The most prevalent experimental methodology for comparing the effectiveness of information retrieval systems requires a test collection, composed of a set of documents, a set of query topics, and a set of relevance judgments indicating which documents are relevant to which topics. It is well known that relevance judgments are not infallible, but recent retrospective investigation into results from the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) has shown that differences in human judgments of relevance do not affect the relative measured performance of retrieval systems. Based on this result, we propose and describe the initial results of a new evaluation methodology which replaces human relevance judgments with a randomly selected mapping of documents to topics which we refer to as pseudo-relevance judgments. Rankings of systems with our methodology correlate positively with official TREC rankings, although the performance of the top systems is not predicted well. The correlations are stable over a variety of pool depths and sampling techniques. With improvements, such a methodology could be useful in evaluating systems such as World-Wide Web search engines, where the set of documents changes too often to make traditional collection construction techniques practical.

No abstract

Abstract TREC-COVID is an information retrieval (IR) shared task initiated to support clinicians and clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. IR for pandemics breaks many normal assumptions, which can be seen by examining 9 important basic IR research questions related to pandemic situations. TREC-COVID differs from traditional IR shared task evaluations with special considerations for the expected users, IR modality considerations, topic development, participant requirements, assessment process, relevance criteria, evaluation metrics, iteration process, projected timeline, and the implications of data use as a post-task test collection. This article describes how all these were addressed for the particular requirements of developing IR systems under a pandemic situation. Finally, initial participation numbers are also provided, which demonstrate the tremendous interest the IR community has in this effort.

Modern retrieval test collections are built through a process called pooling in which only a sample of the entire document set is judged for each topic. The idea behind pooling is to find enough relevant documents such that when unjudged documents are assumed to be nonrelevant the resulting judgment set is sufficiently complete and unbiased. Yet a constant-size pool represents an increasingly small percentage of the document set as document sets grow larger, and at some point the assumption of approximately complete judgments must become invalid. This paper shows that the judgment sets produced by traditional pooling when the pools are too small relative to the total document set size can be biased in that they favor relevant documents that contain topic title words. This phenomenon is wholly dependent on the collection size and does not depend on the number of relevant documents for a given topic. We show that the AQUAINT test collection constructed in the recent TREC 2005 workshop exhibits this biased relevance set; it is likely that the test collections based on the much larger GOV2 document set also exhibit the bias. The paper concludes with suggested modifications to traditional pooling and evaluation methodology that may allow very large reusable test collections to be built.