Affiliation:
1. Waseda University, Japan
2. University of Copenhagen, Denmark
3. Tsinghua University, P. R. C.
4. University of Padua, Italy
Abstract
The present study leverages a recent opportunity we had to create a new English web search test collection for the NTCIR-16 We Want Web (WWW-4) task, which concluded in June 2022. More specifically, through the test collection construction effort, we examined two factors that may affect the relevance assessments of depth-
k
pools, which in turn may affect the relative evaluation of different IR systems. The first factor is the document ordering strategy for the assessors, namely, prioritisation (PRI) and randomisation (RND). PRI is a method that has been used in NTCIR tasks for over a decade; it ranks the pooled documents by a kind of pseudorelevance for the assessors. The second factor is assessor type, i.e., Gold or Bronze. Gold assessors are the topic creators and therefore they “know” which documents are (highly) relevant and which are not; Bronze assessors are not the topic creators and may lack sufficient knowledge about the topics. We believe that our study is unique in that the authors of this article served as the Gold assessors when creating the WWW-4 test collection, which enabled us to closely examine why Bronze assessments differ from the Gold ones. Our research questions examine assessor efficiency (
RQ1
), inter-assessor agreement (
RQ2
), system ranking similarity with different qrels files (
RQ3
), system ranking robustness to the choice of test topics (
RQ4
), and the reasons why Bronze assessors tend to be more liberal than Gold assessors (
RQ5
). The most remarkable of our results are as follows: First, in the comparisons for
RQ1
through
RQ4
, it turned out that what may matter more than the document ordering strategy (PRI vs. RND) and the assessor type (Gold vs. Bronze) is how well-motivated and/or well-trained the Bronze assessors are. Second, regarding
RQ5
, of the documents originally judged nonrelevant by the Gold assessors contrary to the Bronze assessors in our experiments, almost one half were truly relevant according to the Gold assessors’ own reconsiderations. This result suggests that even Gold assessors are far from perfect; budget permitting, it may be beneficial to hire highly motivated Bronze assessors in addition to Gold assessors so they can complement each other.
Funder
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Subject
Computer Science Applications,General Business, Management and Accounting,Information Systems
Reference58 articles.
1. A qualitative exploration of secondary assessor relevance judging behavior
2. James Allan, Ben Carterette, Javed A. Aslam, Virgil Pavlu, Blagovest Dachev, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2008. Million query track 2007 overview. In Proceedings of the 16th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC’07). NIST.
3. James Allan, Donna Harman, Evangelos Kanoulas, Dan Li, Christophe Van Gysel, and Ellen Voorhees. 2018. TREC common core track overview. In Proceedings of the 26th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC’17). NIST.
4. Omar Alonso and Stefano Mizzaro. 2012. Using crowdsourcing for TREC relevance assessment. Inf. Process. Manag. 48 6 (2012) 1053–1066.
5. Peter Bailey, Nick Craswell, Ian Soboroff, Paul Thomas, Arjen P. de Vries, and Emine Yilmaz. 2008. Relevance assessment: Are judges exchangeable and does it matter? In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Association for Computing Machinery, 667–674.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Resources for Combining Teaching and Research in Information Retrieval Coursework;Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval;2024-07-10