Implement a ranked querying system

Description:
In this assignment, you will implement a ranked querying system, run a set of sample queries, and evaluate system performance. You will need to design and implement appropriate data structures for efficient searching.
In the first assignment, you implemented text processing and indexing. This second assignment focuses on search; the aims of the assignment are to enhance your understanding of retrieval models and evaluation, and to give you practical experience with the implementation of search algorithms.

Learning Objectives Assessed:
This assignment supports Course Learning Objectives 1, 3, 4 and 5 (see course guide).
Graduate Outcomes supported:
This assignment supports Course Learning Objectives 1-4 (see course guide).
Rubric
Searching (1)
Searching (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Processing the query 5.0 Pts
Program processes one query at a time 2.5 Pts
Query processing has some flaws 0.0 Pts
Not achieved or has major flaws
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Use of accumulators to store partial similarity scores 5.0 Pts
Accumulators are used correctly to store similarity scores 2.5 Pts
Accumulator implementation has some flaws 0.0 Pts
Not achieved or has major flaws
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Use a min-heap 5.0 Pts
Min-heap is correctly implemented and similarity scores are correctly ranked 2.5 Pts
The min-heap data structure is implemented and similarity scores are produced but there are some flaws 0.0 Pts
The min-heap data structure is not used or wrongly implemented
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Document weights 5.0 Pts
Program includes additional information in map file, so documents weights are not recalculated at query time 2.5 Pts
The generation of map file and document weights has some flaws 0.0 Pts
Document weights are missing, or not created at indexing time and efficiently looked up at query time
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: BM25 implementation 5.0 Pts
BM25 was correctly implemented 2.5 Pts
The BM25 implementation has some flaws 0.0 Pts
The BM25 function is incorrectly implemented
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Output answer list 5.0 Pts
List of results is in the correct format (including time) 2.5 Pts
The results list contains errors, or is not in the correct format 0.0 Pts
Your program does not generate a results list
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeRanked Retrieval: Report 10.0 Pts
Your report is well written and includes clear details regarding your implementation 5.0 Pts
Your report explains your ranking implementation but is limited or missing some details 0.0 Pts
You did not provide a report of ranked retrieval
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAdvanced IR feature: Implementation 30.0 Pts
Your advanced IR feature was well implemented and functions correctly 15.0 Pts
Your advanced IR feature was implemented but has some flaws 0.0 Pts
Your submission did not include an advanced IR feature
30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAdvanced IR feature: Report 15.0 Pts
Your report is well written, and includes clear details about your implementation 7.5 Pts
Your report describes your implementation but is missing some key details 0.0 Pts
Your submission did not include a report on an advanced IR feature
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEvaluation of Implementation 15.0 Pts
You included a thorough and appropriate evaluation of your implementation 8.0 Pts
You evaluated your implementation, but the evaluation process has some flaws or was insufficiently explained 0.0 Pts
You did not evaluate your implementation
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePresentation 5.0 Pts
You gave a good presentation with a clear description of your work 2.5 Pts
You gave a presentation, but some aspects of your work were unclearly conveyed 0.0 Pts
You did not give a presentation
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeSubmission conforms to general requirements listed in assignment specification (e.g. good coding style; README.txt file contains clear instructions for how to build and run submission on coreteaching servers; etc.) 0.0 Pts
Compliance with fundamental assignment requirements is assumed (marks may be deducted for deviations based on severity of omission, if applicable) 0.0 Pts
No Marks
0.0 pts
Total points: 105.0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *