REVIEW 2 cited by
SynDL: A Large-Scale Synthetic Test Collection for Passage Retrieval
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
Large-scale test collections play a crucial role in Information Retrieval (IR) research. However, according to the Cranfield paradigm and the research into publicly available datasets, the existing information retrieval research studies are commonly developed on small-scale datasets that rely on human assessors for relevance judgments - a time-intensive and expensive process. Recent studies have shown the strong capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in producing reliable relevance judgments with human accuracy but at a greatly reduced cost. In this paper, to address the missing large-scale ad-hoc document retrieval dataset, we extend the TREC Deep Learning Track (DL) test collection via additional language model synthetic labels to enable researchers to test and evaluate their search systems at a large scale. Specifically, such a test collection includes more than 1,900 test queries from the previous years of tracks. We compare system evaluation with past human labels from past years and find that our synthetically created large-scale test collection can lead to highly correlated system rankings.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Limitations of Automatic Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Retrieval Evaluation
LLM-generated relevance judgments misrank top retrieval systems and produce many false significant differences relative to human judgments.
-
JudgeBlender: Ensembling Judgments for Automatic Relevance Assessment
Ensembling small open-source LLMs as relevance judges achieves human-correlation scores competitive with GPT-4-based judges on the LLMJudge benchmark.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.