lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: TREC Data and Topic-Specific Index
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:23:57 GMT
Hi, so you mean around 15% and 24% respectively? i think you could fairly
say either of these is an improvement over your baseline of 0.141

what i mean by large difference, is while I think its safe to say that using
either of these methods improves over your baseline, i am not sure you can
conclude that either improvement is better than the other,

you can apply various statistical tests to try to figure this out, but
because you didn't participate in the pool with these runs, you would have
to be careful about drawing conclusions as to which similarity is best, as
there is some bias and error involved.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Ivan Provalov <iprovalo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Thank you for your reply.  What would be considered a large difference?  We
> started applying the Sweet Spot Similarity.  It gives us an improvement of
> 0.163-0.141=0.022 MAP so far.  LnbLtcSimilarity gets us more improvement:
> 0.175-0.141=0.034.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan
>
> --- On Sun, 2/7/10, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: TREC Data and Topic-Specific Index
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Date: Sunday, February 7, 2010, 10:59 PM
> > you should do (a), and pretend you
> > know nothing about the relevance
> > judgements up front.
> >
> > it is true you might make some change to your search engine
> > and wonder, how
> > is it fair that I am bringing back possibly relevant docs
> > that were never
> > judged (and thus scored implicitly as non-relevant)? i.e.
> > the test
> > collection is biased against you because you did not
> > participate in the
> > pooling process.
> >
> > if you are concerned about this, you should still use (a),
> > but perhaps look
> > at other measures such as bpref (
> >
> http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~muresan/IR/Docs/Articles/sigirBuckley2004.pdf<http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/%7Emuresan/IR/Docs/Articles/sigirBuckley2004.pdf>
> ).
> >
> > personally, I simply prefer to stick with MAP. And with all
> > measures,
> > whether you look at bpref or map, my advice is to only
> > consider large
> > differences only when evaluating some potential
> > improvement!
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Ivan Provalov <iprovalo@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > We are using TREC-3 data and Ad Hoc topics
> > 151-200.  The relevance
> > > judgments list contains 97,319 entries, of which
> > 68,559 are unique document
> > > ids.  The TIPSTER collection which was used in
> > TREC-3 is around 750,000
> > > documents.
> > >
> > > Should we (a) index the entire 750,000 document
> > collection, or (b) the
> > > document collection of the 68,559 unique documents
> > listed in the qrels, or
> > > (c) should we limit our index to each specific topic
> > (about 2,000 docs) i.e.
> > > to the documents listed for a particular topic in the
> > qrels?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ivan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robert Muir
> > rcmuir@gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Robert Muir
rcmuir@gmail.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message