Navigating Imprecision in Relevance Assessments on the Road to Total Recall: Roger and Me
Proceedings of SIGIR 2017, pp. 5–14
Explores how disagreement and uncertainty in human relevance assessments affect the evaluation of high-recall review methods.
Overview
Technology-assisted review aims to approach total recall and precision while minimizing human effort. But its training data and evaluation labels come from people, whose judgments are variable and imperfect. This paper treats human assessments as indirect evidence of the underlying—and sometimes ambiguous—property of relevance.
The memorable case study concerns 401,960 email messages originally reviewed by a senior state records archivist, Roger. A later blind adjudication suggested that TAR could have achieved comparable recall and better precision while requiring review of substantially fewer messages.
Key contributions
- Treats human judgments as fallible observations rather than absolute truth.
- Connects judgment error to both TAR evaluation and relevance-feedback simulation.
- Tests the argument on TREC data and a real archival email collection.
- Shows how hybrid human–computer review can improve both accuracy and efficiency.
Suggested citation
Gordon V. Cormack & Maura R. Grossman, Navigating Imprecision in Relevance Assessments on the Road to Total Recall: Roger and Me, in Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference 5–14 (2017), doi:10.1145/3077136.3080812.