Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Exploring Large Language Models for Relevance Judgments in Tetun

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 2406.07299 v1 pith:LZGZZDNI submitted 2024-06-11 cs.IR

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

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Leveraging LLMs to Evaluate Usefulness of Document

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cascade of LLM judges, fed with search context and behavior, produces multilevel usefulness labels for clicked documents and improves search satisfaction prediction.

  2. When LLMs Disagree: Diagnosing Relevance Filtering Bias and Retrieval Divergence in SDG Search

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Two LLMs disagree on about 16% of SDG relevance labels, and the disagreement is lexically systematic and changes top-20 retrieval results.

Pith tools