prasadl08evaluation1 evaluation of ir systems adapted from lectures by prabhakar raghavan (yahoo and...
TRANSCRIPT
Prasad L08Evaluation 1
Evaluation of IR Systems
Adapted from Lectures by
Prabhakar Raghavan (Yahoo and Stanford) and Christopher Manning (Stanford)
2
This lecture
How do we summarize results? Making our good results usable to a user
How do we know if our results are any good? Necessary to determine effectiveness of
Ranking function (dot-product, cosine, …) Term selection (stopword removal, stemming…) Term weighting (TF, TF-IDF,…)
How far down the ranked list will a user need to look to find some/all relevant documents?
Evaluating a search engine Benchmarks Precision and recall
3
Results summaries
4
Summaries
Having ranked the documents matching a query, we wish to present a results list (answer set)
Most commonly, the document title plus a short summary
The title is typically automatically extracted from document metadata.
What about the summaries?
5
Summaries
Two basic kinds: Static (cf. extractive) Dynamic (cf. abstractive)
A static summary of a document is always the same, regardless of the query that hit the doc.
Dynamic summaries are query-dependent and attempt to explain why the document was retrieved for the query at hand.
6
Static summaries In typical systems, the static summary is a subset of the
document. Simplest heuristic: the first 50 (or so – this can be varied)
words of the document Summary cached at indexing time
More sophisticated: extract from each document a set of “key” sentences
Simple NLP heuristics to score each sentence. Summary is made up of top-scoring sentences.
Most sophisticated: NLP used to synthesize a summary Seldom used in IR; (cf. text summarization work)
7
Dynamic summaries
Present one or more “windows” within the document that contain several of the query terms “KWIC” snippets: Keyword in Context presentation
Generated in conjunction with scoring If query found as a phrase, the/some occurrences of
the phrase in the doc If not, windows within the doc that contain multiple
query terms The summary itself gives the entire content of the
window – all terms, not only the query terms.
8
Generating dynamic summaries
If we have only a positional index, we cannot (easily) reconstruct context surrounding hits
If we cache the documents at index time, can run the window through it, cueing to hits found in the positional index E.g., positional index says “the query is a phrase
in position 4378” so we go to this position in the cached document and stream out the content
Most often, cache a fixed-size prefix of the doc
9
Dynamic summaries
Producing good dynamic summaries is a tricky optimization problem
The real estate for the summary is normally small and fixed Want short item, so show as many KWIC matches as
possible, and perhaps other things like title Want snippets to be long enough to be useful Want linguistically well-formed snippets: users prefer snippets
that contain complete phrases Want snippets maximally informative about doc
But users really like snippets, even if they complicate IR system design
10
Evaluating search engines
11
Measures for a search engine
How fast does it index Number of documents/hour (Average document size)
How fast does it search Latency as a function of index size
Expressiveness of query language Ability to express complex information needs Speed on complex queries
12
Measures for a search engine
All of the preceding criteria are measurable: we can quantify speed/size; we can make expressiveness precise
The key measure: user happiness What is this? Speed of response/size of index are factors But blindingly fast, useless answers won’t make a
user happy Need a way of quantifying user happiness
13
Data Retrieval vs Information Retrieval
DR Performance Evaluation (after establishing correctness) Response time Index space
IR Performance Evaluation + How relevant is the answer set? (required to
establish functional correctness, e.g., through benchmarks)
14
Measuring user happiness Issue: who is the user we are trying to make
happy? Web engine: user finds what they want and return
to the engine Can measure rate of return users
eCommerce site: user finds what they want and make a purchase Is it the end-user, or the eCommerce site, whose
happiness we measure? Measure time to purchase, or fraction of searchers
who become buyers?
15
Measuring user happiness
Enterprise (company/govt/academic): Care about “user productivity” How much time do my users save when looking for
information? Many other criteria having to do with breadth of
access, secure access, etc.
