Learning from the Wisdom of Crowds: Exploiting Similar Sessions for Session Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search engines are essential internet services, enabling users to efficiently find the information they need. Session search employs users’ session logs of queries to solve complex retrieval tasks, in which users search multiple times until interested documents are found. Most existing session search models focus on the contextual information within the current search, ignoring the evidence from historical search sessions. Considering the fact that many ongoing retrieval tasks should have already been carried out by other users with a similar intent, we argue that historical sessions with similar intents can help improve the accuracy of the current search task. We propose a novel Similar Session-enhanced Ranking (SSR) model to improve the session search performance using historical sessions with similar intents. Specifically, the candidate historical sessions are matched by query-level and session-level semantic similarity, and then query-level neighbor behaviors are aggregated by a Query-guided GNN (QGNN) while session-level neighbor behaviors are aggregated using the attention mechanism. Finally, we integrate the refined and aggregated historical neighbor information into the current search session. Experimental results on AOL and Tiangong-ST datasets show that our SSR model significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".