LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?
Test collections are information retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms. While test collections have become an integral part of IR research, the process of data creation involves significant effort in manual annotations, which often makes it very expensive and time-consuming. Thus, test collections could become too small when the budget is limited, which may lead to unstable evaluations. As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed the use of large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors. However, while LLMs seem to somewhat correlate with human judgments, their predictions are not perfect and often show bias. Thus a complete replacement with LLMs is argued to be too risky and not fully reliable. Thus, in this paper, we propose LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments (LARA), an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, which helps to build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget. We use the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities to select the most profitable documents to manually annotate under a budget constraint. With theoretical reasoning, LARA effectively guides the human annotation process by actively learning to calibrate the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities. Then, using the calibration model learned from the limited manual annotations, LARA debiases the LLM predictions to annotate the remaining non-assessed data. Empirical evaluations on TREC-7 Ad Hoc, TREC-8 Ad Hoc, TREC Robust 2004, and TREC-COVID datasets show that LARA outperforms alternative solutions under almost any budget constraint.
Code (1)
Tasks
Information RetrievalMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
When Should Humans Step In? Optimal Human Dispatching in AI-Assisted Decisions
AI systems increasingly assist human decision making by producing preliminary assessments of complex inputs. However, such AI-generated assessments can often be noisy or systematically biased, raising a central question:…
Decision MakingA Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look
The application of large language models to provide relevance assessments presents exciting opportunities to advance information retrieval, natural language processing, and beyond, but to date many unknowns remain. This …
Information RetrievalRAGLLM-based relevance assessment still can't replace human relevance assessment
The use of large language models (LLMs) for relevance assessment in information retrieval has gained significant attention, with recent studies suggesting that LLM-based judgments provide comparable evaluations to human …
Information RetrievalAugmented Test Collections: A Step in the Right Direction
In this position paper we argue that certain aspects of relevance assessment in the evaluation of IR systems are oversimplified and that human assessments represented by qrels should be augmented to take account of conte…
PositionJudgeBlender: Ensembling Judgments for Automatic Relevance Assessment
The effective training and evaluation of retrieval systems require a substantial amount of relevance judgments, which are traditionally collected from human assessors -- a process that is both costly and time-consuming. …