arXiv subjects

Ellen M. Voorhees

Publications and source records attributed to Ellen M. Voorhees.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Overview of the TREC 2023 deep learning track

This is the fifth year of the TREC Deep Learning track. As in previous years, we leverage the MS MARCO datasets that made hundreds of thousands of human-annotated training labels available for both passage and document ranking tasks. We mostly repeated last year's design, to get another matching test set, based on the larger, cleaner, less-biased v2 passage and document set, with passage ranking as primary and document ranking as a secondary task (using labels inferred from passage). As we did last year, we sample from MS MARCO queries that were completely held out, unused in corpus construction, unlike the test queries in the first three years. This approach yields a more difficult test with more headroom for improvement. Alongside the usual MS MARCO (human) queries from MS MARCO, this year we generated synthetic queries using a fine-tuned T5 model and using a GPT-4 prompt. The new headline result this year is that runs using Large Language Model (LLM) prompting in some way outperformed runs that use the "nnlm" approach, which was the best approach in the previous four years. Since this is the last year of the track, future iterations of prompt-based ranking can happen in other tracks. Human relevance assessments were applied to all query types, not just human MS MARCO queries. Evaluation using synthetic queries gave similar results to human queries, with system ordering agreement of $τ=0.8487$. However, human effort was needed to select a subset of the synthetic queries that were usable. We did not see clear evidence of bias, where runs using GPT-4 were favored when evaluated using synthetic GPT-4 queries, or where runs using T5 were favored when evaluated on synthetic T5 queries.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Overview of the TREC 2022 deep learning track

This is the fourth year of the TREC Deep Learning track. As in previous years, we leverage the MS MARCO datasets that made hundreds of thousands of human annotated training labels available for both passage and document ranking tasks. In addition, this year we also leverage both the refreshed passage and document collections that were released last year leading to a nearly $16$ times increase in the size of the passage collection and nearly four times increase in the document collection size. Unlike previous years, in 2022 we mainly focused on constructing a more complete test collection for the passage retrieval task, which has been the primary focus of the track. The document ranking task was kept as a secondary task, where document-level labels were inferred from the passage-level labels. Our analysis shows that similar to previous years, deep neural ranking models that employ large scale pretraining continued to outperform traditional retrieval methods. Due to the focusing our judging resources on passage judging, we are more confident in the quality of this year's queries and judgments, with respect to our ability to distinguish between runs and reuse the dataset in future. We also see some surprises in overall outcomes. Some top-performing runs did not do dense retrieval. Runs that did single-stage dense retrieval were not as competitive this year as they were last year.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments: When Should We Ask LLMs for Help?

Test collections are information-retrieval tools that allow researchers to quickly and easily evaluate ranking algorithms. While test collections have become an integral part of IR research, the process of data creation involves significant manual-annotation effort, which often makes it very expensive and time-consuming. Consequently, test collections can become too small when the budget is limited, which may lead to unstable evaluations. As a cheaper alternative, recent studies have proposed using large language models (LLMs) to completely replace human assessors. However, while LLMs correlate to some extent with human judgments, their predictions are not perfect and often show bias. Thus, a complete replacement with LLMs is considered too risky and not fully reliable. In this paper, we propose LLM-Assisted Relevance Assessments (LARA), an effective method to balance manual annotations with LLM annotations, helping build a rich and reliable test collection even under a low budget. We use the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities to select the most profitable documents for manual annotation under a budget constraint. Guided by theoretical reasoning, LARA actively learns to calibrate the LLM's predicted relevance probabilities, directing the human-annotation process. Then, using the calibration model learned from the limited manual annotations, LARA debiases the LLM predictions to annotate the remaining non-assessed data. Experiments on TREC-7 Ad Hoc, TREC-8 Ad Hoc, TREC Robust 2004, and TREC-COVID datasets show that LARA outperforms alternative solutions under almost any budget constraint. While the community debates humans versus LLMs in relevance assessments, we contend that, given the same amount of human effort, it is reasonable to leverage LLMs.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2022

Human Preferences as Dueling Bandits

The dramatic improvements in core information retrieval tasks engendered by neural rankers create a need for novel evaluation methods. If every ranker returns highly relevant items in the top ranks, it becomes difficult to recognize meaningful differences between them and to build reusable test collections. Several recent papers explore pairwise preference judgments as an alternative to traditional graded relevance assessments. Rather than viewing items one at a time, assessors view items side-by-side and indicate the one that provides the better response to a query, allowing fine-grained distinctions. If we employ preference judgments to identify the probably best items for each query, we can measure rankers by their ability to place these items as high as possible. We frame the problem of finding best items as a dueling bandits problem. While many papers explore dueling bandits for online ranker evaluation via interleaving, they have not been considered as a framework for offline evaluation via human preference judgments. We review the literature for possible solutions. For human preference judgments, any usable algorithm must tolerate ties, since two items may appear nearly equal to assessors, and it must minimize the number of judgments required for any specific pair, since each such comparison requires an independent assessor. Since the theoretical guarantees provided by most algorithms depend on assumptions that are not satisfied by human preference judgments, we simulate selected algorithms on representative test cases to provide insight into their practical utility. Based on these simulations, one algorithm stands out for its potential. Our simulations suggest modifications to further improve its performance. Using the modified algorithm, we collect over 10,000 preference judgments for submissions to the TREC 2021 Deep Learning Track, confirming its suitability.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2022

Can Old TREC Collections Reliably Evaluate Modern Neural Retrieval Models?

Neural retrieval models are generally regarded as fundamentally different from the retrieval techniques used in the late 1990's when the TREC ad hoc test collections were constructed. They thus provide the opportunity to empirically test the claim that pooling-built test collections can reliably evaluate retrieval systems that did not contribute to the construction of the collection (in other words, that such collections can be reusable). To test the reusability claim, we asked TREC assessors to judge new pools created from new search results for the TREC-8 ad hoc collection. These new search results consisted of five new runs (one each from three transformer-based models and two baseline runs that use BM25) plus the set of TREC-8 submissions that did not previously contribute to pools. The new runs did retrieve previously unseen documents, but the vast majority of those documents were not relevant. The ranking of all runs by mean evaluation score when evaluated using the official TREC-8 relevance judgment set and the newly expanded relevance set are almost identical, with Kendall's tau correlations greater than 0.99. Correlations for individual topics are also high. The TREC-8 ad hoc collection was originally constructed using deep pools over a diverse set of runs, including several effective manual runs. Its judgment budget, and hence construction cost, was relatively large. However, it does appear that the expense was well-spent: even with the advent of neural techniques, the collection has stood the test of time and remains a reliable evaluation instrument as retrieval techniques have advanced.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2021

TREC Deep Learning Track: Reusable Test Collections in the Large Data Regime

The TREC Deep Learning (DL) Track studies ad hoc search in the large data regime, meaning that a large set of human-labeled training data is available. Results so far indicate that the best models with large data may be deep neural networks. This paper supports the reuse of the TREC DL test collections in three ways. First we describe the data sets in detail, documenting clearly and in one place some details that are otherwise scattered in track guidelines, overview papers and in our associated MS MARCO leaderboard pages. We intend this description to make it easy for newcomers to use the TREC DL data. Second, because there is some risk of iteration and selection bias when reusing a data set, we describe the best practices for writing a paper using TREC DL data, without overfitting. We provide some illustrative analysis. Finally we address a number of issues around the TREC DL data, including an analysis of reusability.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2020

Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning track

The Deep Learning Track is a new track for TREC 2019, with the goal of studying ad hoc ranking in a large data regime. It is the first track with large human-labeled training sets, introducing two sets corresponding to two tasks, each with rigorous TREC-style blind evaluation and reusable test sets. The document retrieval task has a corpus of 3.2 million documents with 367 thousand training queries, for which we generate a reusable test set of 43 queries. The passage retrieval task has a corpus of 8.8 million passages with 503 thousand training queries, for which we generate a reusable test set of 43 queries. This year 15 groups submitted a total of 75 runs, using various combinations of deep learning, transfer learning and traditional IR ranking methods. Deep learning runs significantly outperformed traditional IR runs. Possible explanations for this result are that we introduced large training data and we included deep models trained on such data in our judging pools, whereas some past studies did not have such training data or pooling.

cs.IR↗