Query Performance Prediction Using Neural Query Space Proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The varying performance of information retrieval (IR) methods, including state-of-the-art transformer-based neural retrievers, across diverse queries poses a significant challenge for achieving robust and reliable retrieval effectiveness. Query Performance Prediction (QPP) seeks to estimate the effectiveness of a retrieval method for individual queries, enabling adaptive strategies to improve retrieval outcomes, particularly for challenging queries. However, existing QPP approaches face fundamental challenges: pre-retrieval methods often rely on surface-level query features that fail to capture the nuanced relationship between queries and retrieval effectiveness, while post-retrieval methods depend heavily on the quality of retrieved documents, which can be unreliable for difficult queries. To this end, we propose the Query Space Distance-Based QPP ( QSD-QPP ) framework, which leverages the deterministic and consistent behavior of retrieval methods to estimate query performance by referencing historical queries with known effectiveness. The approach is motivated by the observation that semantically or syntactically similar queries often exhibit consistent retrieval performance, a property that can be exploited to make reliable predictions for unseen queries. QSD-QPP operates in two modes: (1) a lightweight pre-retrieval instantiation that dynamically constructs a query subspace based on embedding distances to interpolate the performance of proximate historical queries, and (2) an enriched post-retrieval instantiation that incorporates contextualized embeddings, document interactions, and historical query associations to enhance prediction accuracy. By utilizing large-scale contextualized embeddings derived from pre-trained language models, QSD-QPP efficiently identifies semantically similar queries and leverages their performance for robust predictions. By addressing the inherent limitations of prior approaches, QSD-QPP achieves a balanced trade-off between computational efficiency, prediction accuracy, and scalability. We evaluate QSD-QPP on four benchmark datasets, including MS MARCO Dev and TREC Deep Learning tracks (2019, 2020, and DL-Hard), demonstrating its superior accuracy and robustness compared to state-of-the-art baselines in both pre-retrieval and post-retrieval QPP tasks. To ensure reproducibility and encourage further research, we publicly release the implementation of our work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".