Annotating Data for Fine-Tuning a Neural Ranker? Current Active Learning Strategies are not Better than Random Selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2023.
Builds on
43 of 75 references.
References · 43
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,779
- 2017Billion-scale similarity search with GPUscited by 2,477
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,225
- 2020ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERTcited by 1,160
- 2016Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using Hierarchical Navigable Small World graphscited by 853
- 2019Passage Re-ranking with BERTcited by 629
- 2019Deep Batch Active Learning by Diverse, Uncertain Gradient Lower Boundscited by 602
- 2020Document Ranking with a Pretrained Sequence-to-Sequence Modelcited by 373
31 more
- 2021SPLADE: Sparse Lexical and Expansion Model for First Stage Rankingcited by 283
- 2020Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning trackcited by 282
- 2020Pretrained Transformers for Text Ranking: BERT and Beyondcited by 266
- 2021Efficiently Teaching an Effective Dense Retriever with Balanced Topic Aware Samplingcited by 238
- 2022Promptagator: Few-shot Dense Retrieval From 8 Examplescited by 233
- 2021Overview of the TREC 2020 deep learning trackcited by 193
- 2021Condenser: a Pre-training Architecture for Dense Retrievalcited by 162
- 2021Active Learning by Acquiring Contrastive Examplescited by 154
- 2020Augmented SBERT: Data Augmentation Method for Improving Bi-Encoders for Pairwise Sentence Scoring Taskscited by 136
- 2020Cold-start Active Learning through Self-supervised Language Modelingcited by 128
- 2021SPLADE v2: Sparse Lexical and Expansion Model for Information Retrievalcited by 126
- 2021GPL: Generative Pseudo Labeling for Unsupervised Domain Adaptation of Dense Retrievalcited by 119
- 2021MS MARCO: Benchmarking Ranking Models in the Large-Data Regimecited by 28
- 2021Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval with Momentum Adversarial Domain Invariant Representationscited by 27
- 2021TREC Deep Learning Track: Reusable Test Collections in the Large Data Regimecited by 23
- 2021TripClick: The Log Files of a Large Health Web Search Enginecited by 18
- 2021Not All Relevance Scores are Equal: Efficient Uncertainty and Calibration Modeling for Deep Retrieval Modelscited by 18
- 2021A Modern Perspective on Query Likelihood with Deep Generative Retrieval Modelscited by 12
- 2021Goldilocks: Just-Right Tuning of BERT for Technology-Assisted Reviewcited by 11
- 2022Evaluating Interpolation and Extrapolation Performance of Neural Retrieval Modelscited by 9
- 2022Neural Rankers for Effective Screening Prioritisation in Medical Systematic Review Literature Searchcited by 9
- 2021A Systematic Evaluation of Transfer Learning and Pseudo-labeling with BERT-based Ranking Modelscited by 8
- 2022P^3 Ranker: Mitigating the Gaps between Pre-training and Ranking Fine-tuning with Prompt-based Learning and Pre-finetuningcited by 7
- 2022Lecture Notes on Neural Information Retrievalcited by 7
- 2021On Minimizing Cost in Legal Document Review Workflowscited by 5
- 2022Establishing Strong Baselines for TripClick Health Retrievalcited by 4
- 2022On Survivorship Bias in MS MARCOcited by 4
- 2022Continuous Active Learning Using Pretrained Transformerscited by 3
- 2022TripJudge: A Relevance Judgement Test Collection for TripClick Health Retrievalcited by 2
- 2021AcTune: Uncertainty-aware Active Self-Training for Semi-Supervised Active Learning with Pretrained Language Modelscited by 1
- 2022How Train-Test Leakage Affects Zero-shot Retrievalcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.
1 paper.