On the Statistical Significance with Relevance Assessments of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13212v1
• Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 11:19:35 GMT
• Title: On the Statistical Significance with Relevance Assessments of Large Language Models
• Authors: David Otero, Javier Parapar, Álvaro Barreiro,
• Abstract summary: We use Large Language Models for labelling relevance of documents for building new retrieval test collections. Our results show that LLM judgements detect most of the significant differences while maintaining acceptable numbers of false positives. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of statistical testing results provided by LLM judgements.
• Score: 2.9180406633632523
• License:
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find 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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers [27.66626125248612]
  This paper presents an empirical study evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset. We focus on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T04:23:19Z)
• 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)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

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.