Evaluation Measures Based on Preference Graphs
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
The offline evaluation of search requires us to define a standard against which we measure the quality of results returned by a ranker. Frequently this standard is defined in absolute terms through relevance grades, but it can also be defined in relative terms through preferences. These preferences might be created through explicit preference judgments, derived from relevance grades, or inferred from clicks and other signals. Preferences from multiple sources might even be combined. In contrast to absolute grades, preferences avoid complex definitions of relevance, indicating only that a ranker should favor one result over another. Despite the simplicity and flexibility of preferences, widespread adoption has been limited by the lack of established evaluation measures. Recent work in this direction has taken two approaches: 1) measures based on weighted counts of agreements and disagreements between a set of preferences and an actual ranking generated by a ranker; and 2) measures that translate preferences into gain values for use with traditional measures, such as nDCG. Both approaches require methods for specifying weights or gains that have little or no theoretical foundation, and the values of these measures have no clear and meaningful interpretation. To address these problems, we propose an evaluation measure that computes the similarity between a directed multigraph of preferences and an actual ranking generated by a ranker. The measure computes an ordering for the vertices of the preference graph that maximizes its similarity to the actual ranking under a rank similarity measure. This maximum similarity becomes the value of the measure. Preference graphs are often acyclic, or nearly so, and to compute the measure we extend an approximate greedy algorithm that is known to produce good results for nearly acyclic graphs. For the rank similarity measure we employ Rank Biased Overlap (RBO) which was explicitly created to match the requirements of search and related applications. We validate the new measure over several collections of preferences explored in recent work.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it