16
Happiness: elusive to measure
Commonest proxy: relevance of search results But how do you measure relevance? We will detail a methodology here, then examine
its issues Relevance measurement requires 3 elements:
1. A benchmark document collection
2. A benchmark suite of queries
3. A binary assessment of either Relevant or Irrelevant for each query-doc pair Some work on more-than-binary, but not the standard
17
Evaluating an IR system
Relevance is assessed relative to the information need, not the query
E.g., Information need: I'm looking for information on whether drinking red wine is more effective at reducing your risk of heart attacks than white wine.
Query: wine red white heart attack effective You evaluate whether the doc addresses the
information need, not whether it has those words
18
Difficulties with gauging Relevancy
Relevancy, from a human standpoint, is: Subjective: Depends upon a specific
user’s judgment. Situational: Relates to user’s current
needs. Cognitive: Depends on human
perception and behavior. Dynamic: Changes over time.
19
Standard relevance benchmarks
TREC - National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) has run a large IR test bed for many years
Reuters and other benchmark doc collections used
“Retrieval tasks” specified sometimes as queries
Human experts mark, for each query and for each doc, Relevant or Irrelevant or at least for subset of docs that some system
returned for that query
20
Unranked retrieval evaluation:Precision and Recall
Precision: fraction of retrieved docs that are relevant = P(relevant|retrieved)
Recall: fraction of relevant docs that are retrieved = P(retrieved|relevant)
Precision P = tp/(tp + fp) Recall R = tp/(tp + fn)
Relevant Not Relevant
Retrieved tp fp
Not Retrieved fn tn
21
Precision and Recall in Practice
Precision The ability to retrieve top-ranked documents that
are mostly relevant. The fraction of the retrieved documents that is relevant.
Recall The ability of the search to find all of the relevant
items in the corpus. The fraction of the relevant documents that is retrieved.
22
Precision and Recall
23
R=3/6=0.5; P=3/4=0.75
Computing Recall/Precision Points: An Example
n doc # relevant
1 588 x2 589 x3 5764 590 x5 9866 592 x7 9848 9889 57810 98511 10312 59113 772 x14 990
Let total # of relevant docs = 6Check each new recall point:
R=1/6=0.167; P=1/1=1
R=2/6=0.333; P=2/2=1
R=5/6=0.833; p=5/13=0.38
R=4/6=0.667; P=4/6=0.667
Missing one relevant document.
Never reach 100% recall
24
Accuracy
Given a query, an engine classifies each doc as “Relevant” or “Irrelevant”.
Accuracy of an engine: the fraction of these classifications that is correct.
Why is this not a very useful evaluation measure in IR?
25
Why not just use accuracy?
How to build a 99.9999% accurate search engine on a low budget….
People doing information retrieval want to find something and have a certain tolerance for junk.
Search for:
0 matching results found.
26
Precision/Recall
You can get high recall (but low precision) by retrieving all docs for all queries!
Recall is a non-decreasing function of the number of docs retrieved
In a good system, precision decreases as either number of docs retrieved or recall increases A fact with strong empirical confirmation
27
Trade-offs
10
1
Recall
Pre
cisi
on
The idealReturns relevant documents butmisses many useful ones too
Returns most relevantdocuments but includeslot of junk
28
Difficulties in using precision/recall
Should average over large corpus/query ensembles
Need human relevance assessments People aren’t reliable assessors
Assessments have to be binary Nuanced assessments?
