mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Reliable Confidence Intervals for Information Retrieval Evaluation Using Generative A.I

arXiv 2407.02464 ↗First posted 2 Jul 2024cs.IR stat.MLcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The traditional evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems is generally very costly as it requires manual relevance annotation from human experts. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence -- specifically large language models (LLMs) -- can generate relevance annotations at an enormous scale with relatively small computational costs. Potentially, this could alleviate the costs traditionally associated with IR evaluation and make it applicable to numerous low-resource applications. However, generated relevance annotations are not immune to (systematic) errors, and as a result, directly using them for evaluation produces unreliable results. In this work, we propose two methods based on prediction-powered inference and conformal risk control that utilize computer-generated relevance annotations to place reliable confidence intervals (CIs) around IR evaluation metrics. Our proposed methods require a small number of reliable annotations from which the methods can statistically analyze the errors in the generated annotations. Using this information, we can place CIs around evaluation metrics with strong theoretical guarantees. Unlike existing approaches, our conformal risk control method is specifically designed for ranking metrics and can vary its CIs per query and document. Our experimental results show that our CIs accurately capture both the variance and bias in evaluation based on LLM annotations, better than the typical empirical bootstrapping estimates. We hope our contributions bring reliable evaluation to the many IR applications where this was traditionally infeasible.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 76 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2024.

Builds on

21 of 76 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
  4. 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,225
  5. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
  6. 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 777
  7. 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 734
  8. 2017Generative Adversarial Networks: An Overviewcited by 588
  9. 2023Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Promptingcited by 302
  10. 2022UL2: Unifying Language Learning Paradigmscited by 292
  11. 2023Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferencescited by 129
  12. 2013Introducing LETOR 4.0 Datasetscited by 120
9 more
  1. 2023Beyond Yes and No: Improving Zero-Shot LLM Rankers via Scoring Fine-Grained Relevance Labelscited by 86
  2. 2023Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgmentcited by 84
  3. 2019A Deep Look into Neural Ranking Models for Information Retrievalcited by 79
  4. 2023One-Shot Labeling for Automatic Relevance Estimationcited by 31
  5. 2017Neural Models for Information Retrievalcited by 29
  6. 2021TREC Deep Learning Track: Reusable Test Collections in the Large Data Regimecited by 23
  7. 2023Improving Cross-lingual Information Retrieval on Low-Resource Languages via Optimal Transport Distillationcited by 15
  8. 2019Statistical Significance Testing in Information Retrieval: An Empirical Analysis of Type I, Type II and Type III Errorscited by 4
  9. 2015Predicting Relevance based on Assessor Disagreement: Analysis and Practical Applications for Search Evaluationcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 8.

9 papers.