Papers › LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?

LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?

11 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.06877archive 2025-07-28

Rikiya Takehi, Ellen M. Voorhees, Tetsuya Sakai, Ian Soboroff

Test collections are information retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms. While test collections have become an integral part of IR research, the process of data creation involves significant effort in manual annotations, which often makes it very expensive and time-consuming. Thus, test collections could become too small when the budget is limited, which may lead to unstable evaluations. As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed the use of large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors. However, while LLMs seem to somewhat correlate with human judgments, their predictions are not perfect and often show bias. Thus a complete replacement with LLMs is argued to be too risky and not fully reliable. Thus, in this paper, we propose LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments (LARA), an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, which helps to build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget. We use the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities to select the most profitable documents to manually annotate under a budget constraint. With theoretical reasoning, LARA effectively guides the human annotation process by actively learning to calibrate the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities. Then, using the calibration model learned from the limited manual annotations, LARA debiases the LLM predictions to annotate the remaining non-assessed data. Empirical evaluations on TREC-7 Ad Hoc, TREC-8 Ad Hoc, TREC Robust 2004, and TREC-COVID datasets show that LARA outperforms alternative solutions under almost any budget constraint.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from RikiyaT/LARA. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections