testland/elasticsearch-relevance-tests

Author Elasticsearch relevance regression tests using the Ranking Evaluation API (`POST {index}/_rank_eval`) - judgment lists (query + expected docs at ranks), per-query metrics (Precision@K, Recall@K, MRR, DCG, ERR), reproducible test corpora; pair with Quepid + Splainer for interactive judgment authoring. Use before changing analyzers, synonyms, boosts, or query templates on an Elasticsearch index that serves user-facing search, so the NDCG / MRR baseline is captured first.

Quality

99%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

name:: elasticsearch-relevance-tests
description:: Author Elasticsearch relevance regression tests using the Ranking Evaluation API (`POST {index}/_rank_eval`) - judgment lists (query + expected docs at ranks), per-query metrics (Precision@K, Recall@K, MRR, DCG, ERR), reproducible test corpora; pair with Quepid + Splainer for interactive judgment authoring. Use before changing analyzers, synonyms, boosts, or query templates on an Elasticsearch index that serves user-facing search, so the NDCG / MRR baseline is captured first.
metadata:: {"keywords":"elasticsearch, rank-eval, relevance-testing, judgment-list, search-quality"}

elasticsearch-relevance-tests

Name: testland/elasticsearch-relevance-tests
Rating: 79.2 (1 reviews)
Author: testland

Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API, the _rank_eval endpoint "evaluates search result quality across typical queries using relevance metrics."

When to use

Search-driven product (e-commerce, docs site, internal portal) where relevance regression directly affects business outcomes.
Pre-deploy gate before changing analyzers, synonyms, boosts, query templates.
A/B baseline: capture today's NDCG/MRR before tuning so you can prove improvement (or detect regression).

Step 1 - Build the judgment list

A judgment is (query, doc_id, rating). Ratings: 0 = irrelevant, 1 = somewhat, 2 = relevant, 3 = highly relevant (4-point scale). Build judgments via:

Source	Method
Query logs + click data	Click model (clicked = ≥1, multi-click = ≥2)
Quepid (open source)	Interactive UI for judges to rate per-query results
Splainer	Diagnose why a doc ranked where it did
Domain SMEs	High-stakes queries; manual rating

Judgment list format (CSV is common):

query,doc_id,rating
"running shoes",sku-1234,3
"running shoes",sku-5678,2
"running shoes",sku-9999,0
"red dress",sku-2222,3

Step 2 - Define metrics for your domain

Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API:

Metric	When to use
Precision@K	flat top-K accuracy; no graded weighting
Recall@K	completeness of the relevant set within top K
MRR	one good answer suffices (navigational, Q&A)
DCG / NDCG	graded relevance, rank-discounted; default for graded judgments
ERR	user-stops-at-first-relevant; rank-decay sensitive

For e-commerce with graded judgments → NDCG@10 + MRR. For Q&A → MRR

Precision@1.

Step 3 - Submit a rank_eval request

Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API:

POST products/_rank_eval
{
  "requests": [
    {
      "id": "running_shoes_query",
      "request": {
        "query": { "match": { "name": "running shoes" } }
      },
      "ratings": [
        { "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-1234", "rating": 3 },
        { "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-5678", "rating": 2 },
        { "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-9999", "rating": 0 }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "red_dress_query",
      "request": { "query": { "match": { "name": "red dress" } } },
      "ratings": [
        { "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-2222", "rating": 3 }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "metric": {
    "dcg": { "k": 10, "normalize": true }
  }
}

Response shape:

{
  "metric_score": 0.84,
  "details": {
    "running_shoes_query": { "metric_score": 0.91, "unrated_docs": [...] },
    "red_dress_query": { "metric_score": 0.77, "unrated_docs": [...] }
  }
}

Step 4 - Wrap as a test

import requests, csv

def load_judgments(path):
    by_query = {}
    with open(path) as f:
        for row in csv.DictReader(f):
            by_query.setdefault(row["query"], []).append({
                "_index": "products",
                "_id": row["doc_id"],
                "rating": int(row["rating"]),
            })
    return by_query

def test_search_relevance_baseline():
    judgments = load_judgments("tests/judgments.csv")
    requests_payload = [
        {
            "id": q.replace(" ", "_"),
            "request": { "query": { "match": { "name": q } } },
            "ratings": ratings,
        }
        for q, ratings in judgments.items()
    ]
    body = {
        "requests": requests_payload,
        "metric": { "dcg": { "k": 10, "normalize": true } },
    }
    r = requests.post("http://localhost:9200/products/_rank_eval", json=body)
    result = r.json()

    # Baseline NDCG must not regress vs known-good
    assert result["metric_score"] >= 0.80, f"NDCG@10 regressed: {result['metric_score']}"

Step 5 - Per-query regression detection

Aggregate metric only catches large shifts. Track per-query:

def test_no_query_drops_more_than_10_percent():
    current = run_rank_eval()
    baseline = json.loads(Path("tests/baseline.json").read_text())

    for query_id, baseline_score in baseline["details"].items():
        current_score = current["details"][query_id]["metric_score"]
        delta = current_score - baseline_score["metric_score"]
        assert delta >= -0.10, \
            f"Query {query_id} dropped {delta:.2f} (was {baseline_score['metric_score']:.2f}, now {current_score:.2f})"

Advanced topics

Binary-metric relevant_rating_threshold config, snapshotting a reproducible test corpus for CI, and Quepid + Splainer judgment authoring live in references/rank-eval-guide.md.

Anti-patterns

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Fix
Use binary judgments only	Loses graded info; NDCG degrades to Precision	4-point scale (Step 1)
Rebuild judgments per test run	Bias from current ranking	Pinned judgment list (Step 1)
Track only aggregate NDCG	Hides per-query regressions	Per-query tracking (Step 5)
Test against changing index	Baselines move under your feet	Snapshot corpus (advanced guide)
100% click-derived judgments	Click bias to top results, position bias	Mix click + SME judgments

Limitations

Judgments are expensive; budget hundreds-to-thousands of query-doc pairs for a meaningful test set.
Click-derived judgments have position bias; correct using click models (cascade, dynamic Bayesian).
Rank Eval API doesn't natively support relevance graded > 4 or pairwise comparisons.
Synonyms, language analyzers, custom scoring matter - pin in CI.

References

Elasticsearch Rank Eval API - request/response schema, metrics
Quepid (judgment authoring UI) - github.com/o19s/quepid
Splainer (debug per-doc ranking) - github.com/o19s/splainer-search
opensearch-relevance-tests - sister skill (compatible API)
vector-search-recall-tests - vector search analogue

.tessl-plugin

references

SKILL.md

tile.json