TRUE: A Reproducible Framework for LLM-Driven Relevance Judgment in Information Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25602v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 23:58:47 GMT
• Title: TRUE: A Reproducible Framework for LLM-Driven Relevance Judgment in Information Retrieval
• Authors: Mouly Dewan, Jiqun Liu, Chirag Shah,
• Abstract summary: We introduce textitTask-aware Evaluation (TRUE) for relevance judgment generation.<n>TRUE was originally developed for usefulness evaluation in search sessions.<n>We evaluate TRUE on the TREC DL 2019, 2020 and LLMJudge datasets.
• Score: 11.27206971411905
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-based relevance judgment generation has become a crucial approach in advancing evaluation methodologies in Information Retrieval (IR). It has progressed significantly, often showing high correlation with human judgments as reflected in LLMJudge leaderboards \cite{rahmani2025judging}. However, existing methods for relevance judgments, rely heavily on sensitive prompting strategies, lacking standardized workflows for generating reliable labels. To fill this gap, we reintroduce our method, \textit{Task-aware Rubric-based Evaluation} (TRUE), for relevance judgment generation. Originally developed for usefulness evaluation in search sessions, we extend TRUE to mitigate the gap in relevance judgment due to its demonstrated effectiveness and reproducible workflow. This framework leverages iterative data sampling and reasoning to evaluate relevance judgments across multiple factors including intent, coverage, specificity, accuracy and usefulness. In this paper, we evaluate TRUE on the TREC DL 2019, 2020 and LLMJudge datasets and our results show that TRUE achieves strong performance on the system-ranking LLM leaderboards. The primary focus of this work is to provide a reproducible framework for LLM-based relevance judgments, and we further analyze the effectiveness of TRUE across multiple dimensions.

Related papers

• When LLM Judges Inflate Scores: Exploring Overrating in Relevance Assessment [29.603396943658428]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be used as proxies for human judges.<n>We show that models consistently assign inflated relevance scores to passages that do not genuinely satisfy the underlying information need.<n>Experiments show that LLM-based relevance judgments can be highly sensitive to passage length and surface-level lexical cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T08:37:21Z)
• RADAR: Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM Pre-training [59.493415006017635]
  Pre-trained Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) provide a knowledge-rich foundation for post-training.<n>Current evaluation relies on testing after supervised fine-tuning, which introduces laborious additional training and autoregressive decoding costs.<n>We propose RADAR, an efficient ability-centric evaluation framework for Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM pRe-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T12:56:31Z)
• AllSummedUp: un framework open-source pour comparer les metriques d'evaluation de resume [2.2153783542347805]
  This paper investigates challenges in automatic text summarization evaluation.<n>Based on experiments conducted across six representative metrics, we highlight significant discrepancies between reported performances in the literature and those observed in our experimental setting.<n>We introduce a unified, open-source framework, applied to the SummEval dataset and designed to support fair and transparent comparison of evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:05:00Z)
• Criteria-Based LLM Relevance Judgments [5.478764356647438]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a scalable solution by generating relevance labels directly through prompting.<n>We propose the Multi-Criteria framework for LLM-based relevance judgments, decomposing the notion of relevance into multiple criteria.<n>Our results demonstrate that Multi-Criteria judgments enhance the system ranking/leaderboard performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T04:21:21Z)
• Leveraging LLMs to Evaluate Usefulness of Document [25.976948104719746]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T09:44:03Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Beyond the Numbers: Transparency in Relation Extraction Benchmark Creation and Leaderboards [5.632231145349045]
  This paper investigates the transparency in the creation of benchmarks and the use of leaderboards for measuring progress in NLP. Existing relation extraction benchmarks often suffer from insufficient documentation and lack crucial details. While our discussion centers on the transparency of RE benchmarks and leaderboards, the observations we discuss are broadly applicable to other NLP tasks as well.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T22:36:19Z)
• LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation [28.61326111959728]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. Contrary to previous findings, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T08:32:09Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• Iterative Utility Judgment Framework via LLMs Inspired by Relevance in Philosophy [66.95501113584541]
  We propose an Iterative utiliTy judgm fraEntMework (ITEM) to promote each step in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)<n>RAG's three core components -- relevance ranking derived from retrieval models, utility judgments, and answer generation -- align with Schutz's philosophical system of relevances.<n> Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements of ITEM in utility judgments, ranking, and answer generation upon representative baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T07:52:42Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models.<n>It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• Regression-aware Inference with LLMs [52.764328080398805]
  We show that an inference strategy can be sub-optimal for common regression and scoring evaluation metrics. We propose alternate inference strategies that estimate the Bayes-optimal solution for regression and scoring metrics in closed-form from sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T03:24:34Z)

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.