Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Recently, a number of TREC tracks have adopted a retrieval effectiveness metric called bpref which has been designed for evaluation environments with incomplete relevance data. A graded-relevance version of this metric called rpref has also been proposed. However, we show that the application of Q-measure, normalised Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG) or Average Precision (AveP)to condensed lists, obtained by ?ltering out all unjudged documents from the original ranked lists, is actually a better solution to the incompleteness problem than bpref. Furthermore, we show that the use of graded relevance boosts the robustness of IR evaluation to incompleteness and therefore that Q-measure and nDCG based on condensed lists are the best choices. To this end, we use four graded-relevance test collections from NTCIR to compare ten different IR metrics in terms of system ranking stability and pairwise discriminative power.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tetsuya Sakai (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: