REVIEW 2 cited by
Multi-stage Large Language Model Pipelines Can Outperform GPT-4o in Relevance Assessment
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
abstract
The effectiveness of search systems is evaluated using relevance labels that indicate the usefulness of documents for specific queries and users. While obtaining these relevance labels from real users is ideal, scaling such data collection is challenging. Consequently, third-party annotators are employed, but their inconsistent accuracy demands costly auditing, training, and monitoring. We propose an LLM-based modular classification pipeline that divides the relevance assessment task into multiple stages, each utilising different prompts and models of varying sizes and capabilities. Applied to TREC Deep Learning (TREC-DL), one of our approaches showed an 18.4% Krippendorff's $\alpha$ accuracy increase over OpenAI's GPT-4o mini while maintaining a cost of about 0.2 USD per million input tokens, offering a more efficient and scalable solution for relevance assessment. This approach beats the baseline performance of GPT-4o (5 USD). With a pipeline approach, even the accuracy of the GPT-4o flagship model, measured in $\alpha$, could be improved by 9.7%.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Synthetic Data Generation for Phrase Break Prediction with Large Language Model
LLM-generated phrase break annotations, produced with only a few prompt examples, rival human annotations in consistency and can train competitive phrase break prediction models in English, French, and Spanish.
-
Large Language Models in the Task of Automatic Validation of Text Classifier Predictions
LLM-based annotators using token-probability thresholds, RAG, and reasoning fine-tuning matched or exceeded human annotator quality on a proprietary 250-class intent-validation task.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.