MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multiple Linear Combination Approaches for Information Search in Ranking

2022· article· en· W4366967969 on OpenAlex
Yizheng Huang, Li Zeng

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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)Information retrievalArtificial intelligenceCombingTask (project management)Learning to rankMatching (statistics)Natural language processingMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the well-known BM25 [1] was proposed, BM25 and its enhanced version [2] – [4] have dominated the document/passage ranking task for a long time. However, with the advent of deep learning models like BERT [5] , these pre-trained models have achieved noticeable progress in various information retrieval (IR) tasks. But, as BM25 is a "bag of words" retrieval method by matching keywords, it remains a better option for passage ranking in some exceptional cases, like identifying names [6] . Therefore, fusing BM25 with deep learning models is a natural idea to benefit the ranking results. This paper discusses various linear methods of combing BM25 with BERT to see how they affect the final results of the models. We conduct experiments on the MS MARCO V2 dataset, which show convincing results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.198 · 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