pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08657 · v1 · pith:3XXM6JWMnew · submitted 2019-07-19 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.LG

Learning More From Less: Towards Strengthening Weak Supervision for Ad-Hoc Retrieval

Dany Haddad , Joydeep Ghosh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.LG
keywords ad-hoc retrievalweak supervisionlearning to ranksoft labelsunsupervised rankerstraining data reductioninformation retrieval
0
0 comments X

The pith

Soft labels from multiple unsupervised rankers plus removal of harmful examples let learning-to-rank models surpass their sources with far less data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to lower the enormous training set sizes previously required for supervised learning-to-rank models in ad-hoc retrieval to exceed the performance of strong unsupervised baselines such as BM25. It does so by generating noise-aware soft labels through an ensemble of unsupervised rankers and by detecting and discarding mislabeled training instances. A sympathetic reader would care because the data volumes cited in earlier work reached 10^13 examples, rendering the approach impractical for most retrieval settings. If the methods succeed, supervised techniques become viable without the prohibitive cost of generating or storing such massive synthetic training collections.

Core claim

The central claim is that taking inspiration from crowdsourcing to produce soft training labels from multiple unsupervised rankers, together with identifying and removing harmful mislabeled examples, produces training data of sufficient quality that learning-to-rank models can exceed the performance of the original unsupervised method while using far fewer examples than required by prior approaches.

What carries the argument

Ensemble generation of soft labels from several unsupervised rankers combined with harmful-example filtering, which improves the quality of the resulting weak supervision signal for training learning-to-rank models.

If this is right

  • Learning-to-rank models trained on the improved weak supervision can now reach superior effectiveness without generating or storing training sets on the order of 10^13 examples.
  • The computational expense of creating synthetic training data for retrieval drops substantially when only a modest fraction of the previous volume is required.
  • Unsupervised rankers can serve as more practical sources for supervision once their outputs are combined and cleaned.
  • Data-cleaning steps become a standard component when converting unsupervised scores into training labels for ranking tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same ensemble-plus-filtering pattern could be tested on other weak-supervision problems where multiple noisy label sources exist, such as entity linking or question answering.
  • One could measure whether the benefit scales with the number of rankers included in the ensemble or whether there exists an optimal subset size.
  • Applying the filtering step iteratively during training might further reduce the required data volume beyond the single-pass removal described.

Load-bearing premise

That the soft labels and the cleaned training set retain enough reliable signal to produce gains over the original unsupervised rankers without introducing offsetting biases or information loss.

What would settle it

An experiment on standard ad-hoc retrieval collections in which a learning-to-rank model trained on the reduced, soft-labeled, and filtered dataset does not outperform the unsupervised baseline such as BM25 on held-out queries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08657 by Dany Haddad, Joydeep Ghosh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Test NDCG@10 during training not contradict the results in [7] since in our setup we train on far fewer pairs of documents for each query, so each relevance label error has much greater impact. For each query, our distribution over documents is uniform outside the results from the weak su￾pervision source, so we expect to perform worse than if we had a more faithful relevance distribution. Our proposed app… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The limited availability of ground truth relevance labels has been a major impediment to the application of supervised methods to ad-hoc retrieval. As a result, unsupervised scoring methods, such as BM25, remain strong competitors to deep learning techniques which have brought on dramatic improvements in other domains, such as computer vision and natural language processing. Recent works have shown that it is possible to take advantage of the performance of these unsupervised methods to generate training data for learning-to-rank models. The key limitation to this line of work is the size of the training set required to surpass the performance of the original unsupervised method, which can be as large as $10^{13}$ training examples. Building on these insights, we propose two methods to reduce the amount of training data required. The first method takes inspiration from crowdsourcing, and leverages multiple unsupervised rankers to generate soft, or noise-aware, training labels. The second identifies harmful, or mislabeled, training examples and removes them from the training set. We show that our methods allow us to surpass the performance of the unsupervised baseline with far fewer training examples than previous works.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that two procedures—generating soft (noise-aware) labels by averaging multiple unsupervised rankers and removing harmful/mislabeled examples—allow a learning-to-rank model to surpass the original unsupervised baseline (e.g., BM25) while using far fewer training examples than the 10^13 required by prior weak-supervision work.

Significance. If the central empirical result holds after proper controls, the work would be significant for practical deployment of supervised IR models in low-label regimes; it directly targets the data-efficiency bottleneck that has kept unsupervised methods competitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (soft-label and removal procedures)] The headline result requires that the soft-label construction plus removal step produces a training distribution whose effective supervision signal exceeds that of any single source ranker. No direct measurement of label fidelity (e.g., accuracy against a small held-out ground-truth set) or ablation that isolates each component is reported; without such evidence the claim that the resulting labels are net superior remains an assumption.
  2. [Experiments (training-set construction and results)] If removal thresholds on disagreement with any source ranker, the procedure can preferentially retain examples already well-ranked by the baseline, creating an information-loss bias that would prevent outperformance once training-set size is reduced. No control experiment or analysis of retained-example distribution versus the original ranker is described.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract states the 10^13 figure without a specific citation; the introduction should supply the exact prior work and page or table reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (soft-label and removal procedures)] The headline result requires that the soft-label construction plus removal step produces a training distribution whose effective supervision signal exceeds that of any single source ranker. No direct measurement of label fidelity (e.g., accuracy against a small held-out ground-truth set) or ablation that isolates each component is reported; without such evidence the claim that the resulting labels are net superior remains an assumption.

