RankGPES: learning to rank for information retrieval using a hybrid genetic programming with evolutionary strategies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, Learning to Rank has not only shown effectiveness and better suitability for modern Web Era needs, but also has proved that it outperforms traditional ranking in terms of accuracy and efficiency. Evolutionary approach to Learning to Rank such as RankGP [37] and RankDE [3] have shown further improvement over non-evolutionary algorithms. However when Evolutionary algorithms have been applied to a large volume of data, often they showed they required so much computational efforts that they were not worth applying to industrial applications. In this thesis, we present RankGPES: a Learning to Rank algorithm based on a hybrid approach combining Genetic Programming with Evolution Strategies. Our results not only showed that it outperformed both RankGP [37] by 20% and RankDE [3] by 6% in terms of accuracy but also it showed it required significant less amount of time to converge to a near-optimal result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it