The application of large language models to provide relevance assessments presents exciting opportunities to advance information retrieval, natural language processing, and beyond, but to date many unknowns remain. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed in situ: the "standard" fully manual process that NIST has implemented for decades and three different alternatives that take advantage of LLMs to different extents using the open-source UMBRELA tool. This setup allows us to correlate system rankings induced by the different approaches to characterize tradeoffs between cost and quality. We find that in terms of nDCG@20, nDCG@100, and Recall@100, system rankings induced by automatically generated relevance assessments from UMBRELA correlate highly with those induced by fully manual assessments across a diverse set of 77 runs from 19 teams. Our results suggest that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits. Overall, human assessors appear to be stricter than UMBRELA in applying relevance criteria. Our work validates the use of LLMs in academic TREC-style evaluations and provides the foundation for future studies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled new ways to satisfy information needs. Although great strides have been made in applying them to settings like document ranking and short-form text generation, they still struggle to compose complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. Reports with these qualities are necessary to satisfy the complex, nuanced, or multi-faceted information needs of users. In this perspective paper, we draw together opinions from industry and academia, and from a variety of related research areas, to present our vision for automatic report generation, and -- critically -- a flexible framework by which such reports can be evaluated. In contrast with other summarization tasks, automatic report generation starts with a detailed description of an information need, stating the necessary background, requirements, and scope of the report. Further, the generated reports should be complete, accurate, and verifiable. These qualities, which are desirable -- if not required -- in many analytic report-writing settings, require rethinking how to build and evaluate systems that exhibit these qualities. To foster new efforts in building these systems, we present an evaluation framework that draws on ideas found in various evaluations. To test completeness and accuracy, the framework uses nuggets of information, expressed as questions and answers, that need to be part of any high-quality generated report. Additionally, evaluation of citations that map claims made in the report to their source documents ensures verifiability.

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.