Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Judging the Judges: A Collection of LLM-Generated Relevance Judgements

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.13908 v1 pith:5DQVLBYS submitted 2025-02-19 cs.IR

classification cs.IR
keywords relevancellmsevaluationhumanmodelsassessorschallengedifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR experimenters to build evaluation collections with a fraction of the manual human labor currently required. This could help with fresh topics on which there is still limited knowledge and could mitigate the challenges of evaluating ranking systems in low-resource scenarios, where it is challenging to find human annotators. Given the fast-paced recent developments in the domain, many questions concerning LLMs as assessors are yet to be answered. Among the aspects that require further investigation, we can list the impact of various components in a relevance judgment generation pipeline, such as the prompt used or the LLM chosen. This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024, where different relevance assessment approaches were proposed. In detail, we release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams who participated in the challenge. Given their diverse nature, these automatically generated relevance judgments can help the community not only investigate systematic biases caused by LLMs but also explore the effectiveness of ensemble models, analyze the trade-offs between different models and human assessors, and advance methodologies for improving automated evaluation techniques. The released resource is available at the following link: https://llm4eval.github.io/LLMJudge-benchmark/

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLMs Encode Relevance as a Layer-Wise Cross-Lingual Signal

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Large language models encode query-document relevance as a linearly decodable internal signal that strengthens in middle-to-late layers and, in several models, outperforms their own generated judgments.

  2. When LLM Judges Inflate Scores: Exploring Overrating in Relevance Assessment

    cs.IR 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs consistently overrate relevance of inadequate passages in IR evaluations due to biases toward length and lexical features rather than true content match.

  3. Joint Optimization of Relevance and Engagement in Multi-Task Ranking for E-Commerce with Efficient LLM Supervision

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Production multi-task e-commerce ranking model uses LLM-generated three-level ordinal relevance labels and a unified value model to balance semantic quality against engagement signals.

Pith tools