- Elasticsearch Guide: other versions:
- Getting Started
- Set up Elasticsearch
- Installing Elasticsearch
- Configuring Elasticsearch
- Important Elasticsearch configuration
- Important System Configuration
- Bootstrap Checks
- Heap size check
- File descriptor check
- Memory lock check
- Maximum number of threads check
- Max file size check
- Maximum size virtual memory check
- Maximum map count check
- Client JVM check
- Use serial collector check
- System call filter check
- OnError and OnOutOfMemoryError checks
- Early-access check
- G1GC check
- All permission check
- Starting Elasticsearch
- Stopping Elasticsearch
- Adding nodes to your cluster
- Installing X-Pack
- Set up X-Pack
- Configuring X-Pack Java Clients
- X-Pack Settings
- Bootstrap Checks for X-Pack
- Upgrade Elasticsearch
- API Conventions
- Document APIs
- Search APIs
- Aggregations
- Metrics Aggregations
- Avg Aggregation
- Weighted Avg Aggregation
- Cardinality Aggregation
- Extended Stats Aggregation
- Geo Bounds Aggregation
- Geo Centroid Aggregation
- Max Aggregation
- Min Aggregation
- Percentiles Aggregation
- Percentile Ranks Aggregation
- Scripted Metric Aggregation
- Stats Aggregation
- Sum Aggregation
- Top Hits Aggregation
- Value Count Aggregation
- Bucket Aggregations
- Adjacency Matrix Aggregation
- Auto-interval Date Histogram Aggregation
- Intervals
- Children Aggregation
- Composite Aggregation
- Date Histogram Aggregation
- Date Range Aggregation
- Diversified Sampler Aggregation
- Filter Aggregation
- Filters Aggregation
- Geo Distance Aggregation
- GeoHash grid Aggregation
- Global Aggregation
- Histogram Aggregation
- IP Range Aggregation
- Missing Aggregation
- Nested Aggregation
- Range Aggregation
- Reverse nested Aggregation
- Sampler Aggregation
- Significant Terms Aggregation
- Significant Text Aggregation
- Terms Aggregation
- Pipeline Aggregations
- Avg Bucket Aggregation
- Derivative Aggregation
- Max Bucket Aggregation
- Min Bucket Aggregation
- Sum Bucket Aggregation
- Stats Bucket Aggregation
- Extended Stats Bucket Aggregation
- Percentiles Bucket Aggregation
- Moving Average Aggregation
- Moving Function Aggregation
- Cumulative Sum Aggregation
- Bucket Script Aggregation
- Bucket Selector Aggregation
- Bucket Sort Aggregation
- Serial Differencing Aggregation
- Matrix Aggregations
- Caching heavy aggregations
- Returning only aggregation results
- Aggregation Metadata
- Returning the type of the aggregation
- Metrics Aggregations
- Indices APIs
- Create Index
- Delete Index
- Get Index
- Indices Exists
- Open / Close Index API
- Shrink Index
- Split Index
- Rollover Index
- Put Mapping
- Get Mapping
- Get Field Mapping
- Types Exists
- Index Aliases
- Update Indices Settings
- Get Settings
- Analyze
- Index Templates
- Indices Stats
- Indices Segments
- Indices Recovery
- Indices Shard Stores
- Clear Cache
- Flush
- Refresh
- Force Merge
- cat APIs
- Cluster APIs
- Query DSL
- Mapping
- Analysis
- Anatomy of an analyzer
- Testing analyzers
- Analyzers
- Normalizers
- Tokenizers
- Standard Tokenizer
- Letter Tokenizer
- Lowercase Tokenizer
- Whitespace Tokenizer
- UAX URL Email Tokenizer
- Classic Tokenizer
- Thai Tokenizer
- NGram Tokenizer
- Edge NGram Tokenizer
- Keyword Tokenizer
- Pattern Tokenizer
- Char Group Tokenizer
- Simple Pattern Tokenizer
- Simple Pattern Split Tokenizer
- Path Hierarchy Tokenizer
- Path Hierarchy Tokenizer Examples
- Token Filters
- Standard Token Filter
- ASCII Folding Token Filter
- Flatten Graph Token Filter
- Length Token Filter
- Lowercase Token Filter
- Uppercase Token Filter
- NGram Token Filter
- Edge NGram Token Filter
- Porter Stem Token Filter
- Shingle Token Filter
- Stop Token Filter
- Word Delimiter Token Filter
- Word Delimiter Graph Token Filter
- Multiplexer Token Filter
- Conditional Token Filter
- Predicate Token Filter Script
- Stemmer Token Filter
- Stemmer Override Token Filter
- Keyword Marker Token Filter
- Keyword Repeat Token Filter
- KStem Token Filter
- Snowball Token Filter
- Phonetic Token Filter
- Synonym Token Filter
- Synonym Graph Token Filter
- Compound Word Token Filters
- Reverse Token Filter
- Elision Token Filter
- Truncate Token Filter
- Unique Token Filter
- Pattern Capture Token Filter
- Pattern Replace Token Filter
- Trim Token Filter
- Limit Token Count Token Filter
- Hunspell Token Filter
- Common Grams Token Filter
- Normalization Token Filter
- CJK Width Token Filter
- CJK Bigram Token Filter
- Delimited Payload Token Filter
- Keep Words Token Filter
- Keep Types Token Filter
- Exclude mode settings example
- Classic Token Filter
- Apostrophe Token Filter
- Decimal Digit Token Filter
- Fingerprint Token Filter
- Minhash Token Filter
- Remove Duplicates Token Filter
- Character Filters
- Modules
- Index Modules
- Ingest Node
- Pipeline Definition
- Ingest APIs
- Accessing Data in Pipelines
- Conditional Execution in Pipelines
- Handling Failures in Pipelines
- Processors
- Append Processor
- Bytes Processor
- Convert Processor
- Date Processor
- Date Index Name Processor
- Dissect Processor
- Drop Processor
- Dot Expander Processor
- Fail Processor
- Foreach Processor
- Grok Processor
- Gsub Processor
- Join Processor
- JSON Processor
- KV Processor
- Lowercase Processor
- Pipeline Processor
- Remove Processor
- Rename Processor
- Script Processor
- Set Processor
- Set Security User Processor
- Split Processor
- Sort Processor
- Trim Processor
- Uppercase Processor
- URL Decode Processor
- SQL Access
- Monitor a cluster
- Rolling up historical data
- Set up a cluster for high availability
- Secure a cluster
- Overview
- Configuring security
- Encrypting communications in Elasticsearch
- Encrypting communications in an Elasticsearch Docker Container
- Enabling cipher suites for stronger encryption
- Separating node-to-node and client traffic
- Configuring an Active Directory realm
- Configuring a file realm
- Configuring an LDAP realm
- Configuring a native realm
- Configuring a PKI realm
- Configuring a SAML realm
- Configuring a Kerberos realm
- FIPS 140-2
- Security settings
- Security files
- Auditing settings
- How security works
- User authentication
- Built-in users
- Internal users
- Realms
- Realm chains
- Active Directory user authentication
- File-based user authentication
- LDAP user authentication
- Native user authentication
- PKI user authentication
- SAML authentication
- Kerberos authentication
- Integrating with other authentication systems
- Enabling anonymous access
- Controlling the user cache
- Configuring SAML single-sign-on on the Elastic Stack
- User authorization
- Auditing security events
- Encrypting communications
- Restricting connections with IP filtering
- Cross cluster search, tribe, clients, and integrations
- Tutorial: Getting started with security
- Tutorial: Encrypting communications
- Troubleshooting
- Can’t log in after upgrading to 6.5.4
- Some settings are not returned via the nodes settings API
- Authorization exceptions
- Users command fails due to extra arguments
- Users are frequently locked out of Active Directory
- Certificate verification fails for curl on Mac
- SSLHandshakeException causes connections to fail
- Common SSL/TLS exceptions
- Common Kerberos exceptions
- Common SAML issues
- Internal Server Error in Kibana
- Setup-passwords command fails due to connection failure
- Failures due to relocation of the configuration files
- Limitations
- Alerting on Cluster and Index Events
- Command line tools
- How To
- Testing
- Glossary of terms
- X-Pack APIs
- Info API
- Cross-cluster replication APIs
- Explore API
- Licensing APIs
- Migration APIs
- Machine learning APIs
- Add events to calendar
- Add jobs to calendar
- Close jobs
- Create calendar
- Create datafeeds
- Create filter
- Create jobs
- Delete calendar
- Delete datafeeds
- Delete events from calendar
- Delete filter
- Delete forecast
- Delete jobs
- Delete jobs from calendar
- Delete model snapshots
- Find file structure
- Flush jobs
- Forecast jobs
- Get calendars
- Get buckets
- Get overall buckets
- Get categories
- Get datafeeds
- Get datafeed statistics
- Get influencers
- Get jobs
- Get job statistics
- Get machine learning info
- Get model snapshots
- Get scheduled events
- Get filters
- Get records
- Open jobs
- Post data to jobs
- Preview datafeeds
- Revert model snapshots
- Start datafeeds
- Stop datafeeds
- Update datafeeds
- Update filter
- Update jobs
- Update model snapshots
- Rollup APIs
- Security APIs
- Authenticate
- Change passwords
- Clear cache
- Clear roles cache
- Create or update application privileges
- Create or update role mappings
- Create or update roles
- Create or update users
- Delete application privileges
- Delete role mappings
- Delete roles
- Delete users
- Disable users
- Enable users
- Get application privileges
- Get role mappings
- Get roles
- Get token
- Get users
- Has privileges
- Invalidate token
- SSL certificate
- Watcher APIs
- Definitions
- Release Highlights
- Breaking changes
- Release Notes
- Elasticsearch version 6.5.4
- Elasticsearch version 6.5.3
- Elasticsearch version 6.5.2
- Elasticsearch version 6.5.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.5.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.4.3
- Elasticsearch version 6.4.2
- Elasticsearch version 6.4.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.4.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.3.2
- Elasticsearch version 6.3.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.3.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.2.4
- Elasticsearch version 6.2.3
- Elasticsearch version 6.2.2
- Elasticsearch version 6.2.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.2.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.1.4
- Elasticsearch version 6.1.3
- Elasticsearch version 6.1.2
- Elasticsearch version 6.1.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.1.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.1
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-rc2
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-rc1
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-beta2
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-beta1
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-alpha2
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-alpha1
- Elasticsearch version 6.0.0-alpha1 (Changes previously released in 5.x)
Ranking Evaluation API
editRanking Evaluation API
editThe ranking evaluation API is experimental and may be changed or removed completely in a future release, as well as change in non-backwards compatible ways on minor versions updates. Elastic will take a best effort approach to fix any issues, but experimental features are not subject to the support SLA of official GA features.
The ranking evaluation API allows to evaluate the quality of ranked search
results over a set of typical search queries. Given this set of queries and a
list of manually rated documents, the _rank_eval
endpoint calculates and
returns typical information retrieval metrics like mean reciprocal rank,
precision or discounted cumulative gain.
Overview
editSearch quality evaluation starts with looking at the users of your search application, and the things that they are searching for. Users have a specific information need, e.g. they are looking for gift in a web shop or want to book a flight for their next holiday. They usually enters some search terms into a search box or some other web form. All of this information, together with meta information about the user (e.g. the browser, location, earlier preferences etc…) then gets translated into a query to the underlying search system.
The challenge for search engineers is to tweak this translation process from user entries to a concrete query in such a way, that the search results contain the most relevant information with respect to the users information need. This can only be done if the search result quality is evaluated constantly across a representative test suite of typical user queries, so that improvements in the rankings for one particular query doesn’t negatively effect the ranking for other types of queries.
In order to get started with search quality evaluation, three basic things are needed:
- a collection of documents you want to evaluate your query performance against, usually one or more indices
- a collection of typical search requests that users enter into your system
- a set of document ratings that judge the documents relevance with respect to a search request+ It is important to note that one set of document ratings is needed per test query, and that the relevance judgements are based on the information need of the user that entered the query.
The ranking evaluation API provides a convenient way to use this information in a ranking evaluation request to calculate different search evaluation metrics. This gives a first estimation of your overall search quality and give you a measurement to optimize against when fine-tuning various aspect of the query generation in your application.
Ranking evaluation request structure
editIn its most basic form, a request to the _rank_eval
endpoint has two sections:
a set of typical search requests, together with their provided ratings |
|
definition of the evaluation metric to calculate |
|
a specific metric and its parameters |
The request section contains several search requests typical to your application, along with the document ratings for each particular search request, e.g.
"requests": [ { "id": "amsterdam_query", "request": { "query": { "match": { "text": "amsterdam" }} }, "ratings": [ { "_index": "my_index", "_id": "doc1", "rating": 0 }, { "_index": "my_index", "_id": "doc2", "rating": 3}, { "_index": "my_index", "_id": "doc3", "rating": 1 } ] }, { "id": "berlin_query", "request": { "query": { "match": { "text": "berlin" }} }, "ratings": [ { "_index": "my_index", "_id": "doc1", "rating": 1 } ] } ]
the search requests id, used to group result details later |
|
the query that is being evaluated |
|
a list of document ratings, each entry containing the documents |
A document rating
can be any integer value that expresses the relevance of the document on a user defined scale. For some of the metrics, just giving a binary rating (e.g. 0
for irrelevant and 1
for relevant) will be sufficient, other metrics can use a more fine grained scale.
To use the ranking evaluation API with indices that use multiple types, you should add a filter on the _type
field to
the query in the request. Otherwise, if your index uses multiple types with the same id, the provided
document rating might be ambiguous.
Template based ranking evaluation
editAs an alternative to having to provide a single query per test request, it is possible to specify query templates in the evaluation request and later refer to them. Queries with similar structure that only differ in their parameters don’t have to be repeated all the time in the requests
section this way. In typical search systems where user inputs usually get filled into a small set of query templates, this helps making the evaluation request more succinct.
GET /my_index/_rank_eval { [...] "templates": [ { "id": "match_one_field_query", "template": { "inline": { "query": { "match": { "{{field}}": { "query": "{{query_string}}" }} } } } } ], "requests": [ { "id": "amsterdam_query", "ratings": [ ... ], "template_id": "match_one_field_query", "params": { "query_string": "amsterdam", "field": "text" } }, [...] }
the template id |
|
the template definition to use |
|
a reference to a previously defined temlate |
|
the parameters to use to fill the template |
Available evaluation metrics
editThe metric
section determines which of the available evaluation metrics is going to be used.
Currently, the following metrics are supported:
Precision at K (P@k)
editThis metric measures the number of relevant results in the top k search results. Its a form of the well known Precision metric that only looks at the top k documents. It is the fraction of relevant documents in those first k search. A precision at 10 (P@10) value of 0.6 then means six out of the 10 top hits are relevant with respect to the users information need.
P@k works well as a simple evaluation metric that has the benefit of being easy to understand and explain. Documents in the collection need to be rated either as relevant or irrelevant with respect to the current query. P@k does not take into account where in the top k results the relevant documents occur, so a ranking of ten results that contains one relevant result in position 10 is equally good as a ranking of ten results that contains one relevant result in position 1.
GET /twitter/_rank_eval { "requests": [ { "id": "JFK query", "request": { "query": { "match_all": {}}}, "ratings": [] }], "metric": { "precision": { "k" : 20, "relevant_rating_threshold": 1, "ignore_unlabeled": false } } }
The precision
metric takes the following optional parameters
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
|
sets the maximum number of documents retrieved per query. This value will act in place of the usual |
|
sets the rating threshold above which documents are considered to be
"relevant". Defaults to |
|
controls how unlabeled documents in the search results are counted. If set to true, unlabeled documents are ignored and neither count as relevant or irrelevant. Set to false (the default), they are treated as irrelevant. |
Mean reciprocal rank
editFor every query in the test suite, this metric calculates the reciprocal of the rank of the first relevant document. For example finding the first relevant result in position 3 means the reciprocal rank is 1/3. The reciprocal rank for each query is averaged across all queries in the test suite to give the mean reciprocal rank.
