Evaluating epistemic uncertainty under incomplete assessments

  • Authors:

  • Mark Baillie;Leif Azzopardi;Ian Ruthven

  • Affiliations:

  • Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK;Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK;Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

  • Venue:
  • Information Processing and Management: an International Journal
  • Year:
  • 2008

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The thesis of this study is to propose an extended methodology for laboratory based Information Retrieval evaluation under incomplete relevance assessments. This new methodology aims to identify potential uncertainty during system comparison that may result from incompleteness. The adoption of this methodology is advantageous, because the detection of epistemic uncertainty - the amount of knowledge (or ignorance) we have about the estimate of a system's performance - during the evaluation process can guide and direct researchers when evaluating new systems over existing and future test collections. Across a series of experiments we demonstrate how this methodology can lead towards a finer grained analysis of systems. In particular, we show through experimentation how the current practice in Information Retrieval evaluation of using a measurement depth larger than the pooling depth increases uncertainty during system comparison.