Exploring Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Tetun

Published 6/12/2024 by Gabriel de Jesus, S'ergio Nunes

Overview

This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) to make relevance judgments for Tetun, a low-resource language spoken in Timor-Leste.
The researchers investigate whether LLMs can effectively replace human annotators in assessing the relevance of search query-document pairs, which is a critical task in information retrieval.
The paper compares the performance of LLMs to human judgments and explores the potential of LLMs to "patch up" missing relevance judgments in existing datasets.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. In this research, the authors explored using LLMs to evaluate the relevance of search results for the Tetun language. Tetun is a language spoken in Timor-Leste, which has a relatively small online presence compared to more widely used languages.

Traditionally, assessing the relevance of search results requires human experts to manually review and rate the content. This process can be time-consuming and expensive, especially for low-resource languages like Tetun. The researchers investigated whether LLMs could potentially replace human annotators in this task, potentially making the process more efficient and scalable.

The study found that LLMs were able to accurately predict the relevance of search results, often matching or even outperforming human judgments. This suggests that LLMs could be used to "patch up" missing relevance judgments in existing datasets, which is an important challenge in information retrieval research.

Furthermore, the researchers explored the potential of LLMs to serve as "apprentices" to human researchers, assisting them in tasks like literature review and data analysis. This could help accelerate the research process and unlock new insights.

Technical Explanation

The researchers evaluated the performance of large language models (LLMs) in making relevance judgments for the Tetun language. They compared the judgments of LLMs to those made by human annotators on a dataset of search query-document pairs.

The researchers used a fine-tuned version of the GPT-3 language model, which was trained on a large corpus of Tetun text data. They then tested the model's ability to predict the relevance of search results, using the human-annotated judgments as a benchmark.

The results showed that the LLM was able to accurately predict the relevance of search results, often matching or even outperforming human annotators. The researchers also explored the potential of using LLMs to "patch up" missing relevance judgments in existing datasets, which is a common challenge in information retrieval research.

Furthermore, the paper discusses the potential of LLMs to serve as "apprentices" to human researchers, assisting them in tasks such as literature review and data analysis. This could help accelerate the research process and unlock new insights.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a promising approach for using LLMs to make relevance judgments for low-resource languages like Tetun. The researchers acknowledge that their findings are limited to a specific dataset and language, and they encourage further research to validate the generalizability of their results.

One potential concern is the reliance on human-annotated data for training and evaluation. While the LLM's performance was impressive, it is possible that the model may have learned to mimic the biases or inconsistencies present in the human judgments. Further research could explore ways to ensure the LLM's judgments are truly robust and unbiased.

Additionally, the paper does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the LLM's limitations or potential shortcomings. Readers may benefit from a more detailed discussion of the model's weaknesses, as well as the researchers' plans for addressing them in future work.

Conclusion

This research demonstrates the potential of large language models to assist in relevance judgments for low-resource languages, potentially reducing the burden on human annotators and enabling more efficient information retrieval. The findings also suggest that LLMs could serve as valuable "apprentices" to human researchers, complementing their expertise and accelerating the research process.

While the results are promising, further research is needed to validate the generalizability of the approach and address potential limitations. Nonetheless, this work represents an important step forward in exploring the applications of large language models in real-world information retrieval tasks.

Full paper

Loading PDF viewer...

Read original: arXiv:2406.07299

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

A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look

Shivani Upadhyay, Ronak Pradeep, Nandan Thakur, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Ian Soboroff, Hoa Trang Dang, Jimmy Lin

The application of large language models to provide relevance assessments presents exciting opportunities to advance information retrieval, natural language processing, and beyond, but to date many unknowns remain. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed in situ: the standard fully manual process that NIST has implemented for decades and three different alternatives that take advantage of LLMs to different extents using the open-source UMBRELA tool. This setup allows us to correlate system rankings induced by the different approaches to characterize tradeoffs between cost and quality. We find that in terms of nDCG@20, nDCG@100, and Recall@100, system rankings induced by automatically generated relevance assessments from UMBRELA correlate highly with those induced by fully manual assessments across a diverse set of 77 runs from 19 teams. Our results suggest that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits. Overall, human assessors appear to be stricter than UMBRELA in applying relevance criteria. Our work validates the use of LLMs in academic TREC-style evaluations and provides the foundation for future studies.

11/14/2024

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.

7/16/2024

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.

5/10/2024

On the Statistical Significance with Relevance Assessments of Large Language Models

David Otero, Javier Parapar, 'Alvaro Barreiro

Test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research. They allow researchers to evaluate and compare ranking algorithms in a quick, easy and reproducible way. However, constructing these datasets requires great efforts in manual labelling and logistics, and having only few human relevance judgements can introduce biases in the comparison. Recent research has explored the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for labelling the relevance of documents for building new retrieval test collections. Their strong text-understanding capabilities and low cost compared to human-made judgements makes them an appealing tool for gathering relevance judgements. Results suggest that LLM-generated labels are promising for IR evaluation in terms of ranking correlation, but nothing is said about the implications in terms of statistical significance. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve the same pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM judgements detect most of the significant differences while maintaining acceptable numbers of false positives. However, we also show that some systems are treated differently under LLM-generated labels, suggesting that evaluation with LLM judgements might not be entirely fair. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of statistical testing results provided by LLM judgements. We hope that this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop reliable models for automatic relevance assessments.

11/21/2024