Effective User Interaction for High-Recall Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-recall retrieval --- finding all or nearly all relevant documents --- is critical to applications such as electronic discovery, systematic review, and the construction of test collections for information retrieval tasks. The effectiveness of current methods for high-recall information retrieval is limited by their reliance on human input, either to generate queries, or to assess the relevance of documents. Past research has shown that humans can assess the relevance of documents faster and with little loss in accuracy by judging shorter document surrogates, e.g.\ extractive summaries, in place of full documents. To test the hypothesis that short document surrogates can reduce assessment time and effort for high-recall retrieval, we conducted a 50-person, controlled, user study. We designed a high-recall retrieval system using continuous active learning (CAL) that could display either full documents or short document excerpts for relevance assessment. In addition, we tested the value of integrating a search engine with CAL. In the experiment, we asked participants to try to find as many relevant documents as possible within one hour. We observed that our study participants were able to find significantly more relevant documents when they used the system with document excerpts as opposed to full documents. We also found that allowing participants to compose and execute their own search queries did not improve their ability to find relevant documents and, by some measures, impaired performance. These results suggest that for high-recall systems to maximize performance, system designers should think carefully about the amount and nature of user interaction incorporated into the system.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".