The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information
Abstract
This paper examines whether the Cranfield evaluation methodology is robust to gross violations of the completeness assumption (i.e., the assumption that all relevant documents within a test collection have been identified and are present in the collection). We show that current evaluation measures are not robust to substantially incomplete relevance judgments. A new measure is introduced that is both highly correlated with existing measures when complete judgments are available and more robust to incomplete judgment sets. This finding suggests that substantially larger or dynamic test collections built using current pooling practices should be viable laboratory tools, despite the fact that the relevance information will be incomplete and imperfect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How reliable are the results of large-scale information retrieval experiments?
Zobel, J. (1998) · Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/290941.291014 · Cited by 579
Cited by
ArnetMiner: extraction and mining of academic social networks
Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1401890.1402008 · Cited by 2,231
Novelty and diversity in information retrieval evaluation
Clarke, C. L. A., Kolla, M., Cormack, G. V., Vechtomova, O., Ashkan, A., Büttcher, S., & MacKinnon, I. (2008) · Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1390334.1390446 · Cited by 962
DeepInf: Social Influence Prediction with Deep Learning
Qiu, J., Tang, J., Ma, H., Dong, Y., Wang, K., & Tang, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3219819.3220077 · Cited by 587
Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems
Sanderson, M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000009 · Cited by 485
Voorhees, E. M. (2001) · doi:10.1002/https://dx.doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.500-266 · Cited by 462
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Buckley, C., & Voorhees, E. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2004-07-25
- Pages
- 25-32
- OpenAlex
- W2109244020
- Cited by
- 736
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.76
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1008992.1009000
- The paper
- Buckley, C., & Voorhees, E. M. (2004). Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/1008992.1009000
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
