Argument retrieval is the task of finding relevant arguments for a given query. While existing approaches rely solely on the semantic alignment of queries and arguments, this first shared task on perspective argument retrieval incorporates perspectives during retrieval, accounting for latent influences in argumentation. We present a novel multilingual dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We distinguish between three scenarios to explore how retrieval systems consider explicitly (in both query and corpus) and implicitly (only in query) formulated perspectives. This paper provides an overview of this shared task and summarizes the results of the six submitted systems. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. Moreover, retrieval systems tend to be biased towards the majority group but partially mitigate bias for the female gender. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
The zero-shot effectiveness of neural retrieval models is often evaluated on the BEIR benchmark -- a combination of different IR evaluation datasets. Interestingly, previous studies found that particularly on the BEIR subset Touch\'e 2020, an argument retrieval task, neural retrieval models are considerably less effective than BM25. Still, so far, no further investigation has been conducted on what makes argument retrieval so "special". To more deeply analyze the respective potential limits of neural retrieval models, we run a reproducibility study on the Touch\'e 2020 data. In our study, we focus on two experiments: (i) a black-box evaluation (i.e., no model retraining), incorporating a theoretical exploration using retrieval axioms, and (ii) a data denoising evaluation involving post-hoc relevance judgments. Our black-box evaluation reveals an inherent bias of neural models towards retrieving short passages from the Touch\'e 2020 data, and we also find that quite a few of the neural models' results are unjudged in the Touch\'e 2020 data. As many of the short Touch\'e passages are not argumentative and thus non-relevant per se, and as the missing judgments complicate fair comparison, we denoise the Touch\'e 2020 data by excluding very short passages (less than 20 words) and by augmenting the unjudged data with post-hoc judgments following the Touch\'e guidelines. On the denoised data, the effectiveness of the neural models improves by up to 0.52 in nDCG@10, but BM25 is still more effective. Our code and the augmented Touch\'e 2020 dataset are available at \url{https://github.com/castorini/touche-error-analysis}.
In this paper, we present a submission to the Touche lab's Task 2 on Argument Retrieval for Comparative Questions. Our team Katana supplies several approaches based on decision tree ensembles algorithms to rank comparative documents in accordance with their relevance and argumentative support. We use PyTerrier library to apply ensembles models to a ranking problem, considering statistical text features and features based on comparative structures. We also employ large contextualized language modelling techniques, such as BERT, to solve the proposed ranking task. To merge this technique with ranking modelling, we leverage neural ranking library OpenNIR. Our systems substantially outperforming the proposed baseline and scored first in relevance and second in quality according to the official metrics of the competition (for measure NDCG@5 score). Presented models could help to improve the performance of processing comparative queries in information retrieval and dialogue systems.
This paper studies the task of best counter-argument retrieval given an input argument. Following the definition that the best counter-argument addresses the same aspects as the input argument while having the opposite stance, we aim to develop an efficient and effective model for scoring counter-arguments based on similarity and dissimilarity metrics. We first conduct an experimental study on the effectiveness of available scoring methods, including traditional Learning-To-Rank (LTR) and recent neural scoring models. We then propose Bipolar-encoder, a novel BERT-based model to learn an optimal representation for simultaneous similarity and dissimilarity. Experimental results show that our proposed method can achieve the accuracy@1 of 49.04\%, which significantly outperforms other baselines by a large margin. When combined with an appropriate caching technique, Bipolar-encoder is comparably efficient at prediction time.
Multi-vector retrieval models improve over single-vector dual encoders on many information retrieval tasks. In this paper, we cast the multi-vector retrieval problem as sparse alignment between query and document tokens. We propose AligneR, a novel multi-vector retrieval model that learns sparsified pairwise alignments between query and document tokens (e.g. `dog' vs. `puppy') and per-token unary saliences reflecting their relative importance for retrieval. We show that controlling the sparsity of pairwise token alignments often brings significant performance gains. While most factoid questions focusing on a specific part of a document require a smaller number of alignments, others requiring a broader understanding of a document favor a larger number of alignments. Unary saliences, on the other hand, decide whether a token ever needs to be aligned with others for retrieval (e.g. `kind' from `kind of currency is used in new zealand}'). With sparsified unary saliences, we are able to prune a large number of query and document token vectors and improve the efficiency of multi-vector retrieval. We learn the sparse unary saliences with entropy-regularized linear programming, which outperforms other methods to achieve sparsity. In a zero-shot setting, AligneR scores 51.1 points nDCG@10, achieving a new retriever-only state-of-the-art on 13 tasks in the BEIR benchmark. In addition, adapting pairwise alignments with a few examples (<= 8) further improves the performance up to 15.7 points nDCG@10 for argument retrieval tasks. The unary saliences of AligneR helps us to keep only 20% of the document token representations with minimal performance loss. We further show that our model often produces interpretable alignments and significantly improves its performance when initialized from larger language models.
Pairing a lexical retriever with a neural re-ranking model has set state-of-the-art performance on large-scale information retrieval datasets. This pipeline covers scenarios like question answering or navigational queries, however, for information-seeking scenarios, users often provide information on whether a document is relevant to their query in form of clicks or explicit feedback. Therefore, in this work, we explore how relevance feedback can be directly integrated into neural re-ranking models by adopting few-shot and parameter-efficient learning techniques. Specifically, we introduce a kNN approach that re-ranks documents based on their similarity with the query and the documents the user considers relevant. Further, we explore Cross-Encoder models that we pre-train using meta-learning and subsequently fine-tune for each query, training only on the feedback documents. To evaluate our different integration strategies, we transform four existing information retrieval datasets into the relevance feedback scenario. Extensive experiments demonstrate that integrating relevance feedback directly in neural re-ranking models improves their performance, and fusing lexical ranking with our best performing neural re-ranker outperforms all other methods by 5.2 nDCG@20.
