Batched Self-Consistency Improves LLM Relevance Assessment and Ranking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given some information need, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for candidate text relevance assessment, typically using a one-by-one pointwise (PW) strategy where each LLM call evaluates one candidate at a time. Meanwhile, it has been shown that LLM performance can be improved through self-consistency: prompting the LLM to do the same task multiple times (possibly in perturbed ways) and then aggregating the responses. To take advantage of self-consistency, we hypothesize that batched PW strategies, where multiple passages are judged in one LLM call, are better suited than one-by-one PW methods since a larger input context can induce more diverse LLM sampling across self-consistency calls. We first propose several candidate batching strategies to create prompt diversity across self-consistency calls through subset reselection and permutation. We then test our batched PW methods on relevance assessment and ranking tasks against one-by-one PW and listwise LLM ranking baselines with and without self-consistency, using three passage retrieval datasets and GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 3, and Amazon Nova Pro. We find that batched PW methods outperform all baselines, and show that batching can greatly amplify the positive effects of self-consistency. For instance, on our legal search dataset, GPT-4o one-by-one PW ranking NDCG@10 improves only from 44.9% to 46.8% without self-consistency vs. with 15 self consistency calls, while batched PW ranking improves from 43.8% to 51.3%, respectively.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".