LLM-as-a-Judge in Entity Retrieval: Assessing Explicit and Implicit Relevance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entity retrieval plays a critical role in information access systems, yet the development and evaluation of retrieval models remain constrained by the limited availability of high-quality supervision. While recent work has demonstrated the utility of large language models (LLMs) as relevance assessors in passage and document retrieval, their reliability in the context of entity retrieval-where targets are abstract, underspecified, and often semantically sparse-remains unexplored. In this work, we evaluate LLM-based judgments against two complementary supervision signals: human-annotated relevance labels from the DBpedia-Entity benchmark and implicit feedback from user clicks in the LaQuE dataset. We show that LLMs exhibit strong agreement with expert annotations and replicate user click patterns with over 91% agreement, suggesting alignment with behavioral judgments despite noisy input queries. We further identify and analyze systematic mismatches for user clicks on irrelevant entities. Our findings establish LLMs not only as effective annotators for entity relevance judgment-even when given only the entity title-but also as powerful tools for predicting click-through behavior and simulating explainable user intent. Our code, prompts, and data are publicly available at: https://github.com/17shiraz/ClickLLM
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 | 0.017 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".