Abstract:One of the first steps in many text-based social science studies is to retrieve documents that are relevant for an analysis from large corpora of otherwise irrelevant documents. The conventional approach in social science to address this retrieval task is to apply a set of keywords and to consider those documents to be relevant that contain at least one of the keywords. But the application of incomplete keyword lists has a high risk of drawing biased inferences. More complex and costly methods such as query expansion techniques, topic model-based classification rules, and active as well as passive supervised learning could have the potential to more accurately separate relevant from irrelevant documents and thereby reduce the potential size of bias. Yet, whether applying these more expensive approaches increases retrieval performance compared to keyword lists at all, and if so, by how much, is unclear as a comparison of these approaches is lacking. This study closes this gap by comparing these methods across three retrieval tasks associated with a data set of German tweets (Linder in SSRN, 2017. 10.2139/ssrn.3026393), the Social Bias Inference Corpus (SBIC) (Sap et al. in Social bias frames: reasoning about social and power implications of language. In: Jurafsky et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, p 5477-5490, 2020. 10.18653/v1/2020.aclmain.486), and the Reuters-21578 corpus (Lewis in Reuters-21578 (Distribution 1.0). [Data set], 1997. http://www.daviddlewis.com/resources/testcollections/reuters21578/). Results show that query expansion techniques and topic model-based classification rules in most studied settings tend to decrease rather than increase retrieval performance. Active supervised learning, however, if applied on a not too small set of labeled training instances (e.g. 1000 documents), reaches a substantially higher retrieval performance than keyword lists.

Document Distance for the Automated Expansion of Relevance Judgements for Information Retrieval Evaluation

Learning to Match for Multi-criteria Document Relevance

Predicting Relevance based on Assessor Disagreement: Analysis and Practical Applications for Search Evaluation

How Discriminative Are Your Qrels? How To Study the Statistical Significance of Document Adjudication Methods

A Document Relevance Based Search Result Re-Ranking

Evaluating Relevance Judgments with Pairwise Discriminative Power

Scalable Evaluation and Improvement of Document Set Expansion via Neural Positive-Unlabeled Learning

A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look

Relevance Judgment Convergence Degree -- A Measure of Inconsistency among Assessors for Information Retrieval

LLMs Can Patch Up Missing Relevance Judgments in Evaluation

Reliable Confidence Intervals for Information Retrieval Evaluation Using Generative A.I

Enhancing Documents with Multidimensional Relevance Statements in Cross-encoder Re-ranking

Can We Use Large Language Models to Fill Relevance Judgment Holes?

Pseudo-Relevance Feedback Based On Mrmr Criteria

Relevance Estimation with Multiple Information Sources on Search Engine Result Pages.

Implications of Inter-Rater Agreement on a Student Information Retrieval Evaluation

Mix and Match: Collaborative Expert-Crowd Judging for Building Test Collections Accurately and Affordably

LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?

Select-the-Best-Ones: A new way to judge relative relevance

A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis

Cheap IR Evaluation: Fewer Topics, No Relevance Judgements, and Crowdsourced Assessments