Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Neural Models for Information Retrieval (1705.01509v1)

Published 3 May 2017 in cs.IR

Abstract: Neural ranking models for information retrieval (IR) use shallow or deep neural networks to rank search results in response to a query. Traditional learning to rank models employ machine learning techniques over hand-crafted IR features. By contrast, neural models learn representations of language from raw text that can bridge the gap between query and document vocabulary. Unlike classical IR models, these new machine learning based approaches are data-hungry, requiring large scale training data before they can be deployed. This tutorial introduces basic concepts and intuitions behind neural IR models, and places them in the context of traditional retrieval models. We begin by introducing fundamental concepts of IR and different neural and non-neural approaches to learning vector representations of text. We then review shallow neural IR methods that employ pre-trained neural term embeddings without learning the IR task end-to-end. We introduce deep neural networks next, discussing popular deep architectures. Finally, we review the current DNN models for information retrieval. We conclude with a discussion on potential future directions for neural IR.

Essay: Neural Models for Information Retrieval

The paper "Neural Models for Information Retrieval" by Bhaskar Mitra and Nick Craswell offers a comprehensive examination of the application of neural networks to the field of information retrieval (IR). Traditional IR models, such as TF-IDF, BM25, and LLMing, have relied upon manually crafted features to perform task-specific ranking of documents. Neural IR models, as proposed in this paper, leverage the automated learning of text representations from raw data, relying on vast quantities of training data to uncover rich semantic relationships between queries and documents.

Overview of Neural Ranking Models

Neural ranking models fundamentally differ from classical IR models by utilizing either shallow or deep neural architectures to generate vector representations of language elements. This paradigm shift allows the bridging of vocabulary gaps between queries and documents through learned embeddings. Neural models generally require extensive training data, but they do promise significant improvements over traditional hand-crafted techniques in terms of semantic understanding and machine-learned feature extraction.

Proposed Models and Strategies

The authors propose various architectures for neural IR, ranging from unsupervised learning methods that derive vector representations without supervised IR labels to deep networks that optimize tasks through end-to-end learning. The discussion ranges from shallow models that integrate pre-trained embeddings as lexical features to complex deep neural networks (DNNs) that generate semantic representations from disparate text fragments.

The exploration of deep learning techniques highlights notable architectures like Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs), and auto-encoder models, illustrating their efficacy in capturing semantic and contextual relevance between queries and documents. A significant portion of the text also explores deep networks that model lexical interactions, providing insight into how rare query terms can be effectively handled through a combination of lexical matching and semantic understanding techniques.

Numerical Results and Claims

The authors provide numerical insights demonstrating the improved performance of neural IR models relative to traditional methods when large enough datasets are available. However, the paper remains cautious about over-specifying neural models that can lead to overfitting, especially in the presence of limited labeled data. As such, the adoption of mixed models which simultaneously cater to both lexical precision and semantic generalization is recommended.

The paper suggests that neural IR models achieve better semantic matching due to their inherent ability to understand deep contextual information within text, which is often missed by traditional feature-based models. Additionally, the presence of coherent embeddings aids in reducing the vocabulary mismatch problem, moving IR models closer to true understanding and intelligence.

Implications and Future Directions

The implications of these findings stretch beyond mere performance improvement. Neural IR methodologies emphasize scalable solutions to otherwise complex language representation challenges, making them appealing for both practical implementation and theoretical exploration. As IR systems evolve toward handling more intricate user queries, the insights garnered from neural models could lead to significant progress in dynamic, adaptive systems.

Looking forward, the paper encourages further integration of elaborate deep architectures and reinforces the need for shared resources, such as model implementations and large-scale public datasets, to advance the field. It acknowledges emerging IR scenarios like conversational IR and multi-modal retrieval as promising areas for the application of neural networks.

Conclusion

"Neural Models for Information Retrieval" represents a significant step toward understanding and implementing state-of-the-art neural methodologies within IR systems. The extensive treatment of neural architectures and their application to both theoretical frameworks and practical constraints underscores an evolving landscape where AI-driven systems are poised to offer unprecedented efficiency and relevance. As we move forward, maintaining a balance between innovation and foundational IR analysis will be crucial to unravel deeper informatics principles and develop more intelligent and useful IR solutions.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Bhaskar Mitra (78 papers)
  2. Nick Craswell (51 papers)
Citations (169)