Leveraging LLMs to Evaluate Usefulness of Document

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08626v2
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 03:47:20 GMT
• Title: Leveraging LLMs to Evaluate Usefulness of Document
• Authors: Xingzhu Wang, Erhan Zhang, Yiqun Chen, Jinghan Xuan, Yucheng Hou, Yitong Xu, Ying Nie, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Jiaxin Mao,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a new user-centric evaluation framework that integrates users' search context and behavioral data into large language models.<n>Our study demonstrates that when well-guided with context and behavioral information, LLMs can accurately evaluate usefulness.<n>We also apply the labels produced by our method to predict user satisfaction, with real-world experiments indicating that these labels substantially improve the performance of satisfaction prediction models.
• Score: 25.976948104719746
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The conventional Cranfield paradigm struggles to effectively capture user satisfaction due to its weak correlation between relevance and satisfaction, alongside the high costs of relevance annotation in building test collections. To tackle these issues, our research explores the potential of leveraging large language models (LLMs) to generate multilevel usefulness labels for evaluation. We introduce a new user-centric evaluation framework that integrates users' search context and behavioral data into LLMs. This framework uses a cascading judgment structure designed for multilevel usefulness assessments, drawing inspiration from ordinal regression techniques. Our study demonstrates that when well-guided with context and behavioral information, LLMs can accurately evaluate usefulness, allowing our approach to surpass third-party labeling methods. Furthermore, we conduct ablation studies to investigate the influence of key components within the framework. We also apply the labels produced by our method to predict user satisfaction, with real-world experiments indicating that these labels substantially improve the performance of satisfaction prediction models.

Related papers

• LLM-Driven Usefulness Judgment for Web Search Evaluation [12.10711284043516]
  Evaluation is fundamental in optimizing search experiences and supporting diverse user intents in Information Retrieval (IR)<n>Traditional search evaluation methods primarily rely on relevance labels, which assess how well retrieved documents match a user's query.<n>In this paper, we explore an alternative approach: LLM-generated usefulness labels, which incorporate both implicit and explicit user behavior signals to evaluate document usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T20:38:09Z)
• LLM-Driven Usefulness Labeling for IR Evaluation [13.22615100911924]
  This study focuses on LLM-generated usefulness labels, a crucial evaluation metric that considers the user's search intents and task objectives.<n>Our experiment utilizes task-level, query-level, and document-level features along with user search behavior signals, which are essential in defining the usefulness of a document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T00:07:39Z)
• Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons [9.954960702259918]
  This paper introduces Themis, a fine-tuned large language model (LLMs) judge that delivers context-aware evaluations.<n>We provide a comprehensive overview of the development pipeline for Themis, highlighting its scenario-dependent evaluation prompts.<n>We introduce two human-labeled benchmarks for meta-evaluation, demonstrating that Themis can achieve high alignment with human preferences in an economical manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:35:55Z)
• Towards More Effective Table-to-Text Generation: Assessing In-Context Learning and Self-Evaluation with Open-Source Models [0.0]
  This study explores the effectiveness of various in-context learning strategies in language models (LMs) across benchmark datasets. We employ a large language model (LLM) self-evaluation approach using chain-of-thought reasoning and assess its correlation with human-aligned metrics like BERTScore. Our findings highlight the significant impact of examples in improving table-to-text generation and suggest that, while LLM self-evaluation has potential, its current alignment with human judgment could be enhanced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T09:19:42Z)
• Improving the Validity and Practical Usefulness of AI/ML Evaluations Using an Estimands Framework [2.4861619769660637]
  We propose an estimands framework adapted from international clinical trials guidelines. This framework provides a systematic structure for inference and reporting in evaluations. We demonstrate how the framework can help uncover underlying issues, their causes, and potential solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T18:47:37Z)
• KIEval: A Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models [53.84677081899392]
  KIEval is a Knowledge-grounded Interactive Evaluation framework for large language models. It incorporates an LLM-powered "interactor" role for the first time to accomplish a dynamic contamination-resilient evaluation. Extensive experiments on seven leading LLMs across five datasets validate KIEval's effectiveness and generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T01:30:39Z)
• C-ICL: Contrastive In-context Learning for Information Extraction [54.39470114243744]
  c-ICL is a novel few-shot technique that leverages both correct and incorrect sample constructions to create in-context learning demonstrations. Our experiments on various datasets indicate that c-ICL outperforms previous few-shot in-context learning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T11:28:08Z)
• DRDT: Dynamic Reflection with Divergent Thinking for LLM-based Sequential Recommendation [53.62727171363384]
  We introduce a novel reasoning principle: Dynamic Reflection with Divergent Thinking. Our methodology is dynamic reflection, a process that emulates human learning through probing, critiquing, and reflecting. We evaluate our approach on three datasets using six pre-trained LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T16:41:22Z)
• 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)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation for Conversational Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models [115.7508325840751]
  The recent success of large language models (LLMs) has shown great potential to develop more powerful conversational recommender systems (CRSs) In this paper, we embark on an investigation into the utilization of ChatGPT for conversational recommendation, revealing the inadequacy of the existing evaluation protocol. We propose an interactive Evaluation approach based on LLMs named iEvaLM that harnesses LLM-based user simulators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:12:43Z)

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.