早稲田大学 · 情報科学
佐井田哲也教授の研究室は、情報検索(IR)における評価手法の信頼性と妥当性を追求する分野に注力しています。特に、不完全な評価データ下でも頑健に機能する評価指標の開発や、Bootstrap仮説検定を用いた統計的有意性の再考が特徴です。また、クエリの多義的解釈に対応するための検索結果の多様化評価や、要約を用いたインデキシングの有効性についても実践的で洗練された分析を進めています。研究は、実用的で信頼性の高いIRシステムの開発を支える基盤を提供しています。
Figures are computed from collected data and may differ slightly.
This paper describes how the Bootstrap approach to statistics can be applied to the evaluation of IR effectiveness metrics. First, we argue that Bootstrap Hypothesis Tests deserve more attention from the IR community, as they are based on fewer assumptions than traditional statistical significance tests. We then describe straightforward methods for comparing the sensitivity of IR metrics based on Bootstrap Hypothesis Tests. Unlike the heuristics-based "swap" method proposed by Voorhees and Buckl
Search queries are often ambiguous and/or underspecified. To accomodate different user needs, search result diversification has received attention in the past few years. Accordingly, several new metrics for evaluating diversification have been proposed, but their properties are little understood. We compare the properties of existing metrics given the premises that (1) queries may have multiple intents; (2) the likelihood of each intent given a query is available; and (3) graded relevance assess
Recently, a number of TREC tracks have adopted a retrieval effectiveness metric called bpref which has been designed for evaluation environments with incomplete relevance data. A graded-relevance version of this metric called rpref has also been proposed. However, we show that the application of Q-measure, normalised Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG) or Average Precision (AveP)to condensed lists, obtained by ?ltering out all unjudged documents from the original ranked lists, is actually a better
Modern information retrieval (IR) test collections have grown in size, but the available manpower for relevance assessments has more or less remained constant. Hence, how to reliably evaluate and compare IR systems using incomplete relevance data, where many documents exist that were never examined by the relevance assessors, is receiving a lot of attention. This article compares the robustness of IR metrics to incomplete relevance assessments, using four different sets of graded-relevance test
IR revolves around evaluation. Therefore, IR researchers should employ sound evaluation practices. Nowadays many of us know that statistical significance testing is not enough, but not all of us know exactly what to do about it. This paper provides suggestions on how to report effect sizes and confidence intervals along with p-values, in the context of comparing IR systems using test collections. Hopefully, these practices will make IR papers more informative, and help researchers form more reli
This paper examines the use of generic summaries for indexing in information retrieval. Our main observations are that: (1) With or without pseudo-relevance feedback, a summary index may be as effective as the corresponding fulltext index forprecision-oriented search of highly relevant documents. %43 But a reasonably sophisticated summarizer, using a compression ratio of 10-30%, is desirable for this purpose. (2) In pseudo-relevance feedback, using a summary index at initial search and a fulltex
We introduce a general information access evaluation framework that can potentially handle summaries, ranked document lists and even multi query sessions seamlessly. Our framework first builds a trailtext which represents a concatenation of all the texts read by the user during a search session, and then computes an evaluation metric called U-measure over the trailtext. Instead of discounting the value of a retrieved piece of information based on ranks, U-measure discounts it based on its positi
Although Pseudo-Relevance Feedback (PRF) is a widely used technique for enhancing average retrieval performance, it may actually hurt performance for around one-third of a given set of topics. To enhance the reliability of PRF, Flexible PRF has been proposed, which adjusts the number of pseudo-relevant documents and/or the number of expansion terms for each topic. This paper explores a new, inexpensive Flexible PRF method, called Selective Sampling, which is unique in that it can skip documents
We conducted a systematic review of 840 SIGIR full papers and 215 TOIS papers published between 2006 and 2015. The original objective of the study was to identify IR effectiveness experiments that are seriously underpowered (i.e., the sample size is far too small so that the probability of missing a real difference is extremely high) or overpowered (i.e., the sample size is so large that a difference will be considered statistically significant even if the actual effect size is extremely small).
Given an ambiguous or underspecified query, search result diversification aims at accomodating different user intents within a single "entry-point" result page. However, some intents are informational, for which many relevant pages may help, while others are navigational, for which only one web page is required. We propose new evaluation metrics for search result diversification that considers this distinction, as well as a simple method for comparing the intuitiveness of a given pair of metrics
Traditional pooling-based information retrieval (IR) test collections typically have $$n= 50$$ –100 topics, but it is difficult for an IR researcher to say why the topic set size should really be n. The present study provides details on principled ways to determine the number of topics for a test collection to be built, based on a specific set of statistical requirements. We employ Nagata’s three sample size design techniques, which are based on the paired t test, one-way ANOVA, and confidence i
In the December 2017 issue of SIGIR Forum, Fuhr presented ten "Thou Shalt Not"s (i.e., warnings against bad practices) for IR experimenters. While his article provides a lot of good materials for discussion, the objective of the present article is to argue that not all of his recommendations should be considered as absolute truths: researchers should be aware that there are other views; conference programme chairs and journal editors should be very careful when providing a guideline for evaluati
Open papers in the app to read, cite, and organize with AI.