The tale of two MS MARCO -- and their unfair comparisons
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The MS MARCO-passage dataset has been the main large-scale dataset open to the IR community and it has fostered successfully the development of novel neural retrieval models over the years. But, it turns out that two different corpora of MS MARCO are used in the literature, the official one and a second one where passages were augmented with titles, mostly due to the introduction of the Tevatron code base. However, the addition of titles actually leaks relevance information, while breaking the original guidelines of the MS MARCO-passage dataset. In this work, we investigate the differences between the two corpora and demonstrate empirically that they make a significant difference when evaluating a new method. In other words, we show that if a paper does not properly report which version is used, reproducing fairly its results is basically impossible. Furthermore, given the current status of reviewing, where monitoring state-of-the-art results is of great importance, having two different versions of a dataset is a large problem. This is why this paper aims to report the importance of this issue so that researchers can be made aware of this problem and appropriately report their results.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3.
3 papers.
- 2024SPLADE-v3: New baselines for SPLADEcited by 72
- 2024Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Modelscited by 18
- 2024A Reproducibility Study of PLAIDcited by 8
- 2024A Reproducibility Study of PLAID23 Apr 2024
- 2024Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models1 Apr 2024
- 2024SPLADE-v3: New baselines for SPLADE11 Mar 2024