Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userSignificant Improvements over the State of the Art? A Case Study of the MS MARCO Document Ranking Leaderboard
97
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Jimmy Lin
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Leaderboards are a ubiquitous part of modern research in applied machine learning. By design, they sort entries into some linear order, where the top-scoring entry is recognized as the state of the art (SOTA). Due to the rapid progress being made in information retrieval today, particularly with neural models, the top entry in a leaderboard is replaced with some regularity. These are touted as improvements in the state of the art. Such pronouncements, however, are almost never qualified with significance testing. In the context of the MS MARCO document ranking leaderboard, we pose a specific question: How do we know if a run is significantly better than the current SOTA? We ask this question against the backdrop of recent IR debates on scale types: in particular, whether commonly used significance tests are even mathematically permissible. Recognizing these potential pitfalls in evaluation methodology, our study proposes an evaluation framework that explicitly treats certain outcomes as distinct and avoids aggregating them into a single-point metric. Empirical analysis of SOTA runs from the MS MARCO document ranking leaderboard reveals insights about how one run can be significantly better than another that are obscured by the current official evaluation metric (MRR@100).
rate research
Read More
Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is best, achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of robust usefulness, along with steps that might be required to get us there.
The MS MARCO ranking dataset has been widely used for training deep learning models for IR tasks, achieving considerable effectiveness on diverse zero-shot scenarios. However, this type of resource is scarce in other languages than English. In this work we present mMARCO, a multilingual version of the MS MARCO passage ranking dataset comprising 8 languages that was created using machine translation. We evaluated mMARCO by fine-tuning mono and multilingual re-ranking models on it. Experimental results demonstrate that multilingual models fine-tuned on our translated dataset achieve superior effectiveness than models fine-tuned on the original English version alone. Also, our distilled multilingual re-ranker is competitive with non-distilled models while having 5.4 times fewer parameters. The translated datasets as well as fine-tuned models are available at https://github.com/unicamp-dl/mMARCO.git.
Scientific knowledge cannot be seen as a set of isolated fields, but as a highly connected network. Understanding how research areas are connected is of paramount importance for adequately allocating funding and human resources (e.g., assembling teams to tackle multidisciplinary problems). The relationship between disciplines can be drawn from data on the trajectory of individual scientists, as researchers often make contributions in a small set of interrelated areas. Two recent works propose methods for creating research maps from scientists publication records: by using a frequentist approach to create a transition probability matrix; and by learning embeddings (vector representations). Surprisingly, these models were evaluated on different datasets and have never been compared in the literature. In this work, we compare both models in a systematic way, using a large dataset of publication records from Brazilian researchers. We evaluate these models ability to predict whether a given entity (scientist, institution or region) will enter a new field w.r.t. the area under the ROC curve. Moreover, we analyze how sensitive each method is to the number of publications and the number of fields associated to one entity. Last, we conduct a case study to showcase how these models can be used to characterize science dynamics in the context of Brazil.
For many queries in the Web retrieval setting there is an on-going ranking competition: authors manipulate their documents so as to promote them in rankings. Such competitions can have unwarranted effects not only in terms of retrieval effectiveness, but also in terms of ranking robustness. A case in point, rankings can (rapidly) change due to small indiscernible perturbations of documents. While there has been a recent growing interest in analyzing the robustness of classifiers to adversarial manipulations, there has not yet been a study of the robustness of relevance-ranking functions. We address this challenge by formally analyzing different definitions and aspects of the robustness of learning-to-rank-based ranking functions. For example, we formally show that increased regularization of linear ranking functions increases ranking robustness. This finding leads us to conjecture that decreased variance of any ranking function results in increased robustness. We propose several measures for quantifying ranking robustness and use them to analyze ranking competitions between documents authors. The empirical findings support our formal analysis and conjecture for both RankSVM and LambdaMART.
Ranking models are the main components of information retrieval systems. Several approaches to ranking are based on traditional machine learning algorithms using a set of hand-crafted features. Recently, researchers have leveraged deep learning models in information retrieval. These models are trained end-to-end to extract features from the raw data for ranking tasks, so that they overcome the limitations of hand-crafted features. A variety of deep learning models have been proposed, and each model presents a set of neural network components to extract features that are used for ranking. In this paper, we compare the proposed models in the literature along different dimensions in order to understand the major contributions and limitations of each model. In our discussion of the literature, we analyze the promising neural components, and propose future research directions. We also show the analogy between document retrieval and other retrieval tasks where the items to be ranked are structured documents, answers, images and videos.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
