This paper reports the use of a document distance-based approach to automatically expand the number of available relevance judgements when these are limited and reduced to only positive judgements. This may happen, for example, when the only available judgements are extracted from a list of references in a published review paper. We compare the results on two document sets: OHSUMED, based on medical research publications, and TREC-8, based on news feeds. We show that evaluations based on these expanded relevance judgements are more reliable than those using only the initially available judgements, especially when the number of available judgements is very limited.
Information retrieval evaluation based on the pooling method is inherently biased against systems that did not contribute to the pool of judged documents. This may distort the results obtained about the relative quality of the systems evaluated and thus lead to incorrect conclusions about the performance of a particular ranking technique. We examine the magnitude of this effect and explore how it can be countered by automatically building an unbiased set of judgements from the original, biased judgements obtained through pooling. We compare the performance of this method with other approaches to the problem of incomplete judgements, such as bpref, and show that the proposed method leads to higher evaluation accuracy, especially if the set of manual judgements is rich in documents, but highly biased against some systems. Searching and selecting articles to be included in systematic reviews is a real challenge for healthcare agencies responsible for publishing these reviews. The current practice of manually reviewing all papers returned by complex hand-crafted boolean queries is human labour-intensive and difficult to maintain. We demonstrate a two-stage searching system that takes advantage of ranked queries and support-vector machine text classification to assist in the retrieval of relevant articles, and to restrict results to higher-quality documents. Our proposed approach shows significant work saved in the systematic review process over a baseline of a keyword-based retrieval system.