Paper detail

A Study of Factuality, Objectivity and Relevance: Three Desiderata in Large-Scale Information Retrieval?

Much of the information processed by Information Retrieval (IR) systems is unreliable, biased, and generally untrustworthy [1], [2], [3]. Yet, factuality & objectivity detection is not a standard component of IR systems, even though it has been possible in Natural Language Processing (NLP) in the last decade. Motivated by this, we ask if and how factuality & objectivity detection may benefit IR. We answer this in two parts. First, we use state-of-the-art NLP to compute the probability of document factuality & objectivity in two TREC collections, and analyse its relation to document relevance. We find that factuality is strongly and positively correlated to document relevance, but objectivity is not. Second, we study the impact of factuality & objectivity to retrieval effectiveness by treating them as query independent features that we combine with a competitive language modelling baseline. Experiments with 450 TREC queries show that factuality improves precision >10% over strong baselines, especially for uncurated data used in web search; objectivity gives mixed results. An overall clear trend is that document factuality & objectivity is much more beneficial to IR when searching uncurated (e.g. web) documents vs. curated (e.g. state documentation and newswire articles). To our knowledge, this is the first study of factuality & objectivity for back-end IR, contributing novel findings about the relation between relevance and factuality/objectivity, and statistically significant gains to retrieval effectiveness in the competitive web search task.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.