LLM4Eval@WSDM 2025: Large Language Model for Evaluation in Information Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated increasing task-solving abilities not present in smaller models. Utilizing the capabilities and responsibilities of LLMs for automated evaluation (LLM4Eval) has recently attracted considerable attention in multiple research communities. For instance, LLM4Eval models have been studied in the context of automated judgments, natural language generation, and retrieval augmented generation systems. We believe that the information retrieval community can significantly contribute to this growing research area by designing, implementing, analyzing, and evaluating various aspects of LLMs with applications to LLM4Eval tasks. The main goal of LLM4Eval workshop is to bring together researchers from industry and academia to discuss various aspects of LLMs for evaluation in information retrieval, including automated judgments, retrieval-augmented generation pipeline evaluation, altering human evaluation, robustness, and trustworthiness of LLMs for evaluation in addition to their impact on real-world applications. We also plan to run an automated judgment challenge prior to the workshop, where participants will be asked to generate labels for a given dataset while maximising correlation with human judgments. The format of the workshop is interactive, including roundtable and keynote sessions and tends to avoid the one-sided dialogue of a mini-conference. This is the second iteration of the workshop. The first version was held in conjunction with SIGIR 2024, attracting over 50 participants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".