SIGIR 2023 Workshop on Retrieval Enhanced Machine Learning (REML @ SIGIR 2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most machine learning models are designed to be self-contained and encode both "knowledge" and "reasoning" in their parameters. However, such models cannot perform effectively for tasks that require knowledge grounding and tasks that deal with non-stationary data, such as news and social media. Besides, these models often require huge number of parameters to encode all the required knowledge. These issues can be addressed via augmentation with a retrieval model. This category of machine learning models, which is called Retrieval-enhanced machine learning (REML), has recently attracted considerable attention in multiple research communities. For instance, REML models have been studied in the context of open-domain question answering, fact verification, and dialogue systems and also in the context of generalization through memorization in language models and memory networks. We believe that the information retrieval community can significantly contribute to this growing research area by designing, implementing, analyzing, and evaluating various aspects of retrieval models with applications to REML tasks. The goal of this full-day hybrid workshop is to bring together researchers from industry and academia to discuss various aspects of retrieval-enhanced machine learning, including effectiveness, efficiency, and robustness of these models in addition to their impact on real-world applications.
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 | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.023 |
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".