Daily Papers

Current pre-trained language model approaches to information retrieval can be broadly divided into two categories: sparse retrievers (to which belong also non-neural approaches such as bag-of-words methods, e.g., BM25) and dense retrievers. Each of these categories appears to capture different characteristics of relevance. Previous work has investigated how relevance signals from sparse retrievers could be combined with those from dense retrievers via interpolation. Such interpolation would generally lead to higher retrieval effectiveness. In this paper we consider the problem of combining the relevance signals from sparse and dense retrievers in the context of Pseudo Relevance Feedback (PRF). This context poses two key challenges: (1) When should interpolation occur: before, after, or both before and after the PRF process? (2) Which sparse representation should be considered: a zero-shot bag-of-words model (BM25), or a learnt sparse representation? To answer these questions we perform a thorough empirical evaluation considering an effective and scalable neural PRF approach (Vector-PRF), three effective dense retrievers (ANCE, TCTv2, DistillBERT), and one state-of-the-art learnt sparse retriever (uniCOIL). The empirical findings from our experiments suggest that, regardless of sparse representation and dense retriever, interpolation both before and after PRF achieves the highest effectiveness across most datasets and metrics.

Pseudo Relevance Feedback (PRF) is known to improve the effectiveness of bag-of-words retrievers. At the same time, deep language models have been shown to outperform traditional bag-of-words rerankers. However, it is unclear how to integrate PRF directly with emergent deep language models. In this article, we address this gap by investigating methods for integrating PRF signals into rerankers and dense retrievers based on deep language models. We consider text-based and vector-based PRF approaches, and investigate different ways of combining and scoring relevance signals. An extensive empirical evaluation was conducted across four different datasets and two task settings (retrieval and ranking). Text-based PRF results show that the use of PRF had a mixed effect on deep rerankers across different datasets. We found that the best effectiveness was achieved when (i) directly concatenating each PRF passage with the query, searching with the new set of queries, and then aggregating the scores; (ii) using Borda to aggregate scores from PRF runs. Vector-based PRF results show that the use of PRF enhanced the effectiveness of deep rerankers and dense retrievers over several evaluation metrics. We found that higher effectiveness was achieved when (i) the query retains either the majority or the same weight within the PRF mechanism, and (ii) a shallower PRF signal (i.e., a smaller number of top-ranked passages) was employed, rather than a deeper signal. Our vector-based PRF method is computationally efficient; thus this represents a general PRF method others can use with deep rerankers and dense retrievers.

Pseudo-Relevance Feedback (PRF) assumes that the top results retrieved by a first-stage ranker are relevant to the original query and uses them to improve the query representation for a second round of retrieval. This assumption however is often not correct: some or even all of the feedback documents may be irrelevant. Indeed, the effectiveness of PRF methods may well depend on the quality of the feedback signal and thus on the effectiveness of the first-stage ranker. This aspect however has received little attention before. In this paper we control the quality of the feedback signal and measure its impact on a range of PRF methods, including traditional bag-of-words methods (Rocchio), and dense vector-based methods (learnt and not learnt). Our results show the important role the quality of the feedback signal plays on the effectiveness of PRF methods. Importantly, and surprisingly, our analysis reveals that not all PRF methods are the same when dealing with feedback signals of varying quality. These findings are critical to gain a better understanding of the PRF methods and of which and when they should be used, depending on the feedback signal quality, and set the basis for future research in this area.