I haven't participated in TREC for the past 2 years, so I am wonder which
TREC track were you comparing your results against? The last time I checked,
Lucene's score for the Terabyte track wasn't wonderful, but it was still
pretty decent.
Bear in mind that Lucene uses the plain old vanilla TF-IDF
lr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: DanaWhite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 7:28:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Lucene's Mean Average Precision
>
>
> I arrived at this MAP by modifying IndexFiles to use a
On May 4, 2008, at 7:28 PM, DanaWhite wrote:
I arrived at this MAP by modifying IndexFiles to use a StopAnalyzer
and work
in a way that was acceptable for TReC files. The SearchFiles was
modified
to use a StopAnalyzer and output data in a trec_eval suitable format.
Trec_eval reports abou
I arrived at this MAP by modifying IndexFiles to use a StopAnalyzer and work
in a way that was acceptable for TReC files. The SearchFiles was modified
to use a StopAnalyzer and output data in a trec_eval suitable format.
Trec_eval reports about 11% at this setting.
I am not competing in TReC I
How did you arrive at that MAP? What analyzers, etc.? So much of
search depends on your choices during indexing and querying, etc.
There is some work by the IBM Haifa people up on the Wiki, so that
would be one place to check. Another question is what is your end
goal is in doing a TREC
Hello all,
I have been doing some evaluation of Lucene on a TReC collection and get a
rather disappointing mean average precision (MAP) of 11%. Other sources
seem to report a MAP of about 20%.
So I am here to ask all of you who have done some Lucene evaluation - what
did you find Lucene's MAP t
