skip to main content
10.1145/1835449.1835491acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Score distribution models: assumptions, intuition, and robustness to score manipulation

Published:19 July 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Inferring the score distribution of relevant and non-relevant documents is an essential task for many IR applications (e.g. information filtering, recall-oriented IR, meta-search, distributed IR). Modeling score distributions in an accurate manner is the basis of any inference. Thus, numerous score distribution models have been proposed in the literature. Most of the models were proposed on the basis of empirical evidence and goodness-of-fit. In this work, we model score distributions in a rather different, systematic manner. We start with a basic assumption on the distribution of terms in a document. Following the transformations applied on term frequencies by two basic ranking functions, BM25 and Language Models, we derive the distribution of the produced scores for all documents. Then we focus on the relevant documents. We detach our analysis from particular ranking functions. Instead, we consider a model for precision-recall curves, and given this model, we present a general mathematical framework which, given any score distribution for all retrieved documents, produces an analytical formula for the score distribution of relevant documents that is consistent with the precision-recall curves that follow the aforementioned model. In particular, assuming a Gamma distribution for all retrieved documents, we show that the derived distribution for the relevant documents resembles a Gaussian distribution with a heavy right tail.

References

  1. A. Arampatzis, J. Kamps, and S. Robertson. Where to stop reading a ranked list?: threshold optimization using truncated score distributions. In SIGIR '09: Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 524--531, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. A. Arampatzis and A. van Hameren. The score-distributional threshold optimization for adaptive binary classification tasks. In SIGIR '01: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 285--293, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. J. A. Aslam and E. Yilmaz. A geometric interpretation and analysis of R-precision. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 664--671. ACM Press, October 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. D. Barr and W. P. Zehna. Probability: Modelling Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. C. Baumgarten. A probabilistic solution to the selection and fusion problem in distributed information retrieval. In SIGIR '99: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 246--253, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. N. Bennett. Using asymmetric distributions to improve text classifier probability estimates. In SIGIR '03: Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval, pages 111--118, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Bookstein. When the most 'pertinent' document should not be retrieved:an analysis of the swets model. Information Processing & Management, 13(6):377--383, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. A. Bookstein and D. R. Swanson. Probabilistic models for automatic indexing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 25(5):312--318, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. K. Collins-Thompson, P. Ogilvie, Y. Zhang, and J. Callan. Information filtering, novelty detection, and named-page finding. In In Proceedings of the 11th Text Retrieval Conference, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. P. Harter. A probabilistic approach to automatic keyword indexing: Part i. on the distribution of specialty words in a technical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(4):197--206, 1975).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. E. Kanoulas, V. Pavlu, K. Dai, and J. A. Aslam. Modeling the score distributions of relevant and non-relevnat documents. In In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval, September 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Manmatha, T. Rath, and F. Feng. Modeling score distributions for combining the outputs of search engines. In SIGIR '01: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 267--275, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. F. Neuts and S. Zacks. On mixtures of Ç2- and f-distributions which yield distributions of the same family. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 19(1):527--536, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. S. Robertson. On score distributions and relevance. In G. Amati, C. Carpineto, and G. Romano, editors, Advances in Information Retrieval, 29th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2007, volume 4425/2007 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 40--51. Springer, June 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. Spitters and W. Kraaij. A language modeling approach to tracking news events. In Proceedings of TDT workshop 2000, pages 101--106, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. A. Swets. Information retrieval systems. Science, 141(3577):245--250, July 1963.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. J. A. Swets. Effectiveness of information retrieval methods. American Documentation, 20:72--89, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. M. Wiper, D. R. Insua, and F. Ruggeri. Mixtures of gamma distributions with applications. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 10(3):440--454, September 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Y. Zhang and J. Callan. Maximum likelihood estimation for filtering thresholds. In SIGIR '01: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 294--302, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Score distribution models: assumptions, intuition, and robustness to score manipulation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGIR '10: Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
      July 2010
      944 pages
      ISBN:9781450301534
      DOI:10.1145/1835449

      Copyright © 2010 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 July 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGIR '10 Paper Acceptance Rate87of520submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader