Synthetic Test Collections for Retrieval Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructing test collections in Information Retrieval (IR) is vital for evaluating search algorithms. Obtaining a diverse set of user queries for test collection construction can be challenging, and acquiring relevance judgments, which indicate the appropriateness of retrieved documents, is often costly and resource-intensive. Generating synthetic datasets using Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently gained significant attention in various applications. In information retrieval, while previous work exploited the capabilities of LLMs to generate synthetic queries or documents to augment training data and improve the performance of ranking models, using LLMs for constructing synthetic test collections is relatively unexplored. Previous studies demonstrate that LLMs have the potential to generate synthetic relevance judgments for use in the evaluation of information retrieval systems. In this paper, we comprehensively investigate whether it is possible to use LLMs to construct fully synthetic test collections by generating not only synthetic judgments but also synthetic queries. To qualify the efficacy of synthetic queries for examining system ordering, we analyze how these synthetic data are suitable for building a reliable and reusable test collection and the potential risks of bias such test collections may exhibit towards LLM-based models. Our comprehensive experiments indicate that test collections generated using LLMs can effectively and reliably evaluate system performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".