Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37346722›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023

ECAsT: a large dataset for conversational search and an evaluation of metric robustness.

Haya Al-Thani, Bernard J Jansen, Tamer Elsayed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Haya Al-ThaniCollege of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.
Bernard J JansenQatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.
Tamer ElsayedComputer Science and Engineering Department, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Text REtrieval Conference Conversational assistance track (CAsT) is an annual conversational passage retrieval challenge to create a large-scale open-domain conversational search benchmarking. However, as of yet, the datasets used are small, with just more than 1,000 turns and 100 conversation topics. In the first part of this research, we address the dataset limitation by building a much larger novel multi-turn conversation dataset for conversation search benchmarking called Expanded-CAsT (ECAsT). ECAsT is built using a multi-stage solution that uses a combination of conversational query reformulation and neural paraphrasing and also includes a new model to create multi-turn paraphrases. The meaning and diversity of paraphrases are evaluated with human and automatic evaluation. Using this methodology, we produce and release to the research community a conversational search dataset that is 665% more extensive in terms of size and language diversity than is available at the time of this study, with more than 9,200 turns. The augmented dataset not only provides more data but also more language diversity to improve conversational search neural model training and testing. In the second part of the research, we use ECAsT to assess the robustness of traditional metrics for conversational evaluation used in CAsT and identify its bias toward language diversity. Results show the benefits of adding language diversity for improving the collection of pooled passages and reducing evaluation bias. We found that introducing language diversity via paraphrases returned up to 24% new passages compared to only 2% using CAsT baseline.

Indexed as

Conversational evaluationConversational searchOpen-domainParaphrasing

Identifiers

PMID37346722
PMCPMC10280565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.