LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06877v2
• Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 07:50:44 GMT
• Title: LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?
• Authors: Rikiya Takehi, Ellen M. Voorhees, Tetsuya Sakai, Ian Soboroff,
• Abstract summary: Test collections are information retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms. As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed the use of large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors. We propose LARA, an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, which helps to build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget.
• Score: 20.998805709422292
• License:
• Abstract: Test collections are information retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms. While test collections have become an integral part of IR research, the process of data creation involves significant effort in manual annotations, which often makes it very expensive and time-consuming. Thus, test collections could become too small when the budget is limited, which may lead to unstable evaluations. As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed the use of large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors. However, while LLMs may seem to somewhat correlate with human judgments, their predictions are not perfect and often show bias. Thus a complete replacement with LLMs is argued to be too risky and not fully reliable. Thus, in this paper, we propose LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments (LARA), an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, which helps to build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget. We use the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities to select the most profitable documents to manually annotate under a budget constraint. With theoretical reasoning, LARA effectively guides the human annotation process by actively learning to calibrate the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities. Then, using the calibration model learned from the limited manual annotations, LARA debiases the LLM predictions to annotate the remaining non-assessed data. Empirical evaluations on TREC-7 Ad Hoc, TREC-8 Ad Hoc, TREC Robust 2004, and TREC-COVID datasets show that LARA outperforms alternative solutions under almost any budget constraint.

Related papers

• Large Language Models: An Applied Econometric Framework [1.348318541691744]
  We develop an econometric framework to answer this question. Using LLMs for prediction problems is valid under one condition: no leakage'' between the LLM's training dataset and the researcher's sample. We find that these requirements are stringent; when they are violated, the limitations of LLMs now result in unreliable empirical estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T22:37:48Z)
• Dynamic Uncertainty Ranking: Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Long-Tail Knowledge in LLMs [50.29035873837]
  Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training. Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization. We propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T03:42:17Z)
• Grounding by Trying: LLMs with Reinforcement Learning-Enhanced Retrieval [55.63711219190506]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with posing the right search queries. We introduce $underlineLe$arning to $underlineRe$trieve by $underlineT$rying (LeReT) LeReT can improve the absolute retrieval accuracy by up to 29% and the downstream generator evaluations by 17%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T17:02:54Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation [24.954629877691623]
  TICK (Targeted Instruct-evaluation with ChecKlists) is a fully automated, interpretable evaluation protocol. We first show that, given an instruction, LLMs can reliably produce high-quality, tailored evaluation checklists. We then show that STICK can be used to improve generation quality across multiple benchmarks via self-refinement and Best-of-N selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:09:08Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
  Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset. Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z)
• $\forall$uto$\exists$val: Autonomous Assessment of LLMs in Formal Synthesis and Interpretation Tasks [21.12437562185667]
  This paper presents a new approach for scaling LLM assessment in translating formal syntax to natural language. We use context-free grammars (CFGs) to generate out-of-distribution datasets on the fly. We also conduct an assessment of several SOTA closed and open-source LLMs to showcase the feasibility and scalability of this paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T08:08:00Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.