Much recent work on visual recognition aims to scale up learning to massive, noisily-annotated datasets. We address the problem of scaling- up the evaluation of such models to large-scale datasets with noisy labels. Current protocols for doing so require a human user to either vet (re-annotate) a small fraction of the test set and ignore the rest, or else correct errors in annotation as they are found through manual inspection of results. In this work, we re-formulate the problem as one of active testing, and examine strategies for efficiently querying a user so as to obtain an accu- rate performance estimate with minimal vetting. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed active testing framework on estimating two performance metrics, Precision@K and mean Average Precision, for two popular computer vision tasks, multi-label classification and instance segmentation. We further show that our approach is able to save significant human annotation effort and is more robust than alternative evaluation protocols.
To create a new IR test collection at minimal cost, we must carefully select which documents merit human relevance judgments. Shared task campaigns such as NIST TREC determine this by pooling search results from many participating systems (and often interactive runs as well), thereby identifying the most likely relevant documents in a given collection. While effective, it would be preferable to be able to build a new test collection without needing to run an entire shared task. Toward this end, we investigate multiple active learning (AL) strategies which, without reliance on system rankings: 1) select which documents human assessors should judge; and 2) automatically classify the relevance of remaining unjudged documents. Because scarcity of relevant documents tends to yield highly imbalanced training data for model estimation, we investigate sampling strategies to mitigate class imbalance. We report experiments on four TREC collections with varying scarcity of relevant documents, reporting labeling accuracy achieved, as well as rank correlation when evaluating participant systems using these labels vs. NIST judgments. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, coupled with further analysis showing how varying relevance scarcity, within and across collections, impacts findings. Relevance judgments are used to compare text retrieval systems. Given a collection of documents and queries, and a set of systems being compared, a standard approach to forming judgments is to manually examine all documents that are highly ranked by any of the systems. However, not all of these relevance judgments provide the same benefit to the final result, particularly if the aim is to identify which systems are best, rather than to fully order them. In this paper we propose new experimental methodologies that can significantly reduce the volume of judgments required in system comparisons. Using rank-biased precision, a recently proposed effectiveness measure, we show that judging around 200 documents for each of 50 queries in a TREC-scale system evaluation containing over 100 runs is sufficient to identify the best systems. We consider the problem of evaluating retrieval systems using incomplete judgment information. Buckley and Voorhees recently demonstrated that retrieval systems can be efficiently and effectively evaluated using incomplete judgments via the bpref measure [6]. When relevance judgments are complete, the value of bpref is an approximation to the value of average precision using complete judgments. However, when relevance judgments are incomplete, the value of bpref deviates from this value, though it continues to rank systems in a manner similar to average precision evaluated with a complete judgment set. In this work, we propose three evaluation measures that (1) are approximations to average precision even when the relevance judgments are incomplete and (2) are more robust to incomplete or imperfect relevance judgments than bpref. The proposed estimates of average precision are simple and accurate, and we demonstrate the utility of these estimates using TREC data. Evaluation is crucial in Information Retrieval. The development of models, tools and methods has significantly benefited from the availability of reusable test collections formed through a standardized and thoroughly tested methodology, known as the Cranfield paradigm. Constructing these collections requires obtaining relevance judgments for a pool of documents, retrieved by systems participating in an evaluation task; thus involves immense human labor. To alleviate this effort different methods for constructing collections have been proposed in the literature, falling under two broad categories: (a) sampling, and (b) active selection of documents. The former devises a smart sampling strategy by choosing only a subset of documents to be assessed and inferring evaluation measure on the basis of the obtained sample; the sampling distribution is being fixed at the beginning of the process. The latter recognizes that systems contributing documents to be judged vary in quality, and actively selects documents from good systems. The quality of systems is measured every time a new document is being judged. In this paper we seek to solve the problem of large-scale retrieval evaluation combining the two approaches. We devise an active sampling method that avoids the bias of the active selection methods towards good systems, and at the same time reduces the variance of the current sampling approaches by placing a distribution over systems, which varies as judgments become available. We validate the proposed method using TREC data and demonstrate the advantages of this new method compared to past approaches. We consider the problem of large-scale retrieval evaluation, and we propose a statistical method for evaluating retrieval systems using incomplete judgments. Unlike existing techniques that (1) rely on effectively complete, and thus prohibitively expensive, relevance judgment sets, (2) produce biased estimates of standard performance measures, or (3) produce estimates of non-standard measures thought to be correlated with these standard measures, our proposed statistical technique produces unbiased estimates of the standard measures themselves.Our proposed technique is based on random sampling. While our estimates are unbiased by statistical design, their variance is dependent on the sampling distribution employed; as such, we derive a sampling distribution likely to yield low variance estimates. We test our proposed technique using benchmark TREC data, demonstrating that a sampling pool derived from a set of runs can be used to efficiently and effectively evaluate those runs. We further show that these sampling pools generalize well to unseen runs. Our experiments indicate that highly accurate estimates of standard performance measures can be obtained using a number of relevance judgments as small as 4 of the typical TREC-style judgment pool. Relevance judgments are often the most expensive part of information retrieval evaluation, and techniques for comparing retrieval systems using fewer relevance judgments have received significant attention in recent years. This paper proposes a novel system comparison method using an expectation-maximization algorithm. In the expectation step, real-valued pseudo-judgments are estimated from a set of system results. In the maximization step, new system weights are learned from a combination of a limited number of actual human judgments and system pseudo-judgments for the other documents. The method can work without any human judgments, and is able to improve its accuracy by incrementally adding human judgments. Experiments using TREC Ad Hoc collections demonstrate strong correlations with system rankings using pooled human judgments, and comparison with existing baselines indicates that the new method achieves the same comparison reliability with fewer human judgments. 