The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using statistical testing in the evaluation of retrieval experiments
Open accessAbstract
The standard strategies for evaluation based on precision and recall are examined and their relative advantages and disadvantages are discussed. In particular, it is suggested that relevance feedback be evaluated from the perspective of the user. A number of different statistical tests are described for determining if differences in performance between retrieval methods are significant. These tests have often been ignored in the past because most are based on an assumption of normality which is not strictly valid for the standard performance measures. However, one can test this assumption using simple diagnostic plots, and if it is a poor approximation, there are a number of non-parametric alternatives.
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
Cited by
Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques
Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2002) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/582415.582418 · Cited by 4,841
A Probabilistic Interpretation of Precision, Recall and F-Score, with Implication for Evaluation
Goutte, C., & Gaussier, E. (2005) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31865-1_25 · Cited by 2,285
A comparison of statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation
Smucker, M. D., Allan, J., & Carterette, B. (2007) · Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/1321440.1321528 · Cited by 718
Translation techniques in cross-language information retrieval
Zhou, D., Truran, M., Brailsford, T., Wade, V., & Ashman, H. (2012) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2379776.2379777 · Cited by 698
Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems
Sanderson, M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000009 · Cited by 485
Metadata
- Authors
- Hull, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 16th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR '93
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1993
- Pages
- 329-338
- OpenAlex
- W2015629112
- Cited by
- 524
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.02
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Using statistical testing in the evaluation of retrieval experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/160688.160758
- The paper
- Hull, D. (1993). Using statistical testing in the evaluation of retrieval experiments. Proceedings of the 16th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR '93. https://doi.org/10.1145/160688.160758
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.
