Relevance judgments are central to the evaluation of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining them from human annotators is costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as automated assessors, showing promising alignment with human annotations. Most prior studies have treated documents as fixed units, feeding their full content directly to LLM assessors. We investigate how text summarization affects the reliability of LLM-based judgments and their downstream impact on IR evaluation. Using state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple TREC collections, we compare judgments made from full documents with those based on LLM-generated summaries of different lengths. We examine their agreement with human labels, their effect on retrieval effectiveness evaluation, and their influence on IR systems' ranking stability. Our findings show that summary-based judgments achieve comparable stability in systems' ranking to full-document judgments, while introducing systematic shifts in label distributions and biases that vary by model and dataset. These results highlight summarization as both an opportunity for more efficient large-scale IR evaluation and a methodological choice with important implications for the reliability of automatic judgments.

Recent research has explored LLMs as scalable tools for relevance labeling, but studies indicate they are susceptible to priming effects, where prior relevance judgments influence later ones. Although psychological theories link personality traits to such biases, it is unclear whether simulated personalities in LLMs exhibit similar effects. We investigate how Big Five personality profiles in LLMs influence priming in relevance labeling, using multiple LLMs on TREC 2021 and 2022 Deep Learning Track datasets. Our results show that certain profiles, such as High Openness and Low Neuroticism, consistently reduce priming susceptibility. Additionally, the most effective personality in mitigating priming may vary across models and task types. Based on these findings, we propose personality prompting as a method to mitigate threshold priming, connecting psychological evidence with LLM-based evaluation practices.

Conversational search aims to satisfy users' complex information needs via multiple-turn interactions. The key challenge lies in revealing real users' search intent from the context-dependent queries. Previous studies achieve conversational search by fine-tuning a conversational dense retriever with relevance judgments between pairs of context-dependent queries and documents. However, this training paradigm encounters data scarcity issues. To this end, we propose ConvMix, a mixed-criteria framework to augment conversational dense retrieval, which covers more aspects than existing data augmentation frameworks. We design a two-sided relevance judgment augmentation schema in a scalable manner via the aid of large language models. Besides, we integrate the framework with quality control mechanisms to obtain semantically diverse samples and near-distribution supervisions to combine various annotated data. Experimental results on five widely used benchmarks show that the conversational dense retriever trained by our ConvMix framework outperforms previous baseline methods, which demonstrates our superior effectiveness.

Test collections are crucial for evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems. Creating a diverse set of user queries for these collections can be challenging, and obtaining relevance judgments, which indicate how well retrieved documents match a query, is often costly and resource-intensive. Recently, generating synthetic datasets using Large Language Models (LLMs) has gained attention in various applications. While previous work has used LLMs to generate synthetic queries or documents to improve ranking models, using LLMs to create synthetic test collections is still relatively unexplored. Previous work~\cite{rahmani2024synthetic} showed that synthetic test collections have the potential to be used for system evaluation, however, more analysis is needed to validate this claim. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate the reliability of synthetic test collections constructed using LLMs, where LLMs are used to generate synthetic queries, labels, or both. In particular, we examine the potential biases that might occur when such test collections are used for evaluation. We first empirically show the presence of such bias in evaluation results and analyse the effects it might have on system evaluation. We further validate the presence of such bias using a linear mixed-effects model. Our analysis shows that while the effect of bias present in evaluation results obtained using synthetic test collections could be significant, for e.g.~computing absolute system performance, its effect may not be as significant in comparing relative system performance. Codes and data are available at: https://github.com/rahmanidashti/BiasSyntheticData.

In Conversational Recommendation Systems (CRS), a user provides feedback on recommended items at each turn, leading the CRS towards improved recommendations. Due to the need for a large amount of data, a user simulator is employed for both training and evaluation. Such user simulators critique the current retrieved item based on knowledge of a single target item. However, system evaluation in offline settings with simulators is limited by the focus on a single target item and their unlimited patience over a large number of turns. To overcome these limitations of existing simulators, we propose Fashion-AlterEval, a new dataset that contains human judgments for a selection of alternative items by adding new annotations in common fashion CRS datasets. Consequently, we propose two novel meta-user simulators that use the collected judgments and allow simulated users not only to express their preferences about alternative items to their original target, but also to change their mind and level of patience. In our experiments using the Shoes and Fashion IQ as the original datasets and three CRS models, we find that using the knowledge of alternatives by the simulator can have a considerable impact on the evaluation of existing CRS models, specifically that the existing single-target evaluation underestimates their effectiveness, and when simulatedusers are allowed to instead consider alternative relevant items, the system can rapidly respond to more quickly satisfy the user.

Topic model and document-clustering evaluations either use automated metrics that align poorly with human preferences or require expert labels that are intractable to scale. We design a scalable human evaluation protocol and a corresponding automated approximation that reflect practitioners' real-world usage of models. Annotators -- or an LLM-based proxy -- review text items assigned to a topic or cluster, infer a category for the group, then apply that category to other documents. Using this protocol, we collect extensive crowdworker annotations of outputs from a diverse set of topic models on two datasets. We then use these annotations to validate automated proxies, finding that the best LLM proxies are statistically indistinguishable from a human annotator and can therefore serve as a reasonable substitute in automated evaluations. Package, web interface, and data are at https://github.com/ahoho/proxann

Evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems relies on high-quality manual relevance judgments (qrels), which are costly and time-consuming to obtain. While pooling reduces the annotation effort, it results in only partially labeled datasets. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative to reducing reliance on manual judgments, particularly in complex domains like medical case-based retrieval, where relevance assessment requires analyzing both textual and visual information. In this work, we explore using a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) to expand relevance judgments, creating a new dataset of automated judgments. Specifically, we employ Gemini 1.5 Pro on the ImageCLEFmed 2013 case-based retrieval task, simulating human assessment through an iteratively refined, structured prompting strategy that integrates binary scoring, instruction-based evaluation, and few-shot learning. We systematically experimented with various prompt configurations to maximize agreement with human judgments. To evaluate agreement between the MLLM and human judgments, we use Cohen's Kappa, achieving a substantial agreement score of 0.6, comparable to inter-annotator agreement typically observed in multimodal retrieval tasks. Starting from the original 15,028 manual judgments (4.72% relevant) across 35 topics, our MLLM-based approach expanded the dataset by over 37x to 558,653 judgments, increasing relevant annotations to 5,950. On average, each medical case query received 15,398 new annotations, with approximately 99% being non-relevant, reflecting the high sparsity typical in this domain. Our results demonstrate the potential of MLLMs to scale relevance judgment collection, offering a promising direction for supporting retrieval evaluation in medical and multimodal IR tasks.

We present REARANK, a large language model (LLM)-based listwise reasoning reranking agent. REARANK explicitly reasons before reranking, significantly improving both performance and interpretability. Leveraging reinforcement learning and data augmentation, REARANK achieves substantial improvements over baseline models across popular information retrieval benchmarks, notably requiring only 179 annotated samples. Built on top of Qwen2.5-7B, our REARANK-7B demonstrates performance comparable to GPT-4 on both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks and even surpasses GPT-4 on reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmarks. These results underscore the effectiveness of our approach and highlight how reinforcement learning can enhance LLM reasoning capabilities in reranking.