The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Independent Relevance: Methods and Evaluation Metrics for Subtopic Retrieval
Abstract
We present a non-traditional retrieval problem we call subtopic retrieval. The subtopic retrieval problem is concerned with finding documents that cover many different subtopics of a query topic. In such a problem, the utility of a document in a ranking is dependent on other documents in the ranking, violating the assumption of independent relevance which is assumed in most traditional retrieval methods. Subtopic retrieval poses challenges for evaluating performance, as well as for developing effective algorithms. We propose a framework for evaluating subtopic retrieval which generalizes the traditional precision and recall metrics by accounting for intrinsic topic difficulty as well as redundancy in documents. We propose and systematically evaluate several methods for performing subtopic retrieval using statistical language models and a maximal marginal relevance (MMR) ranking strategy. A mixture model combined with query likelihood relevance ranking is shown to modestly outperform a baseline relevance ranking on a data set used in the TREC interactive track.
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
THE PROBABILITY RANKING PRINCIPLE IN IR
ROBERTSON, S. E. (1977) · Journal of Documentation · doi:10.1108/eb026647 · Cited by 1,103
The sixth text Retrieval conference (TREC-6)
(1998) · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.500-240 · Cited by 113
Cited by
Agrawal, R., Gollapudi, S., Halverson, A., & Ieong, S. (2009) · Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/1498759.1498766 · Cited by 1,020
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
Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance
Chapelle, O., Metlzer, D., Zhang, Y., & Grinspan, P. (2009) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/1645953.1646033 · Cited by 832
Learning diverse rankings with multi-armed bandits
Radlinski, F., Kleinberg, R., & Joachims, T. (2008) · Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning - ICML '08 · doi:10.1145/1390156.1390255 · Cited by 503
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
- Zhai, C., Cohen, W. W., & Lafferty, J.
- Venue
- ACM SIGIR Forum
- Published
- 2015-06-23
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-9
- ISSN
- 0163-5840 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2197919320
- Cited by
- 558
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 103.61
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Beyond Independent Relevance: Methods and Evaluation Metrics for Subtopic Retrieval. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2795403.2795405
- The paper
- Zhai, C., Cohen, W. W., & Lafferty, J. (2015). Beyond Independent Relevance: Methods and Evaluation Metrics for Subtopic Retrieval. ACM SIGIR Forum. https://doi.org/10.1145/2795403.2795405
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.