Revisiting Human-vs-LLM judgments using the TREC Podcast Track

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05603v2
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 04:08:29 GMT
• Title: Revisiting Human-vs-LLM judgments using the TREC Podcast Track
• Abstract summary: We conduct an analysis on user agreement between large language models (LLMs) and human experts.<n>Our results reinforce the previous insights of Sormunen in 2002 -- that relying on a single assessor leads to lower user agreement.
• Score: 20.26070370633
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Using large language models (LLMs) to annotate relevance is an increasingly important technique in the information retrieval community. While some studies demonstrate that LLMs can achieve high user agreement with ground truth (human) judgments, other studies have argued for the opposite conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, these studies have primarily focused on classic ad-hoc text search scenarios. In this paper, we conduct an analysis on user agreement between LLM and human experts, and explore the impact disagreement has on system rankings. In contrast to prior studies, we focus on a collection composed of audio files that are transcribed into two-minute segments -- the TREC 2020 and 2021 podcast track. We employ five different LLM models to re-assess all of the query-segment pairs, which were originally annotated by TREC assessors. Furthermore, we re-assess a small subset of pairs where LLM and TREC assessors have the highest disagreement, and found that the human experts tend to agree with LLMs more than with the TREC assessors. Our results reinforce the previous insights of Sormunen in 2002 -- that relying on a single assessor leads to lower user agreement.

Related papers

• How Auditory Knowledge in LLM Backbones Shapes Audio Language Models: A Holistic Evaluation [97.0235251827591]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely used as knowledge backbones of Large Audio Language Models (LALMs)<n>We study how much auditory knowledge they encode through text-only pre-training and how this affects downstream performance.<n>Our findings reveal that auditory knowledge varies substantially across families, and text-only results are strongly correlated with audio performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T17:50:07Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• Rankers, Judges, and Assistants: Towards Understanding the Interplay of LLMs in Information Retrieval Evaluation [44.58099275559231]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integral to information retrieval (IR), powering ranking, evaluation, and AI-assisted content creation.<n>This paper synthesizes existing research and presents novel experiment designs that explore how LLM-based rankers and assistants influence LLM-based judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T19:24:40Z)
• The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs [21.97227334180969]
  "LLM-as-an-annotator" and "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigms employ Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators, judges, and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans.<n>Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators.<n>We propose a novel statistical procedure, the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test), that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T07:09:11Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks [3.58262772907022]
  We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other's responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion.<n>In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts.<n>Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T19:05:43Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>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)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)
• 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.