A Weighted Correlation Index for Rankings with Ties

Understanding the correlation between two different scores for the same set of items is a common problem in information retrieval, and the most commonly used statistics that quantifies this correlation is Kendall's $\tau$. However, the standard definition fails to capture that discordances between items with high rank are more important than those between items with low rank. Recently, a new measure of correlation based on average precision has been proposed to solve this problem, but like many alternative proposals in the literature it assumes that there are no ties in the scores. This is a major deficiency in a number of contexts, and in particular while comparing centrality scores on large graphs, as the obvious baseline, indegree, has a very large number of ties in web and social graphs. We propose to extend Kendall's definition in a natural way to take into account weights in the presence of ties. We prove a number of interesting mathematical properties of our generalization and describe an $O(n\log n)$ algorithm for its computation. We also validate the usefulness of our weighted measure of correlation using experimental data

Query Expansion with Locally-Trained Word Embeddings

Continuous space word embeddings have received a great deal of attention in the natural language processing and machine learning communities for their ability to model term similarity and other relationships. We study the use of term relatedness in the context of query expansion for ad hoc information retrieval. We demonstrate that word embeddings such as word2vec and GloVe, when trained globally, underperform corpus and query specific embeddings for retrieval tasks. These results suggest that other tasks benefiting from global embeddings may also benefit from local embeddings

Training Curricula for Open Domain Answer Re-Ranking

In precision-oriented tasks like answer ranking, it is more important to rank many relevant answers highly than to retrieve all relevant answers. It follows that a good ranking strategy would be to learn how to identify the easiest correct answers first (i.e., assign a high ranking score to answers that have characteristics that usually indicate relevance, and a low ranking score to those with characteristics that do not), before incorporating more complex logic to handle difficult cases (e.g., semantic matching or reasoning). In this work, we apply this idea to the training of neural answer rankers using curriculum learning. We propose several heuristics to estimate the difficulty of a given training sample. We show that the proposed heuristics can be used to build a training curriculum that down-weights difficult samples early in the training process. As the training process progresses, our approach gradually shifts to weighting all samples equally, regardless of difficulty. We present a comprehensive evaluation of our proposed idea on three answer ranking datasets. Results show that our approach leads to superior performance of two leading neural ranking architectures, namely BERT and ConvKNRM, using both pointwise and pairwise losses. When applied to a BERT-based ranker, our method yields up to a 4% improvement in MRR and a 9% improvement in P@1 (compared to the model trained without a curriculum). This results in models that can achieve comparable performance to more expensive state-of-the-art techniques.Comment: Accepted at SIGIR 2020 (long

Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferences

Relevance labels, which indicate whether a search result is valuable to a searcher, are key to evaluating and optimising search systems. The best way to capture the true preferences of users is to ask them for their careful feedback on which results would be useful, but this approach does not scale to produce a large number of labels. Getting relevance labels at scale is usually done with third-party labellers, who judge on behalf of the user, but there is a risk of low-quality data if the labeller doesn't understand user needs. To improve quality, one standard approach is to study real users through interviews, user studies and direct feedback, find areas where labels are systematically disagreeing with users, then educate labellers about user needs through judging guidelines, training and monitoring. This paper introduces an alternate approach for improving label quality. It takes careful feedback from real users, which by definition is the highest-quality first-party gold data that can be derived, and develops an large language model prompt that agrees with that data. We present ideas and observations from deploying language models for large-scale relevance labelling at Bing, and illustrate with data from TREC. We have found large language models can be effective, with accuracy as good as human labellers and similar capability to pick the hardest queries, best runs, and best groups. Systematic changes to the prompts make a difference in accuracy, but so too do simple paraphrases. To measure agreement with real searchers needs high-quality ``gold'' labels, but with these we find that models produce better labels than third-party workers, for a fraction of the cost, and these labels let us train notably better rankers