Bias and the limits of pooling

C. Buckley, D. Dimmick, I. Soboroff, E. Voorhees
{"title":"Bias and the limits of pooling","authors":"C. Buckley, D. Dimmick, I. Soboroff, E. Voorhees","doi":"10.1145/1148170.1148284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern retrieval test collections are built through a process called pooling in which only a sample of the entire document set is judged for each topic. The idea behind pooling is to find enough relevant documents such that when unjudged documents are assumed to be nonrelevant the resulting judgment set is sufficiently complete and unbiased. As document sets grow larger, a constant-size pool represents an increasingly small percentage of the document set, and at some point the assumption of approximately complete judgments must become invalid.This paper demonstrates that the AQUAINT 2005 test collection exhibits bias caused by pools that were too shallow for the document set size despite having many diverse runs contribute to the pools. The existing judgment set favors relevant documents that contain topic title words even though relevant documents containing few topic title words are known to exist in the document set. The paper concludes with suggested modifications to traditional pooling and evaluation methodology that may allow very large reusable test collections to be built.","PeriodicalId":433366,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

Modern retrieval test collections are built through a process called pooling in which only a sample of the entire document set is judged for each topic. The idea behind pooling is to find enough relevant documents such that when unjudged documents are assumed to be nonrelevant the resulting judgment set is sufficiently complete and unbiased. As document sets grow larger, a constant-size pool represents an increasingly small percentage of the document set, and at some point the assumption of approximately complete judgments must become invalid.This paper demonstrates that the AQUAINT 2005 test collection exhibits bias caused by pools that were too shallow for the document set size despite having many diverse runs contribute to the pools. The existing judgment set favors relevant documents that contain topic title words even though relevant documents containing few topic title words are known to exist in the document set. The paper concludes with suggested modifications to traditional pooling and evaluation methodology that may allow very large reusable test collections to be built.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
偏倚和池化的限制
现代检索测试集合是通过一个称为池的过程构建的,在这个过程中,每个主题只判断整个文档集的一个样本。池化背后的思想是找到足够多的相关文档,这样,当假定未经判断的文档不相关时,得出的判断集就足够完整和无偏。随着文档集越来越大,固定大小的池在文档集中所占的比例越来越小,并且在某些时候,近似完整判断的假设必须变得无效。本文证明,AQUAINT 2005测试集显示出偏差,这是由于池对于文档集大小来说太浅,尽管对池有许多不同的运行贡献。即使已知文档集中存在很少包含主题标题词的相关文档,现有判断集也倾向于包含主题标题词的相关文档。本文最后提出了对传统池和评估方法的修改建议,这些方法可能允许构建非常大的可重用测试集合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Strict and vague interpretation of XML-retrieval queries AggregateRank: bringing order to web sites Text clustering with extended user feedback Improving personalized web search using result diversification High accuracy retrieval with multiple nested ranker
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1