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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Leveraging LLMs to Evaluate Usefulness of Document
A cascade of LLM judges, fed with search context and behavior, produces multilevel usefulness labels for clicked documents and improves search satisfaction prediction.
-
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.