Two LLMs disagree on about 16% of SDG relevance labels, and the disagreement is lexically systematic and changes top-20 retrieval results.
Exploring Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Tetun
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
The Cranfield paradigm has served as a foundational approach for developing test collections, with relevance judgments typically conducted by human assessors. However, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has introduced new possibilities for automating these tasks. This paper explores the feasibility of using LLMs to automate relevance assessments, particularly within the context of low-resource languages. In our study, LLMs are employed to automate relevance judgment tasks, by providing a series of query-document pairs in Tetun as the input text. The models are tasked with assigning relevance scores to each pair, where these scores are then compared to those from human annotators to evaluate the inter-annotator agreement levels. Our investigation reveals results that align closely with those reported in studies of high-resource languages.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.IR 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
When LLMs Disagree: Diagnosing Relevance Filtering Bias and Retrieval Divergence in SDG Search
Two LLMs disagree on about 16% of SDG relevance labels, and the disagreement is lexically systematic and changes top-20 retrieval results.