Query Performance Prediction Using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Query performance prediction (QPP) aims to estimate the retrieval quality of a search system for a query without human relevance judgments. Previous QPP methods typically return a single scalar value and do not require the predicted values to approximate a specific information retrieval (IR) evaluation measure, leading to certain drawbacks: (i) a single scalar is insufficient to accurately represent different IR evaluation measures, especially when metrics do not highly correlate, and (ii) a single scalar limits the interpretability of QPP methods because solely using a scalar is insufficient to explain QPP results. To address these issues, we propose a QPP framework using automatically gen erated re levance judgments (QPP-GenRE), which decomposes QPP into independent subtasks of predicting the relevance of each item in a ranked list to a given query. This allows us to predict any IR evaluation measure using the generated relevance judgments as pseudo-labels. This also allows us to interpret predicted IR evaluation measures, and identify, track, and rectify errors in generated relevance judgments to improve QPP quality. We predict an item’s relevance by using open source large language models (LLMs) to ensure scientific reproducibility. We face two main challenges: (i) excessive computational costs of judging an entire corpus for predicting a metric considering recall, and (ii) limited performance in prompting open source LLMs in a zero-/few-shot manner. To solve the challenges, we devise an approximation strategy to predict an IR measure considering recall and propose to fine-tune open source LLMs using human-labeled relevance judgments. Experiments on the TREC 2019–2022 deep learning tracks and CAsT-19–20 datasets show that QPP-GenRE achieves state-of-the-art QPP quality for both lexical and neural rankers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".