ah, thanks for the explanation On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:11 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is one requirement indeed. Since WAND reasons about partially > evaluated documents, it also requires that matching one more clause makes > the overall score higher, which is why we introduced the requirement that > scores must be positive in 8.0. For multiplication, this would require > scores that are greater than 1. > > If someone really wanted to multiply scores, the easiest way might be to > create a query wrapper that takes the log of the scores of the wrapped > query, and rely on log(a)+log(b) = log(a * b). > > Le ven. 17 sept. 2021 à 14:47, Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > Not advocating any particular approach here, just curious: could BMW > > also function in the presence of a doc-score (like recency) that is > > multiplied? My vague understanding is that as long as the scoring > > formula is monotonic in all of its inputs, and we have block-encoded > > the inputs, then we could compute a max score for a block? > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 12:41 PM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > You are correct that the contribution would be additive in that case. We > > > don't provide an easy way to make the contribution multiplicative. > > > > > > There is some debate about what is the best way to combine BM25 scores > > with > > > query-independent features, though in the discussions I've seen > > > contributions were summed up and the debate was more about whether they > > > should be normalized or not. > > > > > > How much recency impacts ranking indeed depends on the number of terms > > and > > > how frequent these terms are. One way that I'm interpreting the fact that > > > not everyone recommends normalizing scores is that this way the query > > score > > > dominates when the query is looking for something very specific, because > > it > > > includes many terms or because it uses very specific terms - which may > > be a > > > feature. This approach also works well for Lucene since dynamic pruning > > via > > > Block-Max WAND keeps working when query-independent features are > > > incorporated into the final score, which helps figure out the top hits > > > without having to collect all matches. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:40 PM Nicolás Lichtmaier > > > <nicol...@wolfram.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On March I've asked a question here that go no answers at all. As it > > > > still something that I'd very much like to know I'll ask again. > > > > > > > > To implement "recency" into a search you would add a boolean clause > > with > > > > a LongPoint.newDistanceFeatureQuery(), right? But that's additive, > > > > meaning that this recency will impact different for searches with > > > > different number of terms, right? With more terms the recency component > > > > contribution to score will be more and more "diluted". However... I > > only > > > > see examples using this way of doing, and I would need to do something > > > > weird to implement a multiplicative change of the score... Am I missing > > > > something? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Adrien > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
