Modelling disagreement between judges for information retrieval system evaluation
Andrew H. Turpin, Falk Scholer · 2009
Abstract The batch evaluation of information retrieval systems typically makes use of a testbed consisting of a collection of documents, a set of queries, and for each query, a set of judgements indicating which documents are relevant. This paper presents a probabilistic model for predicting IR system rankings in a batch experiment when using document relevance assessments from different judges, using the precision-at-n family of metrics. In particular, if a new judge agrees with the original judge with an agreement rate of α, then a probability distribution of the difference between the P@n scores of the two systems is derived in terms of α. We then examine how the model could be used to predict system performance based on user evaluation of two IR systems, given a previous batch assessment of the two systems together with a measure of the agreement between the users and the judges used to generate the original batch relevance judgements. From the analysis of data collected in previous user experiments, it can be seen that simple agreement (α) between users varies widely between search tasks and information needs. A practical choice of parameters for the model from the available data is therefore difficult. We conclude that gathering agreement rates from users of a live search system requires careful consideration of topic and task effects.