Recent work has shown that small distilled language models are strong competitors to models that are orders of magnitude larger and slower in a wide range of information retrieval tasks. This has made distilled and dense models, due to latency constraints, the go-to choice for deployment in real-world retrieval applications. In this work, we question this practice by showing that the number of parameters and early query-document interaction play a significant role in the generalization ability of retrieval models. Our experiments show that increasing model size results in marginal gains on in-domain test sets, but much larger gains in new domains never seen during fine-tuning. Furthermore, we show that rerankers largely outperform dense ones of similar size in several tasks. Our largest reranker reaches the state of the art in 12 of the 18 datasets of the Benchmark-IR (BEIR) and surpasses the previous state of the art by 3 average points. Finally, we confirm that in-domain effectiveness is not a good indicator of zero-shot effectiveness. Code is available at https://github.com/guilhermemr04/scaling-zero-shot-retrieval.git
Decoder transformers have continued increasing in scale reaching hundreds of billions of parameters. Due to their scale the same decoder sets state-of-the-art results on various language tasks via prompting or fine-tuning. Yet, these large foundation models remain unusable for the related fields of semantic search and sentence embeddings. This prevents possibly new state-of-the-art results and forces organizations to train and maintain separate models. To this end, we propose SGPT to use decoders for sentence embeddings and semantic search via prompting or fine-tuning. At 5.8 billion parameters SGPT improves on the previously best sentence embeddings by a margin of 7% and outperforms a concurrent method with 175 billion parameters as measured on the BEIR search benchmark. Code, models and result files are freely available at https://github.com/Muennighoff/sgpt.
Existing commercial search engines often struggle to represent different perspectives of a search query. Argument retrieval systems address this limitation of search engines and provide both positive (PRO) and negative (CON) perspectives about a user's information need on a controversial topic (e.g., climate change). The effectiveness of such argument retrieval systems is typically evaluated based on topical relevance and argument quality, without taking into account the often differing number of documents shown for the argument stances (PRO or CON). Therefore, systems may retrieve relevant passages, but with a biased exposure of arguments. In this work, we analyze a range of non-stochastic fairness-aware ranking and diversity metrics to evaluate the extent to which argument stances are fairly exposed in argument retrieval systems. Using the official runs of the argument retrieval task Touch\'e at CLEF 2020, as well as synthetic data to control the amount and order of argument stances in the rankings, we show that systems with the best effectiveness in terms of topical relevance are not necessarily the most fair or the most diverse in terms of argument stance. The relationships we found between (un)fairness and diversity metrics shed light on how to evaluate group fairness -- in addition to topical relevance -- in argument retrieval settings.
Existing neural information retrieval (IR) models have often been studied in homogeneous and narrow settings, which has considerably limited insights into their out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization capabilities. To address this, and to facilitate researchers to broadly evaluate the effectiveness of their models, we introduce Benchmarking-IR (BEIR), a robust and heterogeneous evaluation benchmark for information retrieval. We leverage a careful selection of 18 publicly available datasets from diverse text retrieval tasks and domains and evaluate 10 state-of-the-art retrieval systems including lexical, sparse, dense, late-interaction and re-ranking architectures on the BEIR benchmark. Our results show BM25 is a robust baseline and re-ranking and late-interaction-based models on average achieve the best zero-shot performances, however, at high computational costs. In contrast, dense and sparse-retrieval models are computationally more efficient but often underperform other approaches, highlighting the considerable room for improvement in their generalization capabilities. We hope this framework allows us to better evaluate and understand existing retrieval systems, and contributes to accelerating progress towards better robust and generalizable systems in the future. BEIR is publicly available at https://github.com/UKPLab/beir.
In this work, we focus on the problem of retrieving relevant arguments for a query claim covering diverse aspects. State-of-the-art methods rely on explicit mappings between claims and premises, and thus are unable to utilize large available collections of premises without laborious and costly manual annotation. Their diversity approach relies on removing duplicates via clustering which does not directly ensure that the selected premises cover all aspects. This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments. Beyond that, it aims to cover diverse facets of the query, instead of trying to identify duplicates explicitly. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that our approach leads to a significant improvement in the argument retrieval task even though it requires less data.
Prior work has commonly defined argument retrieval from heterogeneous document collections as a sentence-level classification task. Consequently, argument retrieval suffers both from low recall and from sentence segmentation errors making it difficult for humans and machines to consume the arguments. In this work, we argue that the task should be performed on a more fine-grained level of sequence labeling. For this, we define the task as Argument Unit Recognition and Classification (AURC). We present a dataset of arguments from heterogeneous sources annotated as spans of tokens within a sentence, as well as with a corresponding stance. We show that and how such difficult argument annotations can be effectively collected through crowdsourcing with high interannotator agreement. The new benchmark, AURC-8, contains up to 15% more arguments per topic as compared to annotations on the sentence level. We identify a number of methods targeted at AURC sequence labeling, achieving close to human performance on known domains. Further analysis also reveals that, contrary to previous approaches, our methods are more robust against sentence segmentation errors. We publicly release our code and the AURC-8 dataset.