Tal Schuster, Adam Lelkes, Haitian Sun, Jai Gupta, Jonathan Berant, William Cohen, Donald Metzler. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

The emerging paradigm of generative retrieval re-frames the classic information retrieval problem into a sequence-to-sequence modeling task, forgoing external indices and encoding an entire document corpus within a single Transformer.Although many different approaches have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of generative retrieval, they have only been evaluated on document corpora on the order of 100K in size.We conduct the first empirical study of generative retrieval techniques across various corpus scales, ultimately scaling up to the entire MS MARCO passage ranking task with a corpus of 8.8M passages and evaluating model sizes up to 11B parameters.We uncover several findings about scaling generative retrieval to millions of passages; notably, the central importance of using synthetic queries as document representations during indexing, the ineffectiveness of existing proposed architecture modifications when accounting for compute cost, and the limits of naively scaling model parameters with respect to retrieval performance.While we find that generative retrieval is competitive with stateof-the-art dual encoders on small corpora, scaling to millions of passages remains an important and unsolved challenge.We believe these findings will be valuable for the community to clarify the current state of generative retrieval, highlight the unique challenges, and inspire new research directions.

A large majority of American adults get at least some of their news from the Internet. Even though many online news products have the goal of informing their users about the news, they lack scalable and reliable tools for measuring how well they are achieving this goal, and therefore have to resort to noisy proxy metrics (e.g., click-through rates or reading time) to track their performance.

Recent years have witnessed a widespread increase of rumor news generated by humans and machines. Therefore, tools for investigating rumor news have become an urgent necessity. One useful function of such tools is to see ways a specific topic or event is represented by presenting different points of view from multiple sources. In this paper, we propose Maester, a novel agreement-aware search framework for investigating rumor news. Given an investigative question, Maester will retrieve related articles to that question, assign and display top articles from agree, disagree, and discuss categories to users. Splitting the results into these three categories provides the user a holistic view towards the investigative question. We build Maester based on the following two key observations: (1) relatedness can commonly be determined by keywords and entities occurring in both questions and articles, and (2) the level of agreement between the investigative question and the related news article can often be decided by a few key sentences. Accordingly, we use gradient boosting tree models with keyword/entity matching features for relatedness detection, and leverage recurrent neural network to infer the level of agreement. Our experiments on the Fake News Challenge (FNC) dataset demonstrate up to an order of magnitude improvement of Maester over the original FNC winning solution, for agreement-aware search.

We study three classical machine learning algorithms in the context of algorithmic fairness: adaptive boosting, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Our goal is to maintain the high accuracy of these learning algorithms while reducing the degree to which they discriminate against individuals because of their membership in a protected group. Our first contribution is a method for achieving fairness by shifting the decision boundary for the protected group. The method is based on the theory of margins for boosting. Our method performs comparably to or outperforms previous algorithms in the fairness literature in terms of accuracy and low discrimination, while simultaneously allowing for a fast and transparent quantification of the trade-off between bias and error. Our second contribution addresses the shortcomings of the bias-error trade-off studied in most of the algorithmic fairness literature. We demonstrate that even hopelessly naive modifications of a biased algorithm, which cannot be reasonably said to be fair, can still achieve low bias and high accuracy. To help to distinguish between these naive algorithms and more sensible algorithms we propose a new measure of fairness, called resilience to random bias (RRB). We demonstrate that RRB distinguishes well between our naive and sensible fairness algorithms. RRB together with bias and accuracy provides a more complete picture of the fairness of an algorithm.