Heavily skewed by corpus/authorship Results may not translate from one domain to
another
29
A combined measure: F
Combined measure that assesses this tradeoff is F measure (weighted harmonic mean):
People usually use balanced F1 measure i.e., with = 1 or = ½
Harmonic mean is a conservative average See CJ van Rijsbergen, Information Retrieval
RP
PR
RP
F
2
2 )1(1
)1(1
1
30
F1 and other averages
Combined Measures
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Precision (Recall fixed at 70%)
Minimum
Maximum
Arithmetic
Geometric
Harmonic
31
Evaluating ranked results
Evaluation of ranked results: The system can return any number of results By taking various numbers of the top returned
documents (levels of recall), the evaluator can produce a precision-recall curve
32
A precision-recall curve
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Recall
Pre
cisi
on
33
Evaluation
Graphs are good, but people want summary measures! Precision at fixed retrieval level
Perhaps most appropriate for web search: all people want are good matches on the first one or two results pages
But has an arbitrary parameter of k 11-point interpolated average precision
The standard measure in the TREC competitions: you take the precision at 11 levels of recall varying from 0 to 1 by tenths of the documents, using interpolation (the value for 0 is always interpolated!), and average them
Evaluates performance at all recall levels
34
Typical (good) 11 point precisions
SabIR/Cornell 8A1 11pt precision from TREC 8 (1999)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Recall
Pre
cis
ion
35
11 point precisions
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Recall
Pre
cisi
on
36
Creating Test Collectionsfor IR Evaluation
37
Test Corpora
38
From corpora to test collections
Still need Test queries Relevance assessments
Test queries Must be germane to docs available Best designed by domain experts Random query terms generally not a good idea
Relevance assessments Human judges, time-consuming Are human panels perfect?
39
Unit of Evaluation
We can compute precision, recall, F, and ROC curve for different units.
Possible units Documents (most common) Facts (used in some TREC evaluations) Entities (e.g., car companies)
May produce different results. Why?
40
Can we avoid human judgment?
Not really Makes experimental work hard
Especially on a large scale In some very specific settings, can use proxies Example below, approximate vector space
retrieval But once we have test collections, we can reuse
them (so long as we don’t overtrain too badly)
41
Approximate vector retrieval
Given n document vectors and a query, find the k doc vectors closest to the query. Exact retrieval – we know of no better way than to
compute cosines from the query to every doc Approximate retrieval schemes – such as cluster
pruning Given such an approximate retrieval scheme,
how do we measure its goodness?
42
Approximate vector retrieval
Let G(q) be the “ground truth” of the actual k closest docs on query q
Let A(q) be the k docs returned by approximate algorithm A on query q
For performance we would measure A(q) G(q) Is this the right measure?
43
Alternative proposal
Focus instead on how A(q) compares to G(q). Goodness can be measured here in cosine
proximity to q: we sum up qd over d A(q). Compare this to the sum of qd over d G(q).
Yields a measure of the relative “goodness” of A vis-à-vis G.
Thus A may be 90% “as good as” the ground-truth G, without finding 90% of the docs in G.
For scored retrieval, this may be acceptable: Most web engines don’t always return the same
answers for a given query.
44
Other Evaluation Measures andTREC Benchmarks
Adapted from Slides Attributed to
Prof. Dik Lee (Univ. of Science and Tech, Hong Kong)
45
R- Precision
Precision at the R-th position in the ranking of results for a query that has R relevant documents.
n doc # relevant
1 588 x2 589 x3 5764 590 x5 9866 592 x7 9848 9889 57810 98511 10312 59113 772 x14 990
R = # of relevant docs = 6
R-Precision = 4/6 = 0.67
46
E Measure (parameterized F Measure)
A variant of F measure that allows weighting emphasis on precision over recall:
Value of controls trade-off: = 1: Equally weight precision and recall (E=F). > 1: Weight precision more. < 1: Weight recall more.
PRRP
PRE
1
2
2
2
2
)1()1(
47
Fallout Rate
Problems with both precision and recall: Number of irrelevant documents in the
collection is not taken into account. Recall is undefined when there is no relevant
document in the collection. Precision is undefined when no document is
retrieved.
collection the in items tnonrelevan of no. totalretrieved items tnonrelevan of no.
Fallout
48
Subjective Relevance Measure
Novelty Ratio: The proportion of items retrieved and judged relevant by the user and of which they were previously unaware.
Ability to find new information on a topic. Coverage Ratio: The proportion of relevant items retrieved
out of the total relevant documents known to a user prior to the search.
Relevant when the user wants to locate documents which they have seen before (e.g., the budget report for Year 2000).
49
Other Factors to Consider
User effort: Work required from the user in formulating queries, conducting the search, and screening the output.
Response time: Time interval between receipt of a user query and the presentation of system responses.
Form of presentation: Influence of search output format on the user’s ability to utilize the retrieved materials.
