Don't Use LLMs to Make Relevance Judgments

    Read original: arXiv:2409.15133 - Published 9/24/2024 by Ian Soboroff
    Total Score

    0

    Don't Use LLMs to Make Relevance Judgments

    Sign in to get full access

    or

    If you already have an account, we'll log you in

    Overview

    • The paper argues against using large language models (LLMs) to make relevance judgments in information retrieval (IR) tasks.
    • It presents experimental evidence showing that LLMs make unreliable relevance judgments compared to human annotations.
    • The paper emphasizes the inherent uncertainty in IR and cautions against over-relying on LLMs for this purpose.

    Plain English Explanation

    The paper discusses the use of large language models (LLMs) for making relevance judgments in information retrieval (IR) tasks. Relevance judgments are a crucial component of IR, as they determine how well a retrieved document matches the user's query.

    The authors argue that using LLMs to make these judgments can be problematic. Through experiments, they found that LLMs often make unreliable relevance assessments compared to human annotators. This is because IR inherently involves a lot of uncertainty, and LLMs may struggle to capture the nuances and context required for accurate relevance judgments.

    The paper emphasizes that uncertainty is at the root of IR, and over-relying on LLMs to make these judgments can lead to skewed or misleading results. Instead, the authors suggest that a more cautious and balanced approach is needed, one that acknowledges the limitations of LLMs and the inherent uncertainty in IR tasks.

    Technical Explanation

    The paper presents an empirical study investigating the use of large language models (LLMs) to make relevance judgments in information retrieval (IR) tasks. The authors conducted experiments comparing the relevance assessments made by LLMs and human annotators on a standard IR dataset.

    The results showed that LLMs often produce unreliable relevance judgments, with poor agreement compared to the human-annotated ground truth. This suggests that LLMs may not be well-suited for making the nuanced, context-dependent decisions required for accurate relevance assessment in IR.

    The paper argues that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of IR, and that over-relying on LLMs to make relevance judgments can lead to misleading or skewed results. The authors emphasize the need for a more cautious and balanced approach that acknowledges the limitations of LLMs and the inherent uncertainty in IR tasks.

    Critical Analysis

    The paper raises valid concerns about the use of LLMs for making relevance judgments in information retrieval. The experimental evidence presented demonstrates the unreliability of LLM-based relevance assessments compared to human annotations, which is a significant limitation.

    However, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential reasons why LLMs struggle with this task. It would be helpful to understand the specific challenges or biases inherent in LLMs that lead to their poor performance on relevance judgments. Additionally, the paper could have explored potential ways to improve the use of LLMs in this context, such as through fine-tuning, ensemble models, or incorporating additional context-specific information.

    The paper's emphasis on the inherent uncertainty in IR is well-founded, and this is an important consideration that should not be overlooked. However, it could be argued that LLMs, with their ability to capture complex relationships and contextual information, may still have a role to play in IR tasks, albeit in a more limited and carefully-supervised capacity.

    Overall, the paper raises important concerns that warrant further investigation and discussion within the IR research community.

    Conclusion

    The paper presents a compelling argument against the use of large language models (LLMs) to make relevance judgments in information retrieval (IR) tasks. Through empirical evidence, the authors demonstrate the unreliability of LLM-based relevance assessments compared to human annotations.

    The paper emphasizes the inherent uncertainty in IR, and cautions against over-relying on LLMs for this purpose, as it can lead to misleading or skewed results. Instead, the authors suggest a more cautious and balanced approach that acknowledges the limitations of LLMs and the complex, context-dependent nature of relevance judgments in IR.

    This research highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies, especially when they are applied to critical tasks like information retrieval. The findings presented in this paper should serve as a valuable reminder to the research community to approach the use of LLMs in IR with appropriate skepticism and rigor.



    This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

    Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

    Related Papers

    Don't Use LLMs to Make Relevance Judgments
    Total Score

    0

    Don't Use LLMs to Make Relevance Judgments

    Ian Soboroff

    Making the relevance judgments for a TREC-style test collection can be complex and expensive. A typical TREC track usually involves a team of six contractors working for 2-4 weeks. Those contractors need to be trained and monitored. Software has to be written to support recording relevance judgments correctly and efficiently. The recent advent of large language models that produce astoundingly human-like flowing text output in response to a natural language prompt has inspired IR researchers to wonder how those models might be used in the relevance judgment collection process. At the ACM SIGIR 2024 conference, a workshop ``LLM4Eval'' provided a venue for this work, and featured a data challenge activity where participants reproduced TREC deep learning track judgments, as was done by Thomas et al (arXiv:2408.08896, arXiv:2309.10621). I was asked to give a keynote at the workshop, and this paper presents that keynote in article form. The bottom-line-up-front message is, don't use LLMs to create relevance judgments for TREC-style evaluations.

