Mark D. Smucker

Dake Zhang, Mark D. Smucker, Charles L. A. Clarke

Many readers today struggle to assess the trustworthiness of online news because reliable reporting coexists with misinformation. The TREC 2025 DRAGUN (Detection, Retrieval, and Augmented Generation for Understanding News) Track provided a venue for researchers to develop and evaluate assistive RAG systems that support readers' news trustworthiness assessment by producing reader-oriented, well-attributed reports. As the organizers of the DRAGUN track, we describe the resources that we have newly developed to allow for the reuse of the track's tasks. The track had two tasks: (Task 1) Question Generation, producing 10 ranked investigative questions; and (Task 2, the main task) Report Generation, producing a 250-word report grounded in the MS MARCO V2.1 Segmented Corpus. As part of the track's evaluation, we had TREC assessors create importance-weighted rubrics of questions with expected short answers for 30 different news articles. These rubrics represent the information that assessors believe is important for readers to assess an article's trustworthiness. The assessors then used their rubrics to manually judge the participating teams' submitted runs. To make these tasks and their rubrics reusable, we have created an automated process to judge runs not part of the original assessing. We show that our AutoJudge ranks existing runs well compared to the TREC human-assessed evaluation (Kendall's $τ= 0.678$ for Task 1 and $τ= 0.872$ for Task 2). These resources enable both the evaluation of RAG systems for assistive news trustworthiness assessment and, with the human evaluation as a benchmark, research on improving automated RAG evaluation.

Charles L. A. Clarke, Alexandra Vtyurina, Mark D. Smucker

Assessors make preference judgments faster and more consistently than graded judgments. Preference judgments can also recognize distinctions between items that appear equivalent under graded judgments. Unfortunately, preference judgments can require more than linear effort to fully order a pool of items, and evaluation measures for preference judgments are not as well established as those for graded judgments, such as NDCG. In this paper, we explore the assessment process for partial preference judgments, with the aim of identifying and ordering the top items in the pool, rather than fully ordering the entire pool. To measure the performance of a ranker, we compare its output to this preferred ordering by applying a rank similarity measure.We demonstrate the practical feasibility of this approach by crowdsourcing partial preferences for the TREC 2019 Conversational Assistance Track, replacing NDCG with a new measure named "compatibility". This new measure has its most striking impact when comparing modern neural rankers, where it is able to recognize significant improvements in quality that would otherwise be missed by NDCG.

Haotian Zhang, Gordon V. Cormack, Maura R. Grossman et al.

This study uses a novel simulation framework to evaluate whether the time and effort necessary to achieve high recall using active learning is reduced by presenting the reviewer with isolated sentences, as opposed to full documents, for relevance feedback. Under the weak assumption that more time and effort is required to review an entire document than a single sentence, simulation results indicate that the use of isolated sentences for relevance feedback can yield comparable accuracy and higher efficiency, relative to the state-of-the-art Baseline Model Implementation (BMI) of the AutoTAR Continuous Active Learning ("CAL") method employed in the TREC 2015 and 2016 Total Recall Track.