Assessing Efficiency-Effectiveness Tradeoffs in Multi-Stage Retrieval Systems Without Using Relevance Judgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale retrieval systems are often implemented as a cascading sequence of phases -- a first filtering step, in which a large set of candidate documents are extracted using a simple technique such as Boolean matching and/or static document scores; and then one or more ranking steps, in which the pool of documents retrieved by the filter is scored more precisely using dozens or perhaps hundreds of different features. The documents returned to the user are then taken from the head of the final ranked list. Here we examine methods for measuring the quality of filtering and preliminary ranking stages, and show how to use these measurements to tune the overall performance of the system. Standard top-weighted metrics used for overall system evaluation are not appropriate for assessing filtering stages, since the output is a set of documents, rather than an ordered sequence of documents. Instead, we use an approach in which a quality score is computed based on the discrepancy between filtered and full evaluation. Unlike previous approaches, our methods do not require relevance judgments, and thus can be used with virtually any query set. We show that this quality score directly correlates with actual differences in measured effectiveness when relevance judgments are available. Since the quality score does not require relevance judgments, it can be used to identify queries that perform particularly poorly for a given filter. Using these methods, we explore a wide range of filtering options using thousands of queries, categorize the relative merits of the different approaches, and identify useful parameter combinations.
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 | 0.023 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".