Limitations of Automatic Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Retrieval Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13212v3
• Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 09:11:18 GMT
• Title: Limitations of Automatic Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Retrieval Evaluation
• Authors: David Otero, Javier Parapar, Álvaro Barreiro,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment.<n>Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements.<n>We look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements.
• Score: 2.9180406633632523
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Related papers

• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference [63.03859517284341]
  An automatic evaluation framework aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set, the evaluation model, the evaluation type and the aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T17:46:51Z)
• JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking [7.507819077549208]
  We conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs. Our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:51:13Z)
• 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)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators [16.845939677403287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. We evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T06:53:10Z)
• 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.