BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Gustavo Penha

Gustavo Penha contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Information RetrievalComputation and LanguageMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Do the Findings of Document and Passage Retrieval Generalize to the Retrieval of Responses for Dialogues?

A number of learned sparse and dense retrieval approaches have recently been proposed and proven effective in tasks such as passage retrieval and document retrieval. In this paper we analyze with a replicability study if the lessons learned generalize to the retrieval of responses for dialogues, an important task for the increasingly popular field of conversational search. Unlike passage and document retrieval where documents are usually longer than queries, in response ranking for dialogues the queries (dialogue contexts) are often longer than the documents (responses). Additionally, dialogues have a particular structure, i.e. multiple utterances by different users. With these differences in mind, we here evaluate how generalizable the following major findings from previous works are: (F1) query expansion outperforms a no-expansion baseline; (F2) document expansion outperforms a no-expansion baseline; (F3) zero-shot dense retrieval underperforms sparse baselines; (F4) dense retrieval outperforms sparse baselines; (F5) hard negative sampling is better than random sampling for training dense models. Our experiments -- based on three different information-seeking dialogue datasets -- reveal that four out of five findings (F2-F5) generalize to our domain

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval Pipelines with Query Variation Generators

Heavily pre-trained transformers for language modelling, such as BERT, have shown to be remarkably effective for Information Retrieval (IR) tasks, typically applied to re-rank the results of a first-stage retrieval model. IR benchmarks evaluate the effectiveness of retrieval pipelines based on the premise that a single query is used to instantiate the underlying information need. However, previous research has shown that (I) queries generated by users for a fixed information need are extremely variable and, in particular, (II) neural models are brittle and often make mistakes when tested with modified inputs. Motivated by those observations we aim to answer the following question: how robust are retrieval pipelines with respect to different variations in queries that do not change the queries' semantics? In order to obtain queries that are representative of users' querying variability, we first created a taxonomy based on the manual annotation of transformations occurring in a dataset (UQV100) of user-created query variations. For each syntax-changing category of our taxonomy, we employed different automatic methods that when applied to a query generate a query variation. Our experimental results across two datasets for two IR tasks reveal that retrieval pipelines are not robust to these query variations, with effectiveness drops of $\approx20\%$ on average. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Guzpenha/query_variation_generators.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Sparse and Dense Approaches for the Full-rank Retrieval of Responses for Dialogues

Ranking responses for a given dialogue context is a popular benchmark in which the setup is to re-rank the ground-truth response over a limited set of $n$ responses, where $n$ is typically 10. The predominance of this setup in conversation response ranking has lead to a great deal of attention to building neural re-rankers, while the first-stage retrieval step has been overlooked. Since the correct answer is always available in the candidate list of $n$ responses, this artificial evaluation setup assumes that there is a first-stage retrieval step which is always able to rank the correct response in its top-$n$ list. In this paper we focus on the more realistic task of full-rank retrieval of responses, where $n$ can be up to millions of responses. We investigate both dialogue context and response expansion techniques for sparse retrieval, as well as zero-shot and fine-tuned dense retrieval approaches. Our findings based on three different information-seeking dialogue datasets reveal that a learned response expansion technique is a solid baseline for sparse retrieval. We find the best performing method overall to be dense retrieval with intermediate training, i.e. a step after the language model pre-training where sentence representations are learned, followed by fine-tuning on the target conversational data. We also investigate the intriguing phenomena that harder negatives sampling techniques lead to worse results for the fine-tuned dense retrieval models. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Guzpenha/transformer_rankers/tree/full_rank_retrieval_dialogues.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

On the Calibration and Uncertainty of Neural Learning to Rank Models

According to the Probability Ranking Principle (PRP), ranking documents in decreasing order of their probability of relevance leads to an optimal document ranking for ad-hoc retrieval. The PRP holds when two conditions are met: [C1] the models are well calibrated, and, [C2] the probabilities of relevance are reported with certainty. We know however that deep neural networks (DNNs) are often not well calibrated and have several sources of uncertainty, and thus [C1] and [C2] might not be satisfied by neural rankers. Given the success of neural Learning to Rank (L2R) approaches-and here, especially BERT-based approaches-we first analyze under which circumstances deterministic, i.e. outputs point estimates, neural rankers are calibrated. Then, motivated by our findings we use two techniques to model the uncertainty of neural rankers leading to the proposed stochastic rankers, which output a predictive distribution of relevance as opposed to point estimates. Our experimental results on the ad-hoc retrieval task of conversation response ranking reveal that (i) BERT-based rankers are not robustly calibrated and that stochastic BERT-based rankers yield better calibration; and (ii) uncertainty estimation is beneficial for both risk-aware neural ranking, i.e.taking into account the uncertainty when ranking documents, and for predicting unanswerable conversational contexts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

What does BERT know about books, movies and music? Probing BERT for Conversational Recommendation

Heavily pre-trained transformer models such as BERT have recently shown to be remarkably powerful at language modelling by achieving impressive results on numerous downstream tasks. It has also been shown that they are able to implicitly store factual knowledge in their parameters after pre-training. Understanding what the pre-training procedure of LMs actually learns is a crucial step for using and improving them for Conversational Recommender Systems (CRS). We first study how much off-the-shelf pre-trained BERT "knows" about recommendation items such as books, movies and music. In order to analyze the knowledge stored in BERT's parameters, we use different probes that require different types of knowledge to solve, namely content-based and collaborative-based. Content-based knowledge is knowledge that requires the model to match the titles of items with their content information, such as textual descriptions and genres. In contrast, collaborative-based knowledge requires the model to match items with similar ones, according to community interactions such as ratings. We resort to BERT's Masked Language Modelling head to probe its knowledge about the genre of items, with cloze style prompts. In addition, we employ BERT's Next Sentence Prediction head and representations' similarity to compare relevant and non-relevant search and recommendation query-document inputs to explore whether BERT can, without any fine-tuning, rank relevant items first. Finally, we study how BERT performs in a conversational recommendation downstream task. Overall, our analyses and experiments show that: (i) BERT has knowledge stored in its parameters about the content of books, movies and music; (ii) it has more content-based knowledge than collaborative-based knowledge; and (iii) fails on conversational recommendation when faced with adversarial data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access