MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400976991 · doi:10.1145/3681784

A Self-Distilled Learning to Rank Model for <i>Ad Hoc</i> Retrieval

2024· article· en· W4400976991 on OpenAlexaff
Sanaz Keshvari, Farzan Saeedi, Hadi Sadoghi Yazdi, Faezeh Ensan

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOutlierGeneralizability theoryArtificial intelligenceRank (graph theory)Sample (material)Learning to rankMachine learningFeature (linguistics)Information retrievalRanking (information retrieval)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning to rank models are broadly applied in ad hoc retrieval for scoring and sorting documents based on their relevance to textual queries. The generalizability of the trained model in the learning to rank approach, however, can have an impact on the retrieval performance, particularly when data includes noise and outliers, or is incorrectly collected or measured. In this paper, we introduce a Self-Distilled Learning to Rank (SDLR) framework for ad hoc retrieval, and analyze its performance over a range of retrieval datasets and also in the presence of features’ noise. SDLR assigns a confidence weight to each training sample, aiming at reducing the impact of noisy and outlier data in the training process. The confidence weight is approximated based on the feature’s distributions derived from the values observed for the features of the documents labeled for a query in a listwise training sample. SDLR includes a distillation process that facilitates passing on the underlying patterns in assigning confidence weights from the teacher model to the student one. We empirically illustrate that SDLR outperforms state-of-the-art learning to rank models in ad hoc retrieval. We thoroughly investigate the SDLR performance in different settings including when no distillation strategy is applied; when different portion of data are used for training the teacher and the student models, and when both teacher and student models are trained over identical data. We show that SDLR is more effective when training data are split between a teacher and a student model. We also show that SDLR’s performance is robust when data features are noisy.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Information SystemsSame topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207