TREC: Experiment and Evaluation in Information Retrieval (Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing)
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The past 20 years have seen a great improvement in the rigor of information retrieval experimentation, due primarily to two factors: high-quality, public, portable test collections such as those produced by TREC (the Text REtrieval Conference [2]), and the increased practice of statistical hypothesis testing to determine whether measured improvements can be ascribed to something other than random chance. Together these create a very useful standard for reviewers, program committees, and journal editors; work in information retrieval (IR) increasingly cannot be published unless it has been evaluated using a well-constructed test collection and shown to produce a statistically significant improvement over a good baseline. But, as the saying goes, any tool sharp enough to be useful is also sharp enough to be dangerous. Statistical tests of significance are widely misunderstood. Most researchers treat them as a "black box": evaluation results go in and a p-value comes out. Because significance is such an important factor in determining what research directions to explore and what is published, using p-values obtained without thought can have consequences for everyone doing research in IR. Ioannidis has argued that the main consequence in the biomedical sciences is that most published research findings are false [1]; could that be the case in IR as well?