Likert or Not: LLM Absolute Relevance Judgments on Fine-Grained Ordinal Scales
Large language models (LLMs) obtain state of the art zero shot relevance ranking performance on a variety of information retrieval tasks. The two most common prompts to elicit LLM relevance judgments are pointwise scoring (a.k.a. relevance generation), where the LLM sees a single query-document pair and outputs a single relevance score, and listwise ranking (a.k.a. permutation generation), where the LLM sees a query and a list of documents and outputs a permutation, sorting the documents in decreasing order of relevance. The current research community consensus is that listwise ranking yields superior performance, and significant research effort has been devoted to crafting LLM listwise ranking algorithms. The underlying hypothesis is that LLMs are better at making relative relevance judgments than absolute ones. In tension with this hypothesis, we find that the gap between pointwise scoring and listwise ranking shrinks when pointwise scoring is implemented using a sufficiently large ordinal relevance label space, becoming statistically insignificant for many LLM-benchmark dataset combinations (where `significant'' means `95\% confidence that listwise ranking improves NDCG@10''). Our evaluations span four LLMs, eight benchmark datasets from the BEIR and TREC-DL suites, and two proprietary datasets with relevance labels collected after the training cut-off of all LLMs evaluated.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Information RetrievalSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
CQA-Eval: Designing Reliable Evaluations of Multi-paragraph Clinical QA under Resource Constraints
Evaluating multi-paragraph clinical question answering (QA) systems is resource-intensive and challenging: accurate judgments require medical expertise and achieving consistent human judgments over multi-paragraph text i…
Question AnsweringLLMs Can Patch Up Missing Relevance Judgments in Evaluation
Unjudged documents or holes in information retrieval benchmarks are considered non-relevant in evaluation, yielding no gains in measuring effectiveness. However, these missing judgments may inadvertently introduce biases…
Information RetrievalRetrievalSelf-rationalization improves LLM as a fine-grained judge
LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate…
Summarization Metrics for Spanish and Basque: Do Automatic Scores and LLM-Judges Correlate with Humans?
Studies on evaluation metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge models for automatic text summarization have largely been focused on English, limiting our understanding of their effectiveness in other languages. Through our new dataset…
ArticlesText SummarizationREO-Relevance, Extraness, Omission: A Fine-grained Evaluation for Image Captioning
Popular metrics used for evaluating image captioning systems, such as BLEU and CIDEr, provide a single score to gauge the system's overall effectiveness. This score is often not informative enough to indicate what specif…
Image Captioning