The Impact of Judgment Variability on the Consistency of Offline Effectiveness Measures

Measurement of the effectiveness of search engines is often based on use of relevance judgments. It is well known that judgments can be inconsistent between judges, leading to discrepancies that potentially affect not only scores but also system relativities and confidence in the experimental outcomes. We take the perspective that the relevance judgments are an amalgam of perfect relevance assessments plus errors; making use of a model of systematic errors in binary relevance judgments that can be tuned to reflect the kind of judge that is being used, we explore the behavior ofmeasures of effectiveness as error is introduced. Using a novel methodology in which we examine the distribution of "true" effectiveness measurements that could be underlying measurements based on sets of judgments that include error, we find that even moderate amounts of error can lead to conclusions such as orderings of systems that statistical tests report as significant but are nonetheless incorrect. Further, in these results the widely used recall-based measures AP and NDCG are notably more fragile in the presence of judgment error than is the utility-based measure RBP, but all the measures failed under even moderate error rates. We conclude that knowledge of likely error rates in judgments is critical to interpretation of experimental outcomes.