arXiv subjects

Oleg Zendel

Publications and source records attributed to Oleg Zendel.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Effect of Multi-Lingual and Keyword Adversarial Injection on LLM Relevance Judgment

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used as automated judges for relevance evaluation in information retrieval, yet their robustness to adversarial manipulation remains insufficiently understood, particularly in multilingual settings. In this work, we investigate the impact of cross-lingual prompt injection attacks on LLM-based relevance judgments using TREC Deep Learning collections and two open-weight models under established prompting frameworks. We examine both instruction-based and content-based injection strategies in 8 languages spanning different resource levels. Our results demonstrate that multilingual query-based injections are highly effective in inflating relevance scores while simultaneously evading existing prompt-injection defenses. We further found that, although existing defense mechanisms can be modified to mitigate such attacks, these injections can be easily adapted to bypass them. These findings highlight a critical gap in current defense approaches and demonstrate that language generalization can act as an attack vector, underscoring the need for more robust and proactive evaluation frameworks for LLM-as-a-judge systems.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

RMIT-ADM+S at the MMU-RAG NeurIPS 2025 Competition

This paper presents the award-winning RMIT-ADM+S system for the Text-to-Text track of the NeurIPS~2025 MMU-RAG Competition. We introduce Routing-to-RAG (R2RAG), a research-focused retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture composed of lightweight components that dynamically adapt the retrieval strategy based on inferred query complexity and evidence sufficiency. The system uses smaller LLMs, enabling operation on a single consumer-grade GPU while supporting complex research tasks. It builds on the G-RAG system, winner of the ACM~SIGIR~2025 LiveRAG Challenge, and extends it with modules informed by qualitative review of outputs. R2RAG won the Best Dynamic Evaluation award in the Open Source category, demonstrating high effectiveness with careful design and efficient use of resources.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

RMIT-ADM+S at the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge

This paper presents the RMIT--ADM+S winning system in the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge. Our Generation-Retrieval-Augmented Generation (G-RAG) approach generates a hypothetical answer that is used during the retrieval phase, alongside the original question. G-RAG also incorporates a pointwise large language model (LLM)-based re-ranking step prior to final answer generation. We describe the system architecture and the rationale behind our design choices. In particular, a systematic evaluation using the Grid of Points approach and N-way ANOVA enabled a controlled comparison of multiple configurations, including query variant generation, question decomposition, rank fusion strategies, and prompting techniques for answer generation. The submitted system achieved the highest Borda score based on the aggregation of Coverage, Relatedness, and Quality scores from manual evaluations, ranking first in the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

LLM-Evaluation Tropes: Perspectives on the Validity of LLM-Evaluations

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate information retrieval (IR) systems, generating relevance judgments traditionally made by human assessors. Recent empirical studies suggest that LLM-based evaluations often align with human judgments, leading some to suggest that human judges may no longer be necessary, while others highlight concerns about judgment reliability, validity, and long-term impact. As IR systems begin incorporating LLM-generated signals, evaluation outcomes risk becoming self-reinforcing, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. This paper examines scenarios where LLM-evaluators may falsely indicate success, particularly when LLM-based judgments influence both system development and evaluation. We highlight key risks, including bias reinforcement, reproducibility challenges, and inconsistencies in assessment methodologies. To address these concerns, we propose tests to quantify adverse effects, guardrails, and a collaborative framework for constructing reusable test collections that integrate LLM judgments responsibly. By providing perspectives from academia and industry, this work aims to establish best practices for the principled use of LLMs in IR evaluation.

cs.IR↗