0

0

LLMs Can Patch Up Missing Relevance Judgments in Evaluation

    Published 5/9/2024 by Shivani Upadhyay, Ehsan Kamalloo, Jimmy Lin

    Overview

    • This paper explores how large language models (LLMs) can be used to patch up missing relevance judgments in the evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems.
    • The researchers propose a novel method that leverages LLMs to generate relevance judgments for query-document pairs that are missing from standard IR evaluation datasets.
    • The paper demonstrates that this approach can improve the robustness and reliability of IR system evaluation, particularly when dealing with sparse or incomplete relevance judgments.

    Relevance judgments from TREC 2019.

    1/2

    Relevance judgments from TREC 2019.

    Original caption: (a) Qrel: TREC 2019

    Summary statistics for TREC DL tracks 2019, 2020, and 2021.

    1/2

    DL Track Submissions Topics Relevance Label 1 Relevance Label 2 Relevance Label 3
    TREC 2019 36 200 1601 1804 697
    TREC 2020 59 200 1940 1020 646
    TREC 2021 62 477 3063 2341 1086

    Original caption: Table 1. Summary statistics for TREC DL 2019, 2020 and 2021 tracks.

    Plain English Explanation

    Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. In this paper, the researchers show how LLMs can be used to help evaluate the performance of information retrieval (IR) systems, which are used to search for and retrieve relevant information from large datasets.

    One challenge in evaluating IR systems is that the datasets used for testing often have "missing" judgments - the relevance of certain documents to certain search queries is not known. This can make it difficult to accurately assess the performance of the IR system.

    The researchers propose a solution: using an LLM to "patch up" these missing relevance judgments. By training the LLM to understand the relationships between search queries and relevant documents, they can have the LLM predict the relevance of the missing query-document pairs. [This is similar to how predictive models can fill in missing values in datasets.]

    The researchers show that using the LLM-generated relevance judgments can improve the reliability and robustness of the IR system evaluation, compared to relying on the incomplete original dataset. This could be very useful for improving the development and deployment of real-world IR systems.

    Technical Explanation

    The key technical contributions of this paper are:

    1. LLM-based Relevance Judgment Generation: The researchers fine-tune a large language model (specifically, GPT-3) to predict the relevance of a given query-document pair. This is done by training the LLM on existing relevance judgments from standard IR evaluation datasets.

    2. Augmented Evaluation Datasets: The researchers then use the fine-tuned LLM to generate relevance judgments for query-document pairs that are missing from the original evaluation datasets. This results in "patched-up" datasets with more complete relevance information.

    3. Evaluation of IR System Performance: The paper compares the performance of various IR systems when evaluated on the original incomplete datasets versus the augmented datasets with LLM-generated judgments. The results show significant improvements in the reliability and consistency of the evaluations.

    The key insight is that LLMs can effectively model the complex relationships between queries and relevant documents, allowing them to accurately predict missing relevance judgments. This helps address a longstanding challenge in IR system evaluation, where incomplete ground truth data has limited the ability to properly assess system performance. [The approach is similar to how language models can be used to generate missing text in document evaluation.]

    Critical Analysis

    The paper provides a compelling demonstration of how LLMs can be leveraged to improve the evaluation of IR systems. However, there are a few caveats and areas for further research:

    1. Generalization and Scalability: The experiments in this paper focus on a relatively small set of evaluation datasets. More research is needed to understand how well the LLM-based approach scales to larger and more diverse datasets, and whether the performance benefits generalize to other IR tasks and domains.

    2. Potential Biases: As with any machine learning system, the LLM-generated relevance judgments may inherit biases present in the training data. This is an active area of research in understanding and mitigating biases in large language models.

    3. Human Evaluation: While the paper demonstrates improvements in automated evaluation metrics, it would be valuable to also assess the quality of the LLM-generated judgments through human evaluation. This could provide additional insights into the strengths and limitations of the approach.

    4. Multilingual Capabilities: The current paper focuses on English-language datasets. Extending the approach to support multiple languages would be an important next step, as many real-world IR systems need to handle diverse linguistic inputs. Researchers are exploring ways to build more multilingual-capable language models.

    Overall, this paper makes a compelling case for using LLMs to enhance the evaluation of IR systems, particularly in the face of incomplete relevance judgments. The proposed approach offers a promising direction for improving the robustness and reliability of IR system development and benchmarking.

    Conclusion

    This paper demonstrates how large language models (LLMs) can be used to patch up missing relevance judgments in the evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems. By fine-tuning an LLM to predict the relevance of query-document pairs, the researchers were able to generate more complete evaluation datasets and improve the reliability of IR system performance assessments.

    The key contribution of this work is the insight that LLMs can effectively model the complex relationships between queries and relevant documents, allowing them to accurately infer missing relevance judgments. This addresses a longstanding challenge in IR system evaluation, where incomplete ground truth data has limited the ability to properly assess system performance.

    The research opens up new possibilities for enhancing the evaluation and development of real-world IR systems, which are increasingly important for managing the vast amounts of information available in the digital age. As language models continue to advance, their ability to fill in missing data and improve the robustness of evaluations could have significant impacts across a range of AI applications.

    Full paper

    Loading...

    Loading PDF viewer...

    Read original: arXiv:2405.04727



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

    Total Score

    0

    Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

    Related Papers

    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

    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

    On the Statistical Significance with Relevance Assessments of Large Language Models
    Total Score

    0

    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.

    Read more

    11/21/2024

    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