    Authors: We agree that direct measurements of label fidelity and component-wise ablations would strengthen the manuscript. The original submission presents only end-to-end performance gains as evidence that the combined procedure yields a net superior signal. We will add label accuracy evaluations against a held-out ground-truth set and ablations isolating the soft-label averaging and removal steps. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments (training-set construction and results)] If removal thresholds on disagreement with any source ranker, the procedure can preferentially retain examples already well-ranked by the baseline, creating an information-loss bias that would prevent outperformance once training-set size is reduced. No control experiment or analysis of retained-example distribution versus the original ranker is described.

    Authors: This is a legitimate concern about possible selection bias in the filtering step. We will include in the revision both an analysis of the distribution of retained examples relative to the baseline ranker and control experiments that apply the removal procedure in isolation to verify that outperformance is not attributable to such bias. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; methods build on external unsupervised rankers with empirical claims.

full rationale

The paper's core contribution consists of two procedures (soft labels from multiple external unsupervised rankers such as BM25, plus removal of harmful examples) whose performance is asserted via empirical results on surpassing the baseline with fewer examples. No equations, self-citations, or fitted parameters are presented in the provided text that reduce the claimed outperformance to a definition or input by construction. The approach relies on external baselines and reported experiments rather than any of the enumerated circular patterns. This is the normal case of a self-contained empirical paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Insufficient information from abstract alone to identify free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full text required for audit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 871 out tokens · 20739 ms · 2026-05-24T18:41:05.321675+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Smucker, Trevor Strohman, Howard Turtle, and Courtney Wade

    Nasreen Abdul-Jaleel, James Allan, Bruce Croft, Fernando Diaz, Leah Larkey, Xiaoyan Li, Donald Metzler, Mark D. Smucker, Trevor Strohman, Howard Turtle, and Courtney Wade. 2004. Umass at trec 2004: Notebook. academia.edu (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Qingyao Ai, Keping Bi, Cheng Luo, Jiafeng Guo, and W Bruce Croft. 2018. Unbi- ased Learning to Rank with Unbiased Propensity Estimation. In The 41st Interna- tional ACM SIGIR Conference. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3209986

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3209986 2018

  3. [3]

    Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Berthier de Araújo Neto Ribeiro, et al. 2007. Learning to rank with nonsmooth cost functions. NIPS (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Avradeep Bhowmik and Joydeep Ghosh. 2017. LETOR Methods for Unsupervised Rank Aggregation. In the 26th International Conference . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1331–1340. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052689

    work page doi:10.1145/3038912.3052689 2017

  5. [5]

    Mostafa Dehghani, Arash Mehrjou, Stephan Gouws, Jaap Kamps, and Bern- hard Schölkopf. 2017. Fidelity-Weighted Learning. arXiv.org (Nov. 2017). arXiv:cs.LG/1711.02799v2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Mostafa Dehghani, Aliaksei Severyn, Sascha Rothe, and Jaap Kamps. 2017. Learn- ing to Learn from Weak Supervision by Full Supervision. arXiv.org (Nov. 2017), 1–8. arXiv:1711.11383

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Mostafa Dehghani, Hamed Zamani, Aliaksei Severyn, Jaap Kamps, and W Bruce Croft. 2017. Neural Ranking Models with Weak Supervision. In the 40th Inter- national ACM SIGIR Conference. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1145/3077136.3080832

    work page doi:10.1145/3077136.3080832 2017

  8. [8]

    Xinxin Jiang, Shirui Pan, Guodong Long, Fei Xiong, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2017. Cost-sensitive learning with noisy labels. JMLR (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    Rajiv Khanna, Been Kim, Joydeep Ghosh, and Oluwasanmi Koyejo. 2018. In- terpreting Black Box Predictions using Fisher Kernels. arXiv.org (Oct. 2018). arXiv:cs.LG/1810.10118v1

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions. arXiv.org (March 2017), 1–11. arXiv:1703.04730

    work page arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Tie-Yan Liu. 2009. Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 3 (2009), 225–331. https://doi.org/10.1561/ 1500000016

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    James Martens. 2010. Deep learning via Hessian-free optimization. (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Yifan Nie, Alessandro Sordoni, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2018. Multi-level Abstraction Convolutional Model with Weak Supervision for Information Retrieval. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 985–988. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210123

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210123 2018

  14. [14]

    Curtis G Northcutt, Tailin Wu, and Isaac L Chuang. 2017. Learning with Confident Examples: Rank Pruning for Robust Classification with Noisy Labels. arXiv.org (May 2017). arXiv:1705.01936

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Greg Pass, Abdur Chowdhury, and Cayley Torgeson. 2006. A Picture of Search. Infoscale (2006), 1–es. https://doi.org/10.1145/1146847.1146848

    work page doi:10.1145/1146847.1146848 2006

  16. [16]

    Barak Pearlmutter. 1994. Fast exact multiplication by the Hessian. MIT Press 6, 1 (Jan. 1994), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1994.6.1.147

    work page doi:10.1162/neco.1994.6.1.147 1994

  17. [17]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Jay M Ponte and W Bruce Croft. 1998. A Language Modeling Approach to Information Retrieval. SIGIR (1998), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1145/290941. 291008

    work page doi:10.1145/290941 1998

  19. [19]

    Alexander Ratner, Stephen H Bach, Henry Ehrenberg, Jason Fries, Sen Wu, and Christopher Ré. 2017. Snorkel. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 3 (Nov. 2017), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.14778/3157794.3157797

    work page doi:10.14778/3157794.3157797 2017

  20. [20]

    Jonathan R Shewchuk. 1994. An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain. (1994)

    work page 1994

  21. [21]

    Hamed Zamani and W Bruce Croft. 2018. On the Theory of Weak Supervision for Information Retrieval. ACM, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3234944.3234968

    work page arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Hamed Zamani, W Bruce Croft, and J Shane Culpepper. 2018. Neural Query Performance Prediction using Weak Supervision from Multiple Signals. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference . ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210041

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210041 2018