arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2305.02461cs.IR
收藏

大规模搜索与推荐实验中的推断规模显著性检验

Inference at Scale Significance Testing for Large Search and Recommendation Experiments

Ngozi Ihemelandu, Michael D. Ekstrand

AI总结:

本研究实证检验大规模搜索与推荐实验中显著性检验的适用性,发现Wilcoxon和符号检验在大样本下错误率偏高,建议改用效应量评估结果的实际意义。

摘要:

已有若干信息检索研究评估了哪些统计技术适用于比较系统。然而,这些研究主要聚焦于TREC风格实验,其主题数通常少于100个。对于大规模搜索与推荐实验,尚无类似的研究工作;此类实验通常涉及数千个主题或用户,且相关性判断更为稀疏,因此尚不清楚用于分析传统TREC实验的建议是否适用于这些场景。在本文中,我们基于大规模搜索与推荐评估数据,对显著性检验的行为进行了实证研究。结果表明,在大样本量下,Wilcoxon检验和符号检验的Type-1错误率显著高于bootstrap、随机化检验和t检验,后者的错误率与预期错误率更为一致。虽然在小样本量下各统计检验在功效上存在差异,但在大样本量下它们的功效并无差异。我们建议不应使用符号检验和Wilcoxon检验来分析大规模评估结果。我们的结果证明,对于Top-N推荐和大规模搜索评估数据,大多数检验有100%的概率发现统计显著的结果。因此,应使用效应量来确定实际或科学显著性。

英文摘要:

A number of information retrieval studies have been done to assess which statistical techniques are appropriate for comparing systems. However, these studies are focused on TREC-style experiments, which typically have fewer than 100 topics. There is no similar line of work for large search and recommendation experiments; such studies typically have thousands of topics or users and much sparser relevance judgements, so it is not clear if recommendations for analyzing traditional TREC experiments apply to these settings. In this paper, we empirically study the behavior of significance tests with large search and recommendation evaluation data. Our results show that the Wilcoxon and Sign tests show significantly higher Type-1 error rates for large sample sizes than the bootstrap, randomization and t-tests, which were more consistent with the expected error rate. While the statistical tests displayed differences in their power for smaller sample sizes, they showed no difference in their power for large sample sizes. We recommend the sign and Wilcoxon tests should not be used to analyze large scale evaluation results. Our result demonstrate that with Top-N recommendation and large search evaluation data, most tests would have a 100% chance of finding statistically significant results. Therefore, the effect size should be used to determine practical or scientific significance.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