In recent years, the proliferation of smart mobile devices has lead to the gradual integration of search functionality within mobile platforms. This has created an incentive to move away from the "ten blue links" metaphor, as mobile users are less likely to click on them, expecting to get the answer directly from the snippets. In turn, this has revived the interest in Question Answering. Then, along came chatbots, conversational systems, and messaging platforms, where the user needs could be better served with the system asking follow-up questions in order to better understand the user's intent. While typically a user would expect a single response at any utterance, a system could also return multiple options for the user to select from, based on different system understandings of the user's intent. However, this possibility should not be overused, as this practice could confuse and or annoy the user. How to produce good variable-length lists, given the conflicting objectives of staying short while maximizing the likelihood of having a correct answer included in the list, is an underexplored problem. It is also unclear how to evaluate a system that tries to do that. Here we aim to bridge this gap. In particular, we define some necessary and some optional properties that an evaluation measure fit for this purpose should have. We further show that existing evaluation measures from the IR tradition are not entirely suitable for this setup, and we propose novel evaluation measures that address it satisfactorily.
@cite_8 @cite_7 also conducted an axiomatic'' analysis of IR-related evaluation measures. Our properties and are akin to the ones discussed in @cite_2 , but the latter are used in a different setup, i.e., for document retrieval, clustering, and filtering.
@cite_2 @cite_7 @cite_8
2069870183 1985554184 2133968343 2051442094
Modern large retrieval environments tend to overwhelm their users by their large output. Since all documents are not of equal relevance to their users, highly relevant documents should be identified and ranked first for presentation. In order to develop IR techniques in this direction, it is necessary to develop evaluation approaches and methods that credit IR methods for their ability to retrieve highly relevant documents. This can be done by extending traditional evaluation methods, that is, recall and precision based on binary relevance judgments, to graded relevance judgments. Alternatively, novel measures based on graded relevance judgments may be developed. This article proposes several novel measures that compute the cumulative gain the user obtains by examining the retrieval result up to a given ranked position. The first one accumulates the relevance scores of retrieved documents along the ranked result list. The second one is similar but applies a discount factor to the relevance scores in order to devaluate late-retrieved documents. The third one computes the relative-to-the-ideal performance of IR techniques, based on the cumulative gain they are able to yield. These novel measures are defined and discussed and their use is demonstrated in a case study using TREC data: sample system run results for 20 queries in TREC-7. As a relevance base we used novel graded relevance judgments on a four-point scale. The test results indicate that the proposed measures credit IR methods for their ability to retrieve highly relevant documents and allow testing of statistical significance of effectiveness differences. The graphs based on the measures also provide insight into the performance IR techniques and allow interpretation, for example, from the user point of view. This paper proposes evaluation methods based on the use of non-dichotomous relevance judgements in IR experiments. It is argued that evaluation methods should credit IR methods for their ability to retrieve highly relevant documents. This is desirable from the user point of view in modem large IR environments. The proposed methods are (1) a novel application of P-R curves and average precision computations based on separate recall bases for documents of different degrees of relevance, and (2) two novel measures computing the cumulative gain the user obtains by examining the retrieval result up to a given ranked position. We then demonstrate the use of these evaluation methods in a case study on the effectiveness of query types, based on combinations of query structures and expansion, in retrieving documents of various degrees of relevance. The test was run with a best match retrieval system (In- Query I) in a text database consisting of newspaper articles. The results indicate that the tested strong query structures are most effective in retrieving highly relevant documents. The differences between the query types are practically essential and statistically significant. More generally, the novel evaluation methods and the case demonstrate that non-dichotomous relevance assessments are applicable in IR experiments, may reveal interesting phenomena, and allow harder testing of IR methods. Familiar evaluation methodologies for information retrieval (IR) are not well suited to the task of comparing systems in many real settings. These systems and evaluation methods must support contextual, interactive retrieval over changing, heterogeneous data collections, including private and confidential information.We have implemented a comparison tool which can be inserted into the natural IR process. It provides a familiar search interface, presents a small number of result sets in side-by-side panels, elicits searcher judgments, and logs interaction events. The tool permits study of real information needs as they occur, uses the documents actually available at the time of the search, and records judgments taking into account the instantaneous needs of the searcher.We have validated our proposed evaluation approach and explored potential biases by comparing different whole-of-Web search facilities using a Web-based version of the tool. In four experiments, one with supplied queries in the laboratory and three with real queries in the workplace, subjects showed no discernable left-right bias and were able to reliably distinguish between high- and low-quality result sets. We found that judgments were strongly predicted by simple implicit measures.Following validation we undertook a case study comparing two leading whole-of-Web search engines. The approach is now being used in several ongoing investigations. A number of key Information Access tasks -- Document Retrieval, Clustering, Filtering, and their combinations -- can be seen as instances of a generic document organization problem that establishes priority and relatedness relationships between documents (in other words, a problem of forming and ranking clusters). As far as we know, no analysis has been made yet on the evaluation of these tasks from a global perspective. In this paper we propose two complementary evaluation measures -- Reliability and Sensitivity -- for the generic Document Organization task which are derived from a proposed set of formal constraints (properties that any suitable measure must satisfy). In addition to be the first measures that can be applied to any mixture of ranking, clustering and filtering tasks, Reliability and Sensitivity satisfy more formal constraints than previously existing evaluation metrics for each of the subsumed tasks. Besides their formal properties, its most salient feature from an empirical point of view is their strictness: a high score according to the harmonic mean of Reliability and Sensitivity ensures a high score with any of the most popular evaluation metrics in all the Document Retrieval, Clustering and Filtering datasets used in our experiments.