close this message
arXiv smileybones

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

Work on one of the world's most important websites and make an impact on open science.

View Jobs
Skip to main content
Cornell University

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

View Jobs
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:2309.06131

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Information Retrieval

arXiv:2309.06131 (cs)
[Submitted on 12 Sep 2023]

Title:Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selection

Authors:Sophia Althammer, Guido Zuccon, Sebastian Hofstätter, Suzan Verberne, Allan Hanbury
View a PDF of the paper titled Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selection, by Sophia Althammer and 4 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Search methods based on Pretrained Language Models (PLM) have demonstrated great effectiveness gains compared to statistical and early neural ranking models. However, fine-tuning PLM-based rankers requires a great amount of annotated training data. Annotating data involves a large manual effort and thus is expensive, especially in domain specific tasks. In this paper we investigate fine-tuning PLM-based rankers under limited training data and budget. We investigate two scenarios: fine-tuning a ranker from scratch, and domain adaptation starting with a ranker already fine-tuned on general data, and continuing fine-tuning on a target dataset. We observe a great variability in effectiveness when fine-tuning on different randomly selected subsets of training data. This suggests that it is possible to achieve effectiveness gains by actively selecting a subset of the training data that has the most positive effect on the rankers. This way, it would be possible to fine-tune effective PLM rankers at a reduced annotation budget. To investigate this, we adapt existing Active Learning (AL) strategies to the task of fine-tuning PLM rankers and investigate their effectiveness, also considering annotation and computational costs. Our extensive analysis shows that AL strategies do not significantly outperform random selection of training subsets in terms of effectiveness. We further find that gains provided by AL strategies come at the expense of more assessments (thus higher annotation costs) and AL strategies underperform random selection when comparing effectiveness given a fixed annotation cost. Our results highlight that ``optimal'' subsets of training data that provide high effectiveness at low annotation cost do exist, but current mainstream AL strategies applied to PLM rankers are not capable of identifying them.
Comments: Accepted at SIGIR-AP 2023
Subjects: Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2309.06131 [cs.IR]
  (or arXiv:2309.06131v1 [cs.IR] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.06131
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Sophia Althammer [view email]
[v1] Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:17:42 UTC (1,745 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selection, by Sophia Althammer and 4 other authors
  • View PDF
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.IR
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2023-09
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack