This benchmark tests a system's ability to retrieve relevant evidence snippets from a large pool of web pages for a given Arabic claim. It evaluates ranking performance in a retrieval setting where only a small fraction of snippets actually contain verifying evidence. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Arabic Evidence Retrieval Dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P@10.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Arabic Evidence Retrieval Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-arabic-evidence-retrieval-eval)
---
name: arabic-evidence-retrieval-eval
description: This benchmark tests a system's ability to retrieve relevant evidence snippets from a large pool of web pages for a given Arabic claim. It evaluates ranking performance in a retrieval setting where only a small fraction of snippets actually contain verifying evidence. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Arabic Evidence Retrieval Dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P@10.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2007.07997
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# arabic-evidence-retrieval-eval
> Overview of CheckThat! 2020: Automatic Identification and Verification of Claims in Social Media — Barrón-Cedeno et al. (2020) (arXiv:2007.07997, 2020)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark tests a system's ability to retrieve relevant evidence snippets from a large pool of web pages for a given Arabic claim. It evaluates ranking performance in a retrieval setting where only a small fraction of snippets actually contain verifying evidence.
## Datasets
- **Arabic Evidence Retrieval Dataset** — total 169902; splits: test (169902)
## Metrics
- `P@10` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Precision at cutoff k=10, measuring the proportion of retrieved snippets that contain useful evidence among the top 10 results.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Arabic claim text and a list of candidate web page snippets.
**Output**: Ranked list of evidence snippets.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score(predictions, gold):
top_k = predictions[:10]
relevant_in_top_k = len(set(top_k) & gold)
return relevant_in_top_k / 10.0
```
## Common pitfalls
- Evaluation relies on a pooling method: only snippets returned by systems are annotated, which may bias precision estimates.
- Snippets are automatically split by punctuation, which might not align with semantic evidence boundaries.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> In order to evaluate the submitted runs, we computed P@k at different cutoff (k = 1, 5, 10). The official measure was P@10.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{barroncedeno2020checkthat,
title={Overview of CheckThat! 2020: Automatic Identification and Verification of Claims in Social Media},
author={Barrón-Cedeno et al. (2020)},
year={2020},
note={arXiv:2007.07997}
}
```
- arXiv: 2007.07997