Variations in Relevance Judgments and the Shelf Life of Test Collections
Andrew Parry, Maik Fr\"obe, Harrisen Scells, Ferdinand Schlatt, Guglielmo Faggioli, Saber Zerhoudi, Sean MacAvaney, Eugene Yang

TL;DR
This paper examines how the relevance judgment disagreements and the aging of test collections impact the stability of system rankings in neural retrieval, highlighting the potential need for updated benchmarks.
Contribution
It demonstrates that while system rankings remain stable despite disagreements, test collections can become outdated as models improve and overfit to specific relevance interpretations.
Findings
Assessor disagreement does not affect system rankings in neural retrieval.
Some models' effectiveness degrades with new relevance judgments.
Test collections may expire as models reach human-level performance.
Abstract
The fundamental property of Cranfield-style evaluations, that system rankings are stable even when assessors disagree on individual relevance decisions, was validated on traditional test collections. However, the paradigm shift towards neural retrieval models affected the characteristics of modern test collections, e.g., documents are short, judged with four grades of relevance, and information needs have no descriptions or narratives. Under these changes, it is unclear whether assessor disagreement remains negligible for system comparisons. We investigate this aspect under the additional condition that the few modern test collections are heavily re-used. Given more possible query interpretations due to less formalized information needs, an ``expiration date'' for test collections might be needed if top-effectiveness requires overfitting to a single interpretation of relevance. We run a…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
