PreprintCited by 2Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

LLMJudge: LLMs for Relevance Judgments

Open access
Rahmani, Hossein A., Yilmaz, Emine, Craswell, Nick, Mitra, Bhaskar, Thomas, Paul, Clarke, Charles L. A., Aliannejadi, Mohammad, Siro, Clemencia +1 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

The LLMJudge challenge is organized as part of the LLM4Eval workshop at SIGIR 2024. Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems. The evaluation and tuning of a search system is largely based on relevance labels, which indicate whether a document is useful for a specific search and user. However, collecting relevance judgments on a large scale is costly and resource-intensive. Consequently, typical experiments rely on third-party labelers who may not always produce accurate annotations. The LLMJudge challenge aims to explore an alternative approach by using LLMs to generate relevance judgments. Recent studies have shown that LLMs can generate reliable relevance judgments for search systems. However, it remains unclear which LLMs can match the accuracy of human labelers, which prompts are most effective, how fine-tuned open-source LLMs compare to closed-source LLMs like GPT-4, whether there are biases in synthetically generated data, and if data leakage affects the quality of generated labels. This challenge will investigate these questions, and the collected data will be released as a package to support automatic relevance judgment research in information retrieval and search.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2408.08896

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The automated LLM-based evaluation metrics show strong agreement with human judgments and serve as a strong surrogate for human preferences.

    “using metrics that show strong agreement with human judgments.”

    From DeepScholar-Bench: A Live Benchmark and Automated Evaluation for Generative Research Synthesis (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Submissions and Results section (page unavailable) reports that LLM-generated judgments generally agree with human judgments on search-system rankings. It also says their exact relevance labels are less consistent, so the source does not establish strong agreement across the automated evaluations or show that they are a strong surrogate for human preferences. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. H. A. Rahmani, C. Siro, M. Aliannejadi, N. Craswell, C. L. A. Clarke, G. Faggioli, B. Mitra, P. Thomas, E. Yilmaz, Llm4eval: Large language model for evaluation in ir, in: Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '24, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2024, p. 3040-3043. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3657992. doi:10.1145/3626772.3657992. · DOI
  2. G. Faggioli, L. Dietz, C. L. Clarke, G. Demartini, M. Hagen, C. Hauff, N. Kando, E. Kanoulas, M. Potthast, B. Stein, et al., Perspectives on large language models for relevance judgment, in: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, 2023, pp. 39-50.
  3. P. Thomas, S. Spielman, N. Craswell, B. Mitra, Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferences, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10621 (2023). · arXiv
  4. H. A. Rahmani, N. Craswell, E. Yilmaz, B. Mitra, D. Campos, Synthetic test collections for retrieval evaluation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07767 (2024). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahmani, H. A., Yilmaz, E., Craswell, N., Mitra, B., Thomas, P., Clarke, C. L. A., Aliannejadi, M., Siro, C., & Faggioli, G.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Microsoft (Canada) (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Padua (IT)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402502868
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • University College London
  • Universiteit van Amsterdam
  • Università degli Studi di Padova (PRIN 2022)
  • University of Waterloo
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S021566/1, EP/P024289/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
information retrieval evaluation, data leakage, annotation bias, test collections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review