Collection coverage: Extent to which any/all relevant items are included in the document corpus.
50
Previous experiments were based on the SMART collection which is fairly small. (ftp://ftp.cs.cornell.edu/pub/smart)
Collection Number Of Number Of Raw Size Name Documents Queries (Mbytes) CACM 3,204 64 1.5 CISI 1,460 112 1.3 CRAN 1,400 225 1.6 MED 1,033 30 1.1 TIME 425 83 1.5
Different researchers used different test collections and evaluation techniques.
Early Test Collections
51
The TREC Benchmark
• TREC: Text REtrieval Conference (http://trec.nist.gov/) Originated from the TIPSTER program sponsored by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).• Became an annual conference in 1992, co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and DARPA.• Participants are given parts of a standard set of documents and TOPICS (from which queries have to be derived) in different stages for training and testing.• Participants submit the P/R values for the final document and query corpus and present their results at the conference.
52
The TREC Objectives • Provide a common ground for comparing different IR techniques.
– Same set of documents and queries, and same evaluation method.• Sharing of resources and experiences in developing the benchmark.
– With major sponsorship from government to develop large benchmark collections.
• Encourage participation from industry and academia.• Development of new evaluation techniques, particularly for new applications.
– Retrieval, routing/filtering, non-English collection, web-based collection, question answering.
53
TREC Advantages
Large scale (compared to a few MB in the SMART Collection).
Relevance judgments provided. Under continuous development with support from the
U.S. Government. Wide participation:
TREC 1: 28 papers 360 pages. TREC 4: 37 papers 560 pages. TREC 7: 61 papers 600 pages. TREC 8: 74 papers.
54
TREC Tasks Ad hoc: New questions are being asked on a
static set of data. Routing: Same questions are being asked,
but new information is being searched. (news clipping, library profiling).
New tasks added after TREC 5 - Interactive, multilingual, natural language, multiple database merging, filtering, very large corpus (20 GB, 7.5 million documents), question answering.
55
Characteristics of the TREC Collection
Both long and short documents (from a few hundred to over one thousand unique terms in a document).
Test documents consist of: WSJ Wall Street Journal articles (1986-1992) 550 M AP Associate Press Newswire (1989) 514 M ZIFF Computer Select Disks (Ziff-Davis Publishing) 493 M FR Federal Register 469 M DOE Abstracts from Department of Energy reports 190 M
56
More Details on Document Collections
Volume 1 (Mar 1994) - Wall Street Journal (1987, 1988, 1989), Federal Register (1989), Associated Press (1989), Department of Energy abstracts, and Information from the Computer Select disks (1989, 1990)
Volume 2 (Mar 1994) - Wall Street Journal (1990, 1991, 1992), the Federal Register (1988), Associated Press (1988) and Information from the Computer Select disks (1989, 1990)
Volume 3 (Mar 1994) - San Jose Mercury News (1991), the Associated Press (1990), U.S. Patents (1983-1991), and Information from the Computer Select disks (1991, 1992)
Volume 4 (May 1996) - Financial Times Limited (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994), the Congressional Record of the 103rd Congress (1993), and the Federal Register (1994).
Volume 5 (Apr 1997) - Foreign Broadcast Information Service (1996) and the Los Angeles Times (1989, 1990).
57
TREC Disk 4,5TREC Disk 4 Congressional Record of the 103rd Congress
approx. 30,000 documents approx. 235 MBFederal Register (1994) approx. 55,000 documents approx. 395 MBFinancial Times (1992-1994) approx. 210,000 documents approx. 565 MB
TREC Disk 5 Data provided from the Foreign Broadcast Information Service approx. 130,000 documents approx. 470 MBLos Angeles Times (randomly selected articles from 1989 & 1990) approx. 130,000 document approx. 475 MB
58
Sample Document (with SGML)<DOC> <DOCNO> WSJ870324-0001 </DOCNO> <HL> John Blair Is Near Accord To Sell Unit, Sources Say </HL> <DD> 03/24/87</DD> <SO> WALL STREET JOURNAL (J) </SO><IN> REL TENDER OFFERS, MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS (TNM) MARKETING,
ADVERTISING (MKT) TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BROADCASTING, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH (TEL) </IN>
<DATELINE> NEW YORK </DATELINE> <TEXT> John Blair & Co. is close to an agreement to sell its TV station advertising
representation operation and program production unit to an investor group led by James H. Rosenfield, a former CBS Inc. executive, industry sources said. Industry sources put the value of the proposed acquisition at more than $100 million. ...
