Statistical Significance Testing in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Analysis of Type I, Type II and Type III Errors

Statistical significance testing is widely accepted as a means to assess how well a difference in effectiveness reflects an actual difference between systems, as opposed to random noise because of the selection of topics. According to recent surveys on SIGIR, CIKM, ECIR and TOIS papers, the t-test is the most popular choice among IR researchers. However, previous work has suggested computer intensive tests like the bootstrap or the permutation test, based mainly on theoretical arguments. On empirical grounds, others have suggested non-parametric alternatives such as the Wilcoxon test. Indeed, the question of which tests we should use has accompanied IR and related fields for decades now. Previous theoretical studies on this matter were limited in that we know that test assumptions are not met in IR experiments, and empirical studies were limited in that we do not have the necessary control over the null hypotheses to compute actual Type I and Type II error rates under realistic conditions. Therefore, not only is it unclear which test to use, but also how much trust we should put in them. In contrast to past studies, in this paper we employ a recent simulation methodology from TREC data to go around these limitations. Our study comprises over 500 million p-values computed for a range of tests, systems, effectiveness measures, topic set sizes and effect sizes, and for both the 2-tail and 1-tail cases. Having such a large supply of IR evaluation data with full knowledge of the null hypotheses, we are finally in a position to evaluate how well statistical significance tests really behave with IR data, and make sound recommendations for practitioners.Comment: 10 pages, 6 figures, SIGIR 201

Compare statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation

Preprint of our Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) paper[Abstract] Statistical significance tests can provide evidence that the observed difference in performance between two methods is not due to chance. In Information Retrieval, some studies have examined the validity and suitability of such tests for comparing search systems.We argue here that current methods for assessing the reliability of statistical tests suffer from some methodological weaknesses, and we propose a novel way to study significance tests for retrieval evaluation. Using Score Distributions, we model the output of multiple search systems, produce simulated search results from such models, and compare them using various significance tests. A key strength of this approach is that we assess statistical tests under perfect knowledge about the truth or falseness of the null hypothesis. This new method for studying the power of significance tests in Information Retrieval evaluation is formal and innovative. Following this type of analysis, we found that both the sign test and Wilcoxon signed test have more power than the permutation test and the t-test. The sign test and Wilcoxon signed test also have a good behavior in terms of type I errors. The bootstrap test shows few type I errors, but it has less power than the other methods tested.Ministerio de Econom´ıa y Competitividad; TIN2015-64282-RXunta de Galicia; GPC 2016/035Xunta de Galicia; ED431G/01Xunta de Galicia; ED431G/0

Human evaluation of Kea, an automatic keyphrasing system.

This paper describes an evaluation of the Kea automatic keyphrase extraction algorithm. Tools that automatically identify keyphrases are desirable because document keyphrases have numerous applications in digital library systems, but are costly and time consuming to manually assign. Keyphrase extraction algorithms are usually evaluated by comparison to author-specified keywords, but this methodology has several well-known shortcomings. The results presented in this paper are based on subjective evaluations of the quality and appropriateness of keyphrases by human assessors, and make a number of contributions. First, they validate previous evaluations of Kea that rely on author keywords. Second, they show Kea's performance is comparable to that of similar systems that have been evaluated by human assessors. Finally, they justify the use of author keyphrases as a performance metric by showing that authors generally choose good keywords

Coherent Keyphrase Extraction via Web Mining

Keyphrases are useful for a variety of purposes, including summarizing, indexing, labeling, categorizing, clustering, highlighting, browsing, and searching. The task of automatic keyphrase extraction is to select keyphrases from within the text of a given document. Automatic keyphrase extraction makes it feasible to generate keyphrases for the huge number of documents that do not have manually assigned keyphrases. A limitation of previous keyphrase extraction algorithms is that the selected keyphrases are occasionally incoherent. That is, the majority of the output keyphrases may fit together well, but there may be a minority that appear to be outliers, with no clear semantic relation to the majority or to each other. This paper presents enhancements to the Kea keyphrase extraction algorithm that are designed to increase the coherence of the extracted keyphrases. The approach is to use the degree of statistical association among candidate keyphrases as evidence that they may be semantically related. The statistical association is measured using web mining. Experiments demonstrate that the enhancements improve the quality of the extracted keyphrases. Furthermore, the enhancements are not domain-specific: the algorithm generalizes well when it is trained on one domain (computer science documents) and tested on another (physics documents).Comment: 6 pages, related work available at http://purl.org/peter.turney

Factorizing LambdaMART for cold start recommendations

Recommendation systems often rely on point-wise loss metrics such as the mean squared error. However, in real recommendation settings only few items are presented to a user. This observation has recently encouraged the use of rank-based metrics. LambdaMART is the state-of-the-art algorithm in learning to rank which relies on such a metric. Despite its success it does not have a principled regularization mechanism relying in empirical approaches to control model complexity leaving it thus prone to overfitting. Motivated by the fact that very often the users' and items' descriptions as well as the preference behavior can be well summarized by a small number of hidden factors, we propose a novel algorithm, LambdaMART Matrix Factorization (LambdaMART-MF), that learns a low rank latent representation of users and items using gradient boosted trees. The algorithm factorizes lambdaMART by defining relevance scores as the inner product of the learned representations of the users and items. The low rank is essentially a model complexity controller; on top of it we propose additional regularizers to constraint the learned latent representations that reflect the user and item manifolds as these are defined by their original feature based descriptors and the preference behavior. Finally we also propose to use a weighted variant of NDCG to reduce the penalty for similar items with large rating discrepancy. We experiment on two very different recommendation datasets, meta-mining and movies-users, and evaluate the performance of LambdaMART-MF, with and without regularization, in the cold start setting as well as in the simpler matrix completion setting. In both cases it outperforms in a significant manner current state of the art algorithms