An Exploration of Evaluation Metrics for Mobile Push Notifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do we evaluate systems that filter social media streams and send users updates via push notifications on their mobile phones? Such notifications must be relevant, timely, and novel. In this paper, we explore various evaluation metrics for this task, focusing specifically on measuring relevance. We begin with an analysis of metrics deployed at the TREC 2015 Microblog evaluations. A simple change to the metrics, reflecting a different assumption, dramatically alters system rankings. Applying another metric, previously used in the TREC Microblog evaluations, again yields different system rankings. We find little correlation between a number of "reasonable" evaluation metrics, which suggests that system effectiveness depends on how you measure it---an undesirable state in IR evaluation. However, we argue that existing evaluation metrics can be generalized into a framework that uses the same underlying contingency table, but places different weights and penalties. Although we stop short of proposing the "one true metric", this framework can guide the future development of a family of metrics that more accurately models user needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".