Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Generative Information Retrieval Evaluation

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 2404.08137 v3 pith:KHJXCQTW submitted 2024-04-11 cs.IR

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

In this chapter, we consider generative information retrieval evaluation from two distinct but interrelated perspectives. First, large language models (LLMs) themselves are rapidly becoming tools for evaluation, with current research indicating that LLMs may be superior to crowdsource workers and other paid assessors on basic relevance judgement tasks. We review past and ongoing related research, including speculation on the future of shared task initiatives, such as TREC, and a discussion on the continuing need for human assessments. Second, we consider the evaluation of emerging LLM-based generative information retrieval (GenIR) systems, including retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. We consider approaches that focus both on the end-to-end evaluation of GenIR systems and on the evaluation of a retrieval component as an element in a RAG system. Going forward, we expect the evaluation of GenIR systems to be at least partially based on LLM-based assessment, creating an apparent circularity, with a system seemingly evaluating its own output. We resolve this apparent circularity in two ways: 1) by viewing LLM-based assessment as a form of "slow search", where a slower IR system is used for evaluation and training of a faster production IR system; and 2) by recognizing a continuing need to ground evaluation in human assessment, even if the characteristics of that human assessment must change.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Characterizing Web Search in The Age of Generative AI

    cs.IR 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI search engines vary greatly in how much they rely on web pages versus internal model knowledge, and these differences shift which sources and concepts users see.

  2. Am I on the Right Track? What Can Predicted Query Performance Tell Us about the Search Behaviour of Agentic RAG

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QPP estimates of the first search query in agentic RAG are weakly positively correlated with final answer quality, and stronger retrievers shorten reasoning while improving answers.

Pith tools