Back to dashboard
Headline result
46 / 50
Method & source P@k (Precision at k)Manning, Raghavan, Schütze (2008) IIR §8.4

## Read in detail

Each card opens its own page. The headline and charts above are all you need at a glance; the cards are for the why and how.

### Aggregate

P@5 looks low next to MRR. Reason: the 50 queries each have exactly one canonical right answer in this design, so P@5 has a ceiling of 0.2 per query if at most one match is in the top 5.

Read details →

### Sub-perfect Cases (4 of 50)

The four queries that did not yield a top-1 match. Each is informative.

Read details →

### Method Recap

50 canonical-lookup queries each paired with a right-answer URI regex. For each query, cupertino search "<query>" --limit 10 was invoked via the develop-tip binary with cupertino.config.json set to baseDirectory: ~/.cupe…

Read details →

### What This Baseline Does Not Measure

Per docs/design/search-quality-eval.md §1.5 (the two-criteria framing):

Read details →

### How to Use This Baseline

When evaluating a future ranking change (BM25F weight tweak, new tokenizer, schema change), re-run the same 50-query corpus on both the unchanged binary/DB and the changed binary/DB, use the paired-comparison mode (/tmp/…

Read details →

## Sources cited in this measurement

Every metric and method this audit relies on, with a link to the foundational source. Auto-collected from the audit text.

### P@k (Precision at k)

Manning, Raghavan, Schütze (2008) IIR §8.4

Open citation

### Mean Reciprocal Rank

Voorhees (1999), TREC-8 QA Report

Open citation

### NDCG

Järvelin & Kekäläinen (2002)

Open citation

### Reciprocal Rank Fusion (k=60)

Cormack, Clarke, Büttcher (2009), SIGIR

Open citation

### Wilcoxon signed-rank test

Wilcoxon (1945), Biometrics Bulletin

Open citation