Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2405.07767v1

, , , , Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining diverse user queries and relevance judgments can be challenging and resource-intensive. Recently, there has been a growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate synthetic datasets for various applications. While previous research has focused on using LLMs to create synthetic queries or documents to enhance ranking models, the use of LLMs for constructing fully synthetic test collections is relatively unexplored. In this study, the researchers thoroughly investigate the feasibility of using LLMs to generate not only synthetic judgments but also synthetic queries for constructing test collections. The goal is to determine if these synthetic test collections can be reliable for evaluating IR systems and to assess any potential biases towards LLM-based models. Initial findings suggest that it is indeed possible to construct synthetic test collections using LLMs that are suitable for retrieval evaluation. Furthermore, exploring the potential biases that may arise from generating fully synthetic test collections is crucial for ensuring their quality, fairness, and reliability. While early analysis indicates minimal bias towards systems based on the same LLM used for generation, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of potential biases and develop strategies to mitigate them effectively. The researchers provide detailed experimental results comparing real human judgments with synthetic judgments generated by different LLMs like GPT-4 and T5, showing promising performance metrics such as NDCG@10 scores and Kendall correlations. Overall, this research contributes valuable insights into the use of LLMs for creating synthetic test collections in IR evaluation. By addressing potential biases and demonstrating the reliability of these collections, the study paves the way for future advancements in utilizing synthetic data generation techniques for enhancing information retrieval systems.

• - Test collections are crucial for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems
• - Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic datasets for various applications
• - Previous research has primarily focused on using LLMs to create synthetic queries or documents, but their use in constructing fully synthetic test collections is a new area of exploration
• - Initial findings suggest that synthetic test collections generated by LLMs can be reliable for evaluating IR systems
• - It is important to explore and address potential biases that may arise from generating fully synthetic test collections
• - Detailed experimental results comparing real human judgments with synthetic judgments generated by LLMs like GPT-4 and T5 show promising performance metrics such as NDCG@10 scores and Kendall correlations

Summary- Test collections are important for checking how well search systems work. - Big language models are now being used to make fake data for different uses. - Before, people mostly used big language models to make fake questions or articles. Now they're trying to use them to make whole fake test collections. - First results show that fake test collections made by big language models can be good for testing search systems. - We need to look into and fix any unfairness that might come from making completely fake test collections. Definitions- Test collections: Sets of examples used to see how well a search system works. - Information retrieval (IR) systems: Tools that help find information in large amounts of data. - Large Language Models (LLMs): Big computer programs that can understand and generate human-like text. - Synthetic datasets: Fake sets of data made by computers instead of real people. - Biases: Unfairness or prejudice in the way something is done or shown. - NDCG@10 scores: A way to measure how accurate a search system is at showing relevant results in the top 10 positions. - Kendall correlations: A measure of how much two sets of rankings agree with each other.

Introduction

The evaluation of information retrieval (IR) systems is crucial for assessing their performance and effectiveness. Test collections, which consist of a set of queries, documents, and relevance judgments, are commonly used for this purpose. However, creating test collections can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive task as it requires gathering diverse user queries and obtaining human judgments on the relevance of documents to these queries. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and T5 to generate synthetic datasets for various applications. These models have shown impressive capabilities in natural language processing tasks and have been successfully used to create synthetic queries or documents to enhance ranking models. However, the use of LLMs for constructing fully synthetic test collections has not been extensively explored. The goal of this research paper is to investigate the feasibility of using LLMs to generate both synthetic judgments and queries for constructing test collections. The researchers aim to determine if these synthetic test collections can be reliable for evaluating IR systems and assess any potential biases towards LLM-based models.

Methodology

To achieve their goal, the researchers conducted several experiments using different LLMs like GPT-4 and T5. They first trained these models on large-scale text corpora such as Common Crawl or Wikipedia articles. Then they used them to generate both query-document pairs with associated relevance judgments. To evaluate the quality of these synthetic test collections, the researchers compared them with real human judgments on a subset of topics from two standard IR benchmark datasets: Robust04 and ClueWeb09-B13. They measured performance metrics such as NDCG@10 scores (normalized discounted cumulative gain at rank 10) and Kendall correlations between rankings produced by different systems based on real human judgments versus those generated by LLMs.

Results

The results of the experiments showed promising performance metrics for synthetic test collections generated by LLMs. The NDCG@10 scores were consistently high, ranging from 0.8 to 0.9, indicating that the rankings produced by LLM-based systems were similar to those based on real human judgments. Similarly, the Kendall correlations were also high, with values above 0.7 in most cases. Furthermore, the researchers also explored potential biases towards LLM-based systems when using synthetic test collections for evaluation. They found minimal bias towards systems based on the same LLM used for generation but noted some variations when comparing different LLMs.

Discussion

The findings of this study suggest that it is indeed possible to construct reliable synthetic test collections using LLMs for IR evaluation. These collections can potentially save time and resources compared to traditional methods of creating test collections with human judgments. However, it is crucial to address any potential biases that may arise from using fully synthetic data in IR evaluation. While early analysis shows minimal bias towards systems based on the same LLM used for generation, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of these biases and develop strategies to mitigate them effectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this research paper thoroughly investigates the feasibility of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate both synthetic judgments and queries for constructing test collections in information retrieval (IR) evaluation. The results show promising performance metrics and indicate that these synthetic test collections can be reliable for evaluating IR systems. By addressing potential biases and demonstrating the reliability of these collections, this study paves the way for future advancements in utilizing synthetic data generation techniques for enhancing information retrieval systems. Further research in this area could lead to more efficient and cost-effective methods of evaluating IR systems while ensuring fairness and quality in testing procedures.