Online and Offline Evaluation in Search Clarification

The effectiveness of clarification question models in engaging users within search systems is currently constrained, casting doubt on their overall usefulness. To improve the performance of these models, it is crucial to employ assessment approaches that encompass both real-time feedback from users (online evaluation) and the characteristics of clarification questions evaluated through human assessment (offline evaluation). However, the relationship between online and offline evaluations has been debated in information retrieval. This study aims to investigate how this discordance holds in search clarification. We use user engagement as ground truth and employ several offline labels to investigate to what extent the offline ranked lists of clarification resemble the ideal ranked lists based on online user engagement.

Walert: Putting Conversational Search Knowledge into Action by Building and Evaluating a Large Language Model-Powered Chatbot

Creating and deploying customized applications is crucial for operational success and enriching user experiences in the rapidly evolving modern business world. A prominent facet of modern user experiences is the integration of chatbots or voice assistants. The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has provided a powerful tool to build conversational applications. We present Walert, a customized LLM-based conversational agent able to answer frequently asked questions about computer science degrees and programs at RMIT University. Our demo aims to showcase how conversational information-seeking researchers can effectively communicate the benefits of using best practices to stakeholders interested in developing and deploying LLM-based chatbots. These practices are well-known in our community but often overlooked by practitioners who may not have access to this knowledge. The methodology and resources used in this demo serve as a bridge to facilitate knowledge transfer from experts, address industry professionals' practical needs, and foster a collaborative environment. The data and code of the demo are available at https://github.com/rmit-ir/walert.

i-Align: an interpretable knowledge graph alignment model

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are becoming essential resources for many downstream applications. However, their incompleteness may limit their potential. Thus, continuous curation is needed to mitigate this problem. One of the strategies to address this problem is KG alignment, i.e., forming a more complete KG by merging two or more KGs. This paper proposes i-Align, an interpretable KG alignment model. Unlike the existing KG alignment models, i-Align provides an explanation for each alignment prediction while maintaining high alignment performance. Experts can use the explanation to check the correctness of the alignment prediction. Thus, the high quality of a KG can be maintained during the curation process (e.g., the merging process of two KGs). To this end, a novel Transformer-based Graph Encoder (Trans-GE) is proposed as a key component of i-Align for aggregating information from entities' neighbors (structures). Trans-GE uses Edge-gated Attention that combines the adjacency matrix and the self-attention matrix to learn a gating mechanism to control the information aggregation from the neighboring entities. It also uses historical embeddings, allowing Trans-GE to be trained over mini-batches, or smaller sub-graphs, to address the scalability issue when encoding a large KG. Another component of i-Align is a Transformer encoder for aggregating entities' attributes. This way, i-Align can generate explanations in the form of a set of the most influential attributes/neighbors based on attention weights. Extensive experiments are conducted to show the power of i-Align. The experiments include several aspects, such as the model's effectiveness for aligning KGs, the quality of the generated explanations, and its practicality for aligning large KGs. The results show the effectiveness of i-Align in these aspects.

Designing and Evaluating Presentation Strategies for Fact-Checked Content

With the rapid growth of online misinformation, it is crucial to have reliable fact-checking methods. Recent research on finding check-worthy claims and automated fact-checking have made significant advancements. However, limited guidance exists regarding the presentation of fact-checked content to effectively convey verified information to users. We address this research gap by exploring the critical design elements in fact-checking reports and investigating whether credibility and presentation-based design improvements can enhance users' ability to interpret the report accurately. We co-developed potential content presentation strategies through a workshop involving fact-checking professionals, communication experts, and researchers. The workshop examined the significance and utility of elements such as veracity indicators and explored the feasibility of incorporating interactive components for enhanced information disclosure. Building on the workshop outcomes, we conducted an online experiment involving 76 crowd workers to assess the efficacy of different design strategies. The results indicate that proposed strategies significantly improve users' ability to accurately interpret the verdict of fact-checking articles. Our findings underscore the critical role of effective presentation of fact reports in addressing the spread of misinformation. By adopting appropriate design enhancements, the effectiveness of fact-checking reports can be maximized, enabling users to make informed judgments.

Examining the Impact of Uncontrolled Variables on Physiological Signals in User Studies for Information Processing Activities

Physiological signals can potentially be applied as objective measures to understand the behavior and engagement of users interacting with information access systems. However, the signals are highly sensitive, and many controls are required in laboratory user studies. To investigate the extent to which controlled or uncontrolled (i.e., confounding) variables such as task sequence or duration influence the observed signals, we conducted a pilot study where each participant completed four types of information-processing activities (READ, LISTEN, SPEAK, and WRITE). Meanwhile, we collected data on blood volume pulse, electrodermal activity, and pupil responses. We then used machine learning approaches as a mechanism to examine the influence of controlled and uncontrolled variables that commonly arise in user studies. Task duration was found to have a substantial effect on the model performance, suggesting it represents individual differences rather than giving insight into the target variables. This work contributes to our understanding of such variables in using physiological signals in information retrieval user studies.

MIMICS-Duo: Offline & Online Evaluation of Search Clarification

Asking clarification questions is an active area of research; however, resources for training and evaluating search clarification methods are not sufficient. To address this issue, we describe MIMICS-Duo, a new freely available dataset of 306 search queries with multiple clarifications (a total of 1,034 query-clarification pairs). MIMICS-Duo contains fine-grained annotations on clarification questions and their candidate answers and enhances the existing MIMICS datasets by enabling multi-dimensional evaluation of search clarification methods, including online and offline evaluation. We conduct extensive analysis to demonstrate the relationship between offline and online search clarification datasets and outline several research directions enabled by MIMICS-Duo. We believe that this resource will help researchers better understand clarification in search.

Evaluating Fairness in Argument Retrieval

Existing commercial search engines often struggle to represent different perspectives of a search query. Argument retrieval systems address this limitation of search engines and provide both positive (PRO) and negative (CON) perspectives about a user's information need on a controversial topic (e.g., climate change). The effectiveness of such argument retrieval systems is typically evaluated based on topical relevance and argument quality, without taking into account the often differing number of documents shown for the argument stances (PRO or CON). Therefore, systems may retrieve relevant passages, but with a biased exposure of arguments. In this work, we analyze a range of non-stochastic fairness-aware ranking and diversity metrics to evaluate the extent to which argument stances are fairly exposed in argument retrieval systems. Using the official runs of the argument retrieval task Touch\'e at CLEF 2020, as well as synthetic data to control the amount and order of argument stances in the rankings, we show that systems with the best effectiveness in terms of topical relevance are not necessarily the most fair or the most diverse in terms of argument stance. The relationships we found between (un)fairness and diversity metrics shed light on how to evaluate group fairness -- in addition to topical relevance -- in argument retrieval settings.

Answer Interaction in Non-factoid Question Answering Systems

Information retrieval systems are evolving from document retrieval to answer retrieval. Web search logs provide large amounts of data about how people interact with ranked lists of documents, but very little is known about interaction with answer texts. In this paper, we use Amazon Mechanical Turk to investigate three answer presentation and interaction approaches in a non-factoid question answering setting. We find that people perceive and react to good and bad answers very differently, and can identify good answers relatively quickly. Our results provide the basis for further investigation of effective answer interaction and feedback methods.