About
About
More Middle-aged Men Taking Steroids To Look Younger Men's Health1. Why people keep searching for answers
Reason What it means for the search process
The problem is new or rare The user must find a niche solution that may exist only in one forum or article.
Multiple solutions are possible The best answer depends on context (e.g., device, operating system, personal preference).
Information is scattered Tips live in comment threads, PDF guides, video captions, and the user has to piece them together.
The user wants confidence They prefer a source that is reliable, recent, and vetted by others.
These factors force the user to look beyond a single "best" result. They need several credible sources to compare and confirm.
---
2. Why the "Best Result" Is Not Enough
2.1 The Rank‑Based Model Fails for Diverse Queries
Search engines rank results primarily on relevance and authority. For an ambiguous or highly specific question, a single top result may:
Cover only one aspect of the query.
Be outdated, thus missing recent developments.
Come from a niche source that is not widely trusted.
The user’s goal is to build a well‑rounded understanding, which cannot be achieved by reading just one page.
2.2 The "One Result" Model Overlooks Redundancy and Consensus
In many cases, multiple authoritative sources confirm the same information (e.g., technical specifications). A model that pulls only one source ignores this redundancy, thereby missing an opportunity to verify data via consensus.
---
4. Proposed Solution: A Multi‑Source Aggregation System
To address these shortcomings, we propose a system that aggregates and ranks multiple relevant documents per user query, ensuring coverage of diverse perspectives and verification through cross‑source comparison.
4.1 Architecture Overview
+-----------------+
| User Query |
+--------+--------+
|
v
+--------+--------+ +---------------------+
| Document Retrieval | | Document Ranking |
| (e.g., via BM25) | ---> | (score, diversity)|
+--------+--------+ +-----------+---------+
| |
v v
+--------+--------+ +---------------------+
| Cross-Source |<------- | Diversity Scoring |
| Comparison | | (topic modeling) |
+--------+--------+ +-----------+---------+
| |
v v
+--------+--------+ +---------------------+
| Final Ranking |<------ | Topic Distributions|
+--------+--------+ +---------------------+
Cross‑source comparison: For each pair of documents from different sources, we compute a similarity (e.g. cosine over TF‑IDF or topic vectors). We also compute the topic distribution overlap: sum of min(topic probabilities) across all topics. Documents with high overlap are considered consistent.
Topic distributions: Each document is represented by its topic probability vector (from LDA). This captures its main themes, useful for measuring similarity and detecting shifts in focus over time or between sources.
4. Detecting Consistency / Inconsistency
We can formalize a consistency score:
Consistency(doc_i, doc_j) = α cosine_similarity(tfidf_i, tfidf_j)
+ (1-α) sum_k min(topic_prob_ik, topic_prob_jk)
where `α ∈ 0,1` balances lexical similarity and thematic overlap. A high consistency indicates that the two documents discuss similar content.
For a set of documents from multiple sources:
Compute pairwise consistency scores.
Cluster documents; clusters with high intra-cluster consistency likely represent consistent coverage.
Outliers (low consistency with others) are flagged as potentially inconsistent or divergent.
Alternatively, build a graph where nodes are documents and edges weighted by consistency. Use community detection to find coherent groups.
Conclusion: By combining lexical similarity (tf‑idf or embeddings), semantic similarity (sentence embeddings), and thematic overlap (topic modeling), we can quantitatively assess the consistency of coverage across multiple news articles. This method can be implemented in Python using libraries such as scikit‑learn, spaCy, gensim, sentence‑transformers, and networkx.