Online In-Situ Interleaved Evaluation of Real-Time Push Notification Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time push notification systems monitor continuous document streams such as social media posts and alert users to relevant content directly on their mobile devices. We describe a user study of such systems in the context of the TREC 2016 Real-Time Summarization Track, where system updates are immediately delivered as push notifications to the mobile devices of a cohort of users. Our study represents, to our knowledge, the first deployment of an interleaved evaluation framework for prospective information needs, and also provides an opportunity to examine user behavior in a realistic setting. Results of our online in-situ evaluation are correlated against the results a more traditional post-hoc batch evaluation. We observe substantial correlations between many online and batch evaluation metrics, especially for those that share the same basic design (e.g., are utility-based). For some metrics, we observe little correlation, but are able to identify the volume of messages that a system pushes as one major source of differences.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it