Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparing average P@X of CRFref and the rankers constructed by integrating the baselines with CRFref: All baselines were improved by integrating them with CRFref, however when compared with CRFref, some of the integrated versions achieved better performance in P@3 but not P@1

From: Identification of highly related references about gene-disease association

Type Ranker P@1 P@2 P@3
CRFref CRFref 0.34435 0.30040 0.28078
CRFref & individual baselines CRFref + PosFreq 0.33065 0.30202 0.28965
  CRFref + PRE 0.32581s 0.30161 0.28777
  CRFref + BM25 0.33548 0.30323 0.28938s
  CRFref + PLM 0.33548 0.30242 0.28589
  CRFref + Lucene 0.33306 0.29516 0.28132
CRFref & integrative baselines CRFref + PRE + PosFreq 0.32258s 0.30685 0.29073s
  CRFref + BM25 + PosFreq 0.33629 0.30887 0.29019
  CRFref + PLM + PosFreq 0.32500s 0.30524 0.29341s
  CRFref + Lucene + PosFreq 0.33468 0.30161 0.28159
  1. s: Statistically significant differences with p ≤ 0.05