Query-Document Dense Vectors for LLM Relevance Judgment Bias Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01751v1
• Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2026 03:02:33 GMT
• Title: Query-Document Dense Vectors for LLM Relevance Judgment Bias Analysis
• Authors: Samaneh Mohtadi, Gianluca Demartini,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation.<n>We aim to understand if LLMs make systematic mistakes when judging relevance, rather than just understanding how good they are on average.<n>We introduce a clustering-based framework that embeds query-document (Q-D) pairs into a joint semantic space.
• Score: 4.719505127252616
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation due to reduced cost and increased scalability as compared to human assessors. While previous research has looked at the reliability of LLMs as compared to human assessors, in this work, we aim to understand if LLMs make systematic mistakes when judging relevance, rather than just understanding how good they are on average. To this aim, we propose a novel representational method for queries and documents that allows us to analyze relevance label distributions and compare LLM and human labels to identify patterns of disagreement and localize systematic areas of disagreement. We introduce a clustering-based framework that embeds query-document (Q-D) pairs into a joint semantic space, treating relevance as a relational property. Experiments on TREC Deep Learning 2019 and 2020 show that systematic disagreement between humans and LLMs is concentrated in specific semantic clusters rather than distributed randomly. Query-level analyses reveal recurring failures, most often in definition-seeking, policy-related, or ambiguous contexts. Queries with large variation in agreement across their clusters emerge as disagreement hotspots, where LLMs tend to under-recall relevant content or over-include irrelevant material. This framework links global diagnostics with localized clustering to uncover hidden weaknesses in LLM judgments, enabling bias-aware and more reliable IR evaluation.

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)
• Hybrid Pooling with LLMs via Relevance Context Learning [5.10348690267577]
  High-quality relevance judgements over large query sets are essential for evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems.<n>LLMs have recently shown promise as automatic relevance assessors, but their reliability is still limited.<n>We introduce Relevance Context Learning (RCL), a novel framework that leverages human relevance judgements to explicitly model topic-specific relevance criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T10:10:22Z)
• LLM-Specific Utility: A New Perspective for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [110.610512800947]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge.<n>Existing studies often treat utility as a generic attribute, ignoring the fact that different LLMs may benefit differently from the same passage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T12:57:45Z)
• How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models? [76.92519309816008]
  This paper investigates the influence of large language models (LLMs) on term-based retrieval models.<n>Our linguistic analysis reveals that LLM-generated texts exhibit smoother high-frequency and steeper low-frequency Zipf slopes.<n>Our study further explores whether term-based retrieval models demonstrate source bias, concluding that these models prioritize documents whose term distributions closely correspond to those of the queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T06:43:27Z)
• When LLMs Disagree: Diagnosing Relevance Filtering Bias and Retrieval Divergence in SDG Search [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assign document relevance labels in information retrieval pipelines.<n>LLMs often disagree on borderline cases, raising concerns about how such disagreement affects downstream retrieval.<n>We show that model disagreement is systematic, not random.<n>We propose using classification disagreement as an object of analysis in retrieval evaluation, particularly in policy-relevant or thematic search tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T20:53:51Z)
• Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs [29.112649816695203]
  Relative Bias is a method designed to assess how an LLM's behavior deviates from other LLMs within a specified target domain.<n>We introduce two complementary methodologies: (1) Embedding Transformation analysis, which captures relative bias patterns through sentence representations over the embedding space, and (2) LLM-as-a-Judge, which employs a language model to evaluate outputs comparatively.<n>Applying our framework to several case studies on bias and alignment scenarios following by statistical tests for validation, we find strong alignment between the two scoring methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T01:59:54Z)
• Benchmarking LLM-based Relevance Judgment Methods [15.255877686845773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in both academic and industry settings.<n>We systematically compare multiple LLM-based relevance assessment methods, including binary relevance judgments, graded relevance assessments, pairwise preference-based methods, and two nugget-based evaluation methods.<n>As part of our data release, we include relevance judgments generated by both an open-source (Llama3.2b) and a commercial (gpt-4o) model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T01:13:21Z)
• How do Large Language Models Understand Relevance? A Mechanistic Interpretability Perspective [64.00022624183781]
  Large language models (LLMs) can assess relevance and support information retrieval (IR) tasks.<n>We investigate how different LLM modules contribute to relevance judgment through the lens of mechanistic interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:14:55Z)
• Latent Factor Models Meets Instructions: Goal-conditioned Latent Factor Discovery without Task Supervision [50.45597801390757]
  Instruct-LF is a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system.<n>It integrates instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:03:08Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Limitations of Automatic Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Retrieval Evaluation [2.9180406633632523]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T11:19:35Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)

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.