feeds Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Query feeds recommendation is a new recommended paradigm in mobile search applications, where a stream of queries need to be recommended to improve user engagement. It requires a great quantity of attractive queries for recommendation. A conventional solution is to retrieve queries from a collection of past queries recorded in user search logs. However, these queries usually have poor readability and limited coverage of article content, and are thus not suitable for the query feeds recommendation scenario. Furthermore, to deploy the generated queries for recommendation, human validation, which is costly in practice, is required to filter unsuitable queries. In this paper, we propose TitIE, a query mining system to generate valuable queries using the titles of documents. We employ both an extractive text generator and an abstractive text generator to generate queries from titles. To improve the acceptance rate during human validation, we further propose a model-based scoring strategy to pre-select the queries that are more likely to be accepted during human validation. Finally, we propose a novel dual learning approach to jointly learn the generation model and the selection model by making full use of the unlabeled corpora under a semi-supervised scheme, thereby simultaneously improving the performance of both models. Results from both offline and online evaluations demonstrate the superiority of our approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".