基于api的“评估即服务”中的可检索性

Jiaul H. Paik, Jimmy J. Lin
{"title":"基于api的“评估即服务”中的可检索性","authors":"Jiaul H. Paik, Jimmy J. Lin","doi":"10.1145/2970398.2970427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"Evaluation as a service\" (EaaS) refers to a family of related evaluation methodologies that enables community-wide evaluations and the construction of test collections on documents that cannot be easily distributed. In the API-based approach, the basic idea is that evaluation organizers provide a service API through which the evaluation task can be completed, without providing access to the raw collection. One concern with this evaluation approach is that the API introduces biases and limits the diversity of techniques that can be brought to bear on the problem. In this paper, we tackle the question of API bias using the concept of retrievability. The raw data for our analyses come from a naturally-occurring experiment where we observed the same groups completing the same task with the API and also with access to the raw collection. We find that the retrievability bias of runs generated in both cases are comparable. Moreover, the fraction of relevant tweets retrieved through the API by the participating groups is at least as high as when they had access to the raw collection.","PeriodicalId":443715,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval","volume":"141 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrievability in API-Based \\\"Evaluation as a Service\\\"\",\"authors\":\"Jiaul H. Paik, Jimmy J. Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2970398.2970427\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"Evaluation as a service\\\" (EaaS) refers to a family of related evaluation methodologies that enables community-wide evaluations and the construction of test collections on documents that cannot be easily distributed. In the API-based approach, the basic idea is that evaluation organizers provide a service API through which the evaluation task can be completed, without providing access to the raw collection. One concern with this evaluation approach is that the API introduces biases and limits the diversity of techniques that can be brought to bear on the problem. In this paper, we tackle the question of API bias using the concept of retrievability. The raw data for our analyses come from a naturally-occurring experiment where we observed the same groups completing the same task with the API and also with access to the raw collection. We find that the retrievability bias of runs generated in both cases are comparable. Moreover, the fraction of relevant tweets retrieved through the API by the participating groups is at least as high as when they had access to the raw collection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval\",\"volume\":\"141 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2970398.2970427\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2970398.2970427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

“作为服务的评估”(EaaS)指的是一系列相关的评估方法,这些方法能够在社区范围内进行评估,并在不容易分发的文档上构建测试集合。在基于API的方法中,基本思想是评估组织者提供一个服务API,通过该API可以完成评估任务,而不提供对原始集合的访问。这种评估方法的一个问题是,API引入了偏差,并限制了可用于解决问题的技术的多样性。在本文中,我们使用可检索性的概念来解决API偏差的问题。我们分析的原始数据来自于一个自然发生的实验,在这个实验中,我们观察到相同的组使用API完成相同的任务,并访问原始集合。我们发现,在这两种情况下产生的运行的可回收性偏差是可比的。此外,参与组通过API检索的相关tweet的比例至少与他们访问原始集合时一样高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Retrievability in API-Based "Evaluation as a Service"
"Evaluation as a service" (EaaS) refers to a family of related evaluation methodologies that enables community-wide evaluations and the construction of test collections on documents that cannot be easily distributed. In the API-based approach, the basic idea is that evaluation organizers provide a service API through which the evaluation task can be completed, without providing access to the raw collection. One concern with this evaluation approach is that the API introduces biases and limits the diversity of techniques that can be brought to bear on the problem. In this paper, we tackle the question of API bias using the concept of retrievability. The raw data for our analyses come from a naturally-occurring experiment where we observed the same groups completing the same task with the API and also with access to the raw collection. We find that the retrievability bias of runs generated in both cases are comparable. Moreover, the fraction of relevant tweets retrieved through the API by the participating groups is at least as high as when they had access to the raw collection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Simple and Effective Approach to Score Standardisation Understanding the Message of Images with Knowledge Base Traversals A Topical Approach to Retrievability Bias Estimation Efficient and Effective Higher Order Proximity Modeling Cross-Language Microblog Retrieval using Latent Semantic Modeling
×
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