</TEXT> </DOC>
59
Sample Query (with SGML)<top> <head> Tipster Topic Description <num> Number: 066 <dom> Domain: Science and Technology <title> Topic: Natural Language Processing <desc> Description: Document will identify a type of natural language processing
technology which is being developed or marketed in the U.S. <narr> Narrative: A relevant document will identify a company or institution
developing or marketing a natural language processing technology, identify the technology, and identify one of more features of the company's product.
<con> Concept(s): 1. natural language processing ;2. translation, language, dictionary
<fac> Factor(s): <nat> Nationality: U.S.</nat></fac> <def> Definitions(s): </top>
60
TREC Properties
Both documents and queries contain many different kinds of information (fields).
Generation of the formal queries (Boolean, Vector Space, etc.) is the responsibility of the system. A system may be very good at querying and
ranking, but if it generates poor queries from the topic, its final P/R would be poor.
61
Two more TREC Document Examples
62
Another Example of TREC Topic/Query
63
Evaluation
Summary table statistics: Number of topics, number of documents retrieved, number of relevant documents.
Recall-precision average: Average precision at 11 recall levels (0 to 1 at 0.1 increments).
Document level average: Average precision when 5, 10, .., 100, … 1000 documents are retrieved.
Average precision histogram: Difference of the R-precision for each topic and the average R-precision of all systems for that topic.
64
65
Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Collection
1,239 abstracts of medical journal articles on CF. 100 information requests (queries) in the form of
complete English questions. Relevant documents determined and rated by 4
separate medical experts on 0-2 scale: 0: Not relevant. 1: Marginally relevant. 2: Highly relevant.
66
CF Document Fields
MEDLINE access number Author Title Source Major subjects Minor subjects Abstract (or extract) References to other documents Citations to this document
67
Sample CF DocumentAN 74154352AU Burnell-R-H. Robertson-E-F.TI Cystic fibrosis in a patient with Kartagener syndrome.SO Am-J-Dis-Child. 1974 May. 127(5). P 746-7.MJ CYSTIC-FIBROSIS: co. KARTAGENER-TRIAD: co.MN CASE-REPORT. CHLORIDES: an. HUMAN. INFANT. LUNG: ra. MALE. SITUS-INVERSUS: co, ra. SODIUM: an. SWEAT: an.AB A patient exhibited the features of both Kartagener syndrome and cystic fibrosis. At most, to the authors' knowledge, this represents the third such report of the combination. Cystic fibrosis should be excluded before a diagnosis of Kartagener syndrome is made.RF 001 KARTAGENER M BEITR KLIN TUBERK 83 489 933 002 SCHWARZ V ARCH DIS CHILD 43 695 968 003 MACE JW CLIN PEDIATR 10 285 971 …CT 1 BOCHKOVA DN GENETIKA (SOVIET GENETICS) 11 154 975 2 WOOD RE AM REV RESPIR DIS 113 833 976 3 MOSSBERG B MT SINAI J MED 44 837 977 …
68
Sample CF QueriesQN 00002QU Can one distinguish between the effects of mucus hypersecretion and infection on the submucosal glands of the respiratory tract in CF?NR 00007RD 169 1000 434 1001 454 0100 498 1000 499 1000 592 0002 875 1011
QN 00004QU What is the lipid composition of CF respiratory secretions?NR 00009RD 503 0001 538 0100 539 0100 540 0100 553 0001 604 2222 669 1010 711 2122 876 2222
NR: Number of Relevant documentsRD: Relevant Documents
Ratings code: Four 0-2 ratings, one from each expert