    Read more

    9/24/2024

    LLMJudge: LLMs for Relevance Judgments
    Total Score

    0

    LLMJudge: LLMs for Relevance Judgments

    Hossein A. Rahmani, Emine Yilmaz, Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Paul Thomas, Charles L. A. Clarke, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Clemencia Siro, Guglielmo Faggioli

    The LLMJudge challenge is organized as part of the LLM4Eval workshop at SIGIR 2024. Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems. The evaluation and tuning of a search system is largely based on relevance labels, which indicate whether a document is useful for a specific search and user. However, collecting relevance judgments on a large scale is costly and resource-intensive. Consequently, typical experiments rely on third-party labelers who may not always produce accurate annotations. The LLMJudge challenge aims to explore an alternative approach by using LLMs to generate relevance judgments. Recent studies have shown that LLMs can generate reliable relevance judgments for search systems. However, it remains unclear which LLMs can match the accuracy of human labelers, which prompts are most effective, how fine-tuned open-source LLMs compare to closed-source LLMs like GPT-4, whether there are biases in synthetically generated data, and if data leakage affects the quality of generated labels. This challenge will investigate these questions, and the collected data will be released as a package to support automatic relevance judgment research in information retrieval and search.

    Read more

    8/20/2024

    Can We Use Large Language Models to Fill Relevance Judgment Holes?
    Total Score

    0

    Can We Use Large Language Models to Fill Relevance Judgment Holes?

    Zahra Abbasiantaeb, Chuan Meng, Leif Azzopardi, Mohammad Aliannejadi

    Incomplete relevance judgments limit the re-usability of test collections. When new systems are compared against previous systems used to build the pool of judged documents, they often do so at a disadvantage due to the ``holes'' in test collection (i.e., pockets of un-assessed documents returned by the new system). In this paper, we take initial steps towards extending existing test collections by employing Large Language Models (LLM) to fill the holes by leveraging and grounding the method using existing human judgments. We explore this problem in the context of Conversational Search using TREC iKAT, where information needs are highly dynamic and the responses (and, the results retrieved) are much more varied (leaving bigger holes). While previous work has shown that automatic judgments from LLMs result in highly correlated rankings, we find substantially lower correlates when human plus automatic judgments are used (regardless of LLM, one/two/few shot, or fine-tuned). We further find that, depending on the LLM employed, new runs will be highly favored (or penalized), and this effect is magnified proportionally to the size of the holes. Instead, one should generate the LLM annotations on the whole document pool to achieve more consistent rankings with human-generated labels. Future work is required to prompt engineering and fine-tuning LLMs to reflect and represent the human annotations, in order to ground and align the models, such that they are more fit for purpose.

    Read more

    5/10/2024

    Leveraging Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval
    Total Score

    0

    Leveraging Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Legal Case Retrieval

    Shengjie Ma, Chong Chen, Qi Chu, Jiaxin Mao

    Collecting relevant judgments for legal case retrieval is a challenging and time-consuming task. Accurately judging the relevance between two legal cases requires a considerable effort to read the lengthy text and a high level of domain expertise to extract Legal Facts and make juridical judgments. With the advent of advanced large language models, some recent studies have suggested that it is promising to use LLMs for relevance judgment. Nonetheless, the method of employing a general large language model for reliable relevance judgments in legal case retrieval is yet to be thoroughly explored. To fill this research gap, we devise a novel few-shot workflow tailored to the relevant judgment of legal cases. The proposed workflow breaks down the annotation process into a series of stages, imitating the process employed by human annotators and enabling a flexible integration of expert reasoning to enhance the accuracy of relevance judgments. By comparing the relevance judgments of LLMs and human experts, we empirically show that we can obtain reliable relevance judgments with the proposed workflow. Furthermore, we demonstrate the capacity to augment existing legal case retrieval models through the synthesis of data generated by the large language model.

    Read more

    7/16/2024