MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400046281 · doi:10.1007/s10791-024-09435-8

Injecting the score of the first-stage retriever as text improves BERT-based re-rankers

2024· article· en· W4400046281 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arian Askari, Amin Abolghasemi, Gabriella Pasi, Wessel Kraaij, Suzan Verberne

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverStage (stratigraphy)Computer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMedicineBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we propose a novel approach for combining first-stage lexical retrieval models and Transformer-based re-rankers: we inject the relevance score of the lexical model as a token into the input of the cross-encoder re-ranker. It was shown in prior work that interpolation between the relevance score of lexical and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) based re-rankers may not consistently result in higher effectiveness. Our idea is motivated by the finding that BERT models can capture numeric information. We compare several representations of the Best Match 25 (BM25) and Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) scores and inject them as text in the input of four different cross-encoders. Since knowledge distillation, i.e., teacher-student training, proved to be highly effective for cross-encoder re-rankers, we additionally analyze the effect of injecting the relevance score into the student model while training the model by three larger teacher models. Evaluation on the MSMARCO Passage collection and the TREC DL collections shows that the proposed method significantly improves over all cross-encoder re-rankers as well as the common interpolation methods. We show that the improvement is consistent for all query types. We also find an improvement in exact matching capabilities over both the first-stage rankers and the cross-encoders. Our findings indicate that cross-encoder re-rankers can efficiently be improved without additional computational burden or extra steps in the pipeline by adding the output of the first-stage ranker to the model input. This effect is robust for different models and query types.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover ComputingSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207