GET /twitter/_rank_eval { "requests": [ { "id": "JFK query", "request": { "query": { "match_all": {}}}, "ratings": [] }], "metric": { "mean_reciprocal_rank": { "k" : 20, "relevant_rating_threshold" : 1 } } }
The mean_reciprocal_rank
metric takes the following optional parameters
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
|
sets the maximum number of documents retrieved per query. This value will act in place of the usual |
|
Sets the rating threshold above which documents are considered to be
"relevant". Defaults to |
Discounted cumulative gain (DCG)
editIn contrast to the two metrics above, discounted cumulative gain takes both, the rank and the rating of the search results, into account.
The assumption is that highly relevant documents are more useful for the user when appearing at the top of the result list. Therefore, the DCG formula reduces the contribution that high ratings for documents on lower search ranks have on the overall DCG metric.
GET /twitter/_rank_eval { "requests": [ { "id": "JFK query", "request": { "query": { "match_all": {}}}, "ratings": [] }], "metric": { "dcg": { "k" : 20, "normalize": false } } }
The dcg
metric takes the following optional parameters:
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
|
sets the maximum number of documents retrieved per query. This value will act in place of the usual |
|
If set to |
Expected Reciprocal Rank (ERR)
editExpected Reciprocal Rank (ERR) is an extension of the classical reciprocal rank for the graded relevance case (Olivier Chapelle, Donald Metzler, Ya Zhang, and Pierre Grinspan. 2009. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance.)
It is based on the assumption of a cascade model of search, in which a user scans through ranked search results in order and stops at the first document that satisfies the information need. For this reason, it is a good metric for question answering and navigation queries, but less so for survey oriented information needs where the user is interested in finding many relevant documents in the top k results.
The metric models the expectation of the reciprocal of the position at which a user stops reading through the result list. This means that relevant document in top ranking positions will contribute much to the overall score. However, the same document will contribute much less to the score if it appears in a lower rank, even more so if there are some relevant (but maybe less relevant) documents preceding it. In this way, the ERR metric discounts documents which are shown after very relevant documents. This introduces a notion of dependency in the ordering of relevant documents that e.g. Precision or DCG don’t account for.
GET /twitter/_rank_eval { "requests": [ { "id": "JFK query", "request": { "query": { "match_all": {}}}, "ratings": [] }], "metric": { "expected_reciprocal_rank": { "maximum_relevance" : 3, "k" : 20 } } }
The expected_reciprocal_rank
metric takes the following parameters:
Parameter | Description |
---|---|
|
Mandatory parameter. The highest relevance grade used in the user supplied relevance judgments. |
|
sets the maximum number of documents retrieved per query. This value will act in place of the usual |
Response format
editThe response of the _rank_eval
endpoint contains the overall calculated result for the defined quality metric,
a details
section with a breakdown of results for each query in the test suite and an optional failures
section
that shows potential errors of individual queries. The response has the following format:
{ "rank_eval": { "metric_score": 0.4, "details": { "my_query_id1": { "metric_score": 0.6, "unrated_docs": [ { "_index": "my_index", "_id": "1960795" }, [...] ], "hits": [ { "hit": { "_index": "my_index", "_type": "page", "_id": "1528558", "_score": 7.0556192 }, "rating": 1 }, [...] ], "metric_details": { "precision" : { "relevant_docs_retrieved": 6, "docs_retrieved": 10 } } }, "my_query_id2" : { [...] } }, "failures": { [...] } } }
the overall evaluation quality calculated by the defined metric |
|
the |
|
the |
|
the |
|
the |
|
the |
On this page