Assessing top-$k$ preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessors make preference judgments faster and more consistently than graded judgments. Preference judgments can also recognize distinctions between items that appear equivalent under graded judgments. Unfortunately, preference judgments can require more than linear effort to fully order a pool of items, and evaluation measures for preference judgments are not as well established as those for graded judgments, such as NDCG. In this paper, we explore the assessment process for partial preference judgments, with the aim of identifying and ordering the top items in the pool, rather than fully ordering the entire pool. To measure the performance of a ranker, we compare its output to this preferred ordering by applying a rank similarity measure.We demonstrate the practical feasibility of this approach by crowdsourcing partial preferences for the TREC 2019 Conversational Assistance Track, replacing NDCG with a new measure named "compatibility". This new measure has its most striking impact when comparing modern neural rankers, where it is able to recognize significant improvements in quality that would otherwise be missed by NDCG.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".