The DOI matches its Crossref record.
IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes evaluation methods based on the use of non-dichotomous relevance judgements in IR experiments. It is argued that evaluation methods should credit IR methods for their ability to retrieve highly relevant documents. This is desirable from the user point of view in modern large IR environments. The proposed methods are (1) a novel application of P-R curves and average precision computations based on separate recall bases for documents of different degrees of relevance, and (2) two novel measures computing the cumulative gain the user obtains by examining the retrieval result up to a given ranked position. We then demonstrate the use of these evaluation methods in a case study on the effectiveness of query types, based on combinations of query structures and expansion, in retrieving documents of various degrees of relevance. The test was run with a best match retrieval system (In-Query1) in a text database consisting of newspaper articles. The results indicate that the tested strong query structures are most effective in retrieving highly relevant documents. The differences between the query types are practically essential and statistically significant. More generally, the novel evaluation methods and the case demonstrate that non-dichotomous relevance assessments are applicable in IR experiments, may reveal interesting phenomena, and allow harder testing of IR methods.
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
Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach
Cao, Z., Qin, T., Liu, T.-Y., Tsai, M.-F., & Li, H. (2007) · Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning · doi:10.1145/1273496.1273513 · Cited by 1,960
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
Liu, X., Gao, J., He, X., Deng, L., Duh, K., & Wang, Y.-Y. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.3115/v1/n15-1092 · Cited by 395
End-to-End Training of Object Class Detectors for Mean Average Precision
Henderson, P., & Ferrari, V. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54193-8_13 · Cited by 373
Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites
Hannak, A., Soeller, G., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., & Wilson, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Internet Measurement Conference · doi:10.1145/2663716.2663744 · Cited by 405
Metadata
- Authors
- Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2000-07
- Pages
- 41-48
- OpenAlex
- W4251560691
- Cited by
- 967
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.93
- 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: IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/345508.345545
- The paper
- Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/345508.345545
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.