Information Retrieval

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 99–105 | Cite as

On Collection Size and Retrieval Effectiveness

  • David Hawking
  • Stephen Robertson
Article

Abstract

The relationship between collection size and retrieval effectiveness is particularly important in the context of Web search. We investigate it first analytically and then experimentally, using samples and subsets of test collections. Different retrieval systems vary in how the score assigned to an individual document in a sample collection relates to the score it receives in the full collection; we identify four cases.

We apply signal detection (SD) theory to retrieval from samples, taking into account the four cases and using a variety of shapes for relevant and irrelevant distributions. We note that the SD model subsumes several earlier hypotheses about the causes of the decreased precision in samples. We also discuss other models which contribute to an understanding of the phenomenon, particularly relating to the effects of discreteness. Different models provide complementary insights.

Extensive use is made of test data, some from official submissions to the TREC-6 VLC track and some new, to illustrate the effects and test hypotheses. We empirically confirm predictions, based on SD theory, that P@n should decline when moving to a sample collection and that average precision and R-precision should remain constant. SD theory suggests the use of recall-fallout plots as operating characteristic (OC) curves. We plot OC curves of this type for a real retrieval system and query set and show that curves for sample collections are similar but not identical to the curve for the full collection.

text retrieval models signal detection theory collection sampling relevance score distributions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arampatzis A, Beney J, Koster CHA and van der Weide TP (2000) Incrementatlity, half-life and threshold optimisation for adaptive document filtering. In: Voorhees EM and Harman DK, Eds., Proceedings of TREC-9, Gaithersburg MD. NIST special publication 500-249, trec.nist.gov.Google Scholar
  2. Arampatzis A and van Hameren A (2001) The score-distributional threshold optimization for adaptive binary classification tasks. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR'2001 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 285-293.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgarten C (1999) A probabilistic solution to the fusion problem in distributed information retrieval. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR'99 Conference. ACM Press, New York, pp. 246-253.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke CLA, Cormack GV and Burkowski FJ (1995) Shortest substring ranking (MultiText experiments for TREC-4). In: Harman DK, Ed., Proceedings of TREC-4. Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 295-304, NIST special publication 500-236.Google Scholar
  5. Cormack GV, Lhotak O and Palmen CR (1999) Estimating precision by random sampling. In: Hearst M, Gey F and Tong R, Eds., Proceedings of SIGIR'99, Berkeley, CA. ACM Press, New York, Poster, pp. 273-274.Google Scholar
  6. Hawking D and Thistlewaite P (1996) Relevance weighting using distance between term occurrences. Technical Report TR-CS-96-08, Department of Computer Science, The Australian National University, cs.anu.edu.au/techreports/1996/index.html.Google Scholar
  7. Hawking D, Thistlewaite P and Craswell N (1997) ANU/ACSys TREC-6 experiments. In: Voorhees E and Harman D, Eds., Proceedings of the TREC-6 Conference. Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 275-290, NIST. trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec6/papers/anu.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  8. Hawking D, Thistlewaite P and Harman D (1999) Scaling up the TREC collection. Information Retrieval, 1(1): 115-137.Google Scholar
  9. Hays WL (1963) Statistics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, London.Google Scholar
  10. Lawrence S and Giles CL (1999) Accessibility of information on the web. Nature, 400:107-109.Google Scholar
  11. Manmatha R, Rath T and Feng F (2001) Modeling score distributions for combining the outputs of search engines. In: Proceedings of SIGIR'2001 Conference. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. National Institute of Standards and Technology (1997) TREC home page. trec.nist.gov/.Google Scholar
  13. Provost F and Fawcett T (2001) Robust classification for imprecise environments. Machine Learning Journal, 42(3):203-231. www.stern.nyu.edu/∼fprovost/Papers/rocch-mlj.pdf.Google Scholar
  14. Robertson SE (1969) The parametric description of retrieval tests. Part 1: The basic parameters. Journal of Documentation, 25(1):1-27.Google Scholar
  15. Robertson SE, Walker S, Hancock-Beaulieu MM and Gatford M (1994) Okapi at TREC-3. In: Harman DK, Ed., Proceedings of TREC-3, Gaithersburg MD, November 1994. NIST special publication 500-225.Google Scholar
  16. Salton G and McGill MJ (1983) Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Swets JA (1963) Information retrieval systems. Science, 141(3577):245-250.Google Scholar
  18. Swets JA (1969) Effectiveness of information retrieval methods. American Documentation, 20:72-89.Google Scholar
  19. Voorhees EM and Harman DK (1997), Eds. Proceedings of TREC-6, Gaithersburg MD. NIST special publication 500-240, trec.nist.gov.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hawking
    • 1
  • Stephen Robertson
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Mathematical and Information SciencesAustralia
  2. 2.Microsoft ResearchCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations