Towards Fine-Grained Citation Evaluation in Generated Text: A Comparative Analysis of Faithfulness Metrics

Large language models (LLMs) often produce unsupported or unverifiable information, known as "hallucinations." To mitigate this, retrieval-augmented LLMs incorporate citations, grounding the content in verifiable sources. Despite such developments, manually assessing how well a citation supports the associated statement remains a major challenge. Previous studies use faithfulness metrics to estimate citation support automatically but are limited to binary classification, overlooking fine-grained citation support in practical scenarios. To investigate the effectiveness of faithfulness metrics in fine-grained scenarios, we propose a comparative evaluation framework that assesses the metric effectiveness in distinguishinging citations between three-category support levels: full, partial, and no support. Our framework employs correlation analysis, classification evaluation, and retrieval evaluation to measure the alignment between metric scores and human judgments comprehensively. Our results show no single metric consistently excels across all evaluations, revealing the complexity of assessing fine-grained support. Based on the findings, we provide practical recommendations for developing more effective metrics.

Can We Use Large Language Models to Fill Relevance Judgment Holes?

Incomplete relevance judgments limit the re-usability of test collections. When new systems are compared against previous systems used to build the pool of judged documents, they often do so at a disadvantage due to the ``holes'' in test collection (i.e., pockets of un-assessed documents returned by the new system). In this paper, we take initial steps towards extending existing test collections by employing Large Language Models (LLM) to fill the holes by leveraging and grounding the method using existing human judgments. We explore this problem in the context of Conversational Search using TREC iKAT, where information needs are highly dynamic and the responses (and, the results retrieved) are much more varied (leaving bigger holes). While previous work has shown that automatic judgments from LLMs result in highly correlated rankings, we find substantially lower correlates when human plus automatic judgments are used (regardless of LLM, one/two/few shot, or fine-tuned). We further find that, depending on the LLM employed, new runs will be highly favored (or penalized), and this effect is magnified proportionally to the size of the holes. Instead, one should generate the LLM annotations on the whole document pool to achieve more consistent rankings with human-generated labels. Future work is required to prompt engineering and fine-tuning LLMs to reflect and represent the human annotations, in order to ground and align the models, such that they are more fit for purpose.

TREC iKAT 2023: A Test Collection for Evaluating Conversational and Interactive Knowledge Assistants

Conversational information seeking has evolved rapidly in the last few years with the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), providing the basis for interpreting and responding in a naturalistic manner to user requests. The extended TREC Interactive Knowledge Assistance Track (iKAT) collection aims to enable researchers to test and evaluate their Conversational Search Agents (CSA). The collection contains a set of 36 personalized dialogues over 20 different topics each coupled with a Personal Text Knowledge Base (PTKB) that defines the bespoke user personas. A total of 344 turns with approximately 26,000 passages are provided as assessments on relevance, as well as additional assessments on generated responses over four key dimensions: relevance, completeness, groundedness, and naturalness. The collection challenges CSA to efficiently navigate diverse personal contexts, elicit pertinent persona information, and employ context for relevant conversations. The integration of a PTKB and the emphasis on decisional search tasks contribute to the uniqueness of this test collection, making it an essential benchmark for advancing research in conversational and interactive knowledge assistants.

Are We Really Achieving Better Beyond-Accuracy Performance in Next Basket Recommendation?

Next basket recommendation (NBR) is a special type of sequential recommendation that is increasingly receiving attention. So far, most NBR studies have focused on optimizing the accuracy of the recommendation, whereas optimizing for beyond-accuracy metrics, e.g., item fairness and diversity remains largely unexplored. Recent studies into NBR have found a substantial performance difference between recommending repeat items and explore items. Repeat items contribute most of the users' perceived accuracy compared with explore items. Informed by these findings, we identify a potential "short-cut" to optimize for beyond-accuracy metrics while maintaining high accuracy. To leverage and verify the existence of such short-cuts, we propose a plug-and-play two-step repetition-exploration (TREx) framework that treats repeat items and explores items separately, where we design a simple yet highly effective repetition module to ensure high accuracy, while two exploration modules target optimizing only beyond-accuracy metrics. Experiments are performed on two widely-used datasets w.r.t. a range of beyond-accuracy metrics, viz. five fairness metrics and three diversity metrics. Our experimental results verify the effectiveness of TREx. Prima facie, this appears to be good news: we can achieve high accuracy and improved beyond-accuracy metrics at the same time. However, we argue that the real-world value of our algorithmic solution, TREx, is likely to be limited and reflect on the reasonableness of the evaluation setup. We end up challenging existing evaluation paradigms, particularly in the context of beyond-accuracy metrics, and provide insights for researchers to navigate potential pitfalls and determine reasonable metrics to consider when optimizing for accuracy and beyond-accuracy metrics.

Ranked List Truncation for Large Language Model-based Re-Ranking

We study ranked list truncation (RLT) from a novel "retrieve-then-re-rank" perspective, where we optimize re-ranking by truncating the retrieved list (i.e., trim re-ranking candidates). RLT is crucial for re-ranking as it can improve re-ranking efficiency by sending variable-length candidate lists to a re-ranker on a per-query basis. It also has the potential to improve re-ranking effectiveness. Despite its importance, there is limited research into applying RLT methods to this new perspective. To address this research gap, we reproduce existing RLT methods in the context of re-ranking, especially newly emerged large language model (LLM)-based re-ranking. In particular, we examine to what extent established findings on RLT for retrieval are generalizable to the "retrieve-then-re-rank" setup from three perspectives: (i) assessing RLT methods in the context of LLM-based re-ranking with lexical first-stage retrieval, (ii) investigating the impact of different types of first-stage retrievers on RLT methods, and (iii) investigating the impact of different types of re-rankers on RLT methods. We perform experiments on the TREC 2019 and 2020 deep learning tracks, investigating 8 RLT methods for pipelines involving 3 retrievers and 2 re-rankers. We reach new insights into RLT methods in the context of re-ranking.

Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs

In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. In a conversational setting such signals are usually unavailable due to the nature of the interactions, and, instead, the evaluation often relies on crowdsourced evaluation labels. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems (TDSs), is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated. We explore and compare two methodologies for assessing TDSs: one includes the user's follow-up utterance and one without. We use both crowdworkers and large language models (LLMs) as annotators to assess system responses across four aspects: relevance, usefulness, interestingness, and explanation quality. Our findings indicate that there is a distinct difference in ratings assigned by both annotator groups in the two setups, indicating user feedback does influence system evaluation. Workers are more susceptible to user feedback on usefulness and interestingness compared to LLMs on interestingness and relevance. User feedback leads to a more personalized assessment of usefulness by workers, aligning closely with the user's explicit feedback. Additionally, in cases of ambiguous or complex user requests, user feedback improves agreement among crowdworkers. These findings emphasize the significance of user feedback in refining system evaluations and suggest the potential for automated feedback integration in future research. We publicly release the annotated data to foster research in this area.

Context Does Matter: Implications for Crowdsourced Evaluation Labels in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems

Crowdsourced labels play a crucial role in evaluating task-oriented dialogue systems (TDSs). Obtaining high-quality and consistent ground-truth labels from annotators presents challenges. When evaluating a TDS, annotators must fully comprehend the dialogue before providing judgments. Previous studies suggest using only a portion of the dialogue context in the annotation process. However, the impact of this limitation on label quality remains unexplored. This study investigates the influence of dialogue context on annotation quality, considering the truncated context for relevance and usefulness labeling. We further propose to use large language models (LLMs) to summarize the dialogue context to provide a rich and short description of the dialogue context and study the impact of doing so on the annotator's performance. Reducing context leads to more positive ratings. Conversely, providing the entire dialogue context yields higher-quality relevance ratings but introduces ambiguity in usefulness ratings. Using the first user utterance as context leads to consistent ratings, akin to those obtained using the entire dialogue, with significantly reduced annotation effort. Our findings show how task design, particularly the availability of dialogue context, affects the quality and consistency of crowdsourced evaluation labels.

Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models

Query performance prediction (QPP) aims to estimate the retrieval quality of a search system for a query without human relevance judgments. Previous QPP methods typically return a single scalar value and do not require the predicted values to approximate a specific information retrieval (IR) evaluation measure, leading to certain drawbacks: (i) a single scalar is insufficient to accurately represent different IR evaluation measures, especially when metrics do not highly correlate, and (ii) a single scalar limits the interpretability of QPP methods because solely using a scalar is insufficient to explain QPP results. To address these issues, we propose a QPP framework using automatically generated relevance judgments (QPP-GenRE), which decomposes QPP into independent subtasks of judging the relevance of each item in a ranked list to a given query. This allows us to predict any IR