Reranking passages with coarse-to- ne neural retriever enhanced by list-context information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passage reranking is a critical task in various applications, particularly when dealing with large volumes of documents.Existing neural architectures have limitations in retrieving the most relevant passage for a given question because the semantics of the segmented passages are often incomplete, and they typically match the question to each passage individually, rarely considering contextual information from other passages that could provide comparative and reference information.This paper presents a list-context attention mechanism to augment the passage representation by incorporating the list-context information from other candidates.The proposed coarse-to-fine (C2F) neural retriever addresses the out-of-memory limitation of the passage attention mechanism by dividing the list-context modeling process into two sub-processes with a cache policy learning algorithm, enabling the efficient encoding of context information from a large number of candidate answers.This method can be generally used to encode context information from any number of candidate answers in one pass.Different from most multi-stage information retrieval architectures, this model integrates the coarse and fine rankers into the joint optimization process, allowing for feedback between the two layers to update the model simultaneously.Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".