Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09161v2
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 18:16:41 GMT
- Title: Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment
- Authors: Guglielmo Faggioli, Laura Dietz, Charles Clarke, Gianluca Demartini,
Matthias Hagen, Claudia Hauff, Noriko Kando, Evangelos Kanoulas, Martin
Potthast, Benno Stein, Henning Wachsmuth
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments.
It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
- Score: 56.935731584323996
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: When asked, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can
assist with relevance judgments but it is not clear whether automated judgments
can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems. In this perspectives
paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to support relevance judgments along
with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human--machine collaboration
spectrum that allows to categorize different relevance judgment strategies,
based on how much humans rely on machines. For the extreme point of "fully
automated judgments", we further include a pilot experiment on whether
LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human
assessors. We conclude the paper by providing opposing perspectives for and
against the use of~LLMs for automatic relevance judgments, and a compromise
perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary
experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers.
Related papers
- Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
We study the performance of various large language models (LLMs) acting as judges.
We leverage TriviaQA as a benchmark for assessing objective knowledge reasoning of LLMs.
We find that both Llama-3 70B and GPT-4 Turbo have an excellent alignment with humans, but in terms of ranking exam taker models, they are outperformed by both JudgeLM-7B and the lexical judge Contains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z) - Beyond Relevance: Evaluate and Improve Retrievers on Perspective Awareness [56.42192735214931]
retrievers are expected to not only rely on the semantic relevance between the documents and the queries but also recognize the nuanced intents or perspectives behind a user query.
In this work, we study whether retrievers can recognize and respond to different perspectives of the queries.
We show that current retrievers have limited awareness of subtly different perspectives in queries and can also be biased toward certain perspectives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-04T17:10:00Z) - Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in assessing the quality of generated natural language.
LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.
We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z) - Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs)
We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing.
We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z) - Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated
Decision Systems [5.076419064097733]
This paper proposes a new equal confusion fairness test to check an automated decision system for fairness and a new confusion parity error to quantify the extent of any unfairness.
Overall, the methods and metrics provided here may assess automated decision systems' fairness as part of a more extensive accountability assessment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-02T04:44:19Z) - Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)
We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.
Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z) - Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model
Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs)
We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date.
We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z) - AI for human assessment: What do professional assessors need? [33.88509725285237]
This case study aims to help professional assessors make decisions in human assessment, in which they conduct interviews with assessees and evaluate their suitability for certain job roles.
A computational system that can extract nonverbal cues of assesses would be beneficial to assessors in terms of supporting their decision making.
We developed such a system based on an unsupervised anomaly detection algorithm using multimodal behavioral features such as facial keypoints, pose, head pose, and gaze.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-18T03:35:37Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.