PreprintCited by 63Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

Multi-Stage Conversational Passage Retrieval: An Approach to Fusing Term Importance Estimation and Neural Query Rewriting

Open access
Lin, Sheng-Chieh, Yang, Jheng-Hong, Nogueira, Rodrigo, Tsai, Ming-Feng, Wang, Chuan-Ju, Lin, Jimmy·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Conversational search plays a vital role in conversational information seeking. As queries in information seeking dialogues are ambiguous for traditional ad-hoc information retrieval (IR) systems due to the coreference and omission resolution problems inherent in natural language dialogue, resolving these ambiguities is crucial. In this paper, we tackle conversational passage retrieval (ConvPR), an important component of conversational search, by addressing query ambiguities with query reformulation integrated into a multi-stage ad-hoc IR system. Specifically, we propose two conversational query reformulation (CQR) methods: (1) term importance estimation and (2) neural query rewriting. For the former, we expand conversational queries using important terms extracted from the conversational context with frequency-based signals. For the latter, we reformulate conversational queries into natural, standalone, human-understandable queries with a pretrained sequence-tosequence model. Detailed analyses of the two CQR methods are provided quantitatively and qualitatively, explaining their advantages, disadvantages, and distinct behaviors. Moreover, to leverage the strengths of both CQR methods, we propose combining their output with reciprocal rank fusion, yielding state-of-the-art retrieval effectiveness, 30% improvement in terms of NDCG@3 compared to the best submission of TREC CAsT 2019.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2005.02230

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The normalised discounted cumulative gain (NDCG) retrieval metric may provide a solution for ranking subject descriptors in an automated subject indexing system.

    “The normalised discounted cumulative gain (NDCG) retrieval metric may provide a solution for ranking subject descriptors in an automated subject indexing system 23 .”

    From Automated Knowledge Organization AI ML based Subject Indexing System for Libraries (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    Section 6.1 (page unavailable) reports NDCG@3 as an evaluation metric for ranked conversational-search passages. The passages found when searching for subject descriptors and automated subject indexing do not address whether NDCG could rank descriptors in such a system. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Wasi Uddin Ahmad, Kai-Wei Chang, and Hongning Wang. 2018. Multi-Task Learning for Document Ranking and Query Suggestion. In Proc. ICLR.
  2. Zeynep Akkalyoncu Yilmaz, Shengjin Wang, Wei Yang, Haotian Zhang, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Applying BERT to Document Retrieval with Birch. In Proc. EMNLP: System Demonstrations. 19-24.
  3. Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. MS MARCO: A human generated MAchine Reading COmprehension dataset. arXiv:1611.09268 (2016). · arXiv
  4. Jeffrey Dalton, Chenyan Xiong, and Jamie Callan. 2019. CAsT 2019: The Conversational Assistance Track Overview. In Proc. TREC.
  5. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proc. NAACL. 4171-4186.
  6. Laura Dietz and Nick Craswell. 2018. TREC Complex Answer Retrieval Overview. Proc. TREC.
  7. Li Dong, Nan Yang, Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Xiaodong Liu, Yu Wang, Jianfeng Gao, Ming Zhou, and Hsiao-Wuen Hon. 2019. Unified Language Model Pre-training for Natural Language Understanding and Generation. In Proc. NIPS.
  8. Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. 2019. Natural Questions: a Benchmark for Question Answering Research. Trans. of ACL (2019).
  9. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage Re-ranking with BERT. arXiv:1901.04085 (2019). · arXiv
  10. Rodrigo Nogueira, Wei Yang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Multi-stage Document Ranking with BERT. arXiv:1910.14424 (2019). · arXiv
  11. Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In Proc. TREC.
  12. Sandeep Subramanian, Raymond Li, Jonathan Pilault, and Christopher Pal. 2019. On Extractive and Abstractive Neural Document Summarization with Transformer Language Models. arXiv:1909.03186 (2019). · arXiv
  13. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks. In Proc. NIPS. 3104-3112.
  14. Stephen Tomlinson. 2004. Robust, Web and Terabyte Retrieval with Hummingbird SearchServer at TREC 2004. In Proc. TREC.
  15. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention Is All You Need. In Proc. NIPS. 5998-6008.
  16. Ellen M Voorhees. 2004. Overview of the TREC 2004 Robust Retrieval Track. Proc. TREC.
  17. Nikos Voskarides, Dan Li, Andreas Panteli, and Pengjie Ren. 2019. ILPS at TREC 2019 Conversational Assistant Track. In Proc. TREC.
  18. Shuohang Wang, Mo Yu, Jing Jiang, Wei Zhang, Xiaoxiao Guo, Shiyu Chang, Zhiguo Wang, Tim Klinger, Gerald Tesauro, and Murray Campbell. 2018. Evidence Aggregation for Answer Re-Ranking in Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proc. ICLR.
  19. Jheng-Hong Yang, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Chuan-Ju Wang, Jimmy Lin, and Ming-Feng Tsai. 2019. Query and Answer Expansion from Conversation History. In Proc. TREC.
  20. Peilin Yang, Hui Fang, and Jimmy Lin. 2018. Anserini: Reproducible Ranking Baselines Using Lucene. JDIQ 10, 4 (2018), 16.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, S.-C., Yang, J.-H., Nogueira, R., Tsai, M.-F., Wang, C.-J., & Lin, J.
Affiliations
  • Research Center for Information Technology Innovation, Academia Sinica (TW)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • National Chengchi University (TW)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1-29
ISSN
1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3198536471
Cited by
62
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
10.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST107-2218-E002-061)
  • Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
reciprocal rank fusion, query ambiguity, coreference resolution, multi-stage retrieval, conversational search, sequence-to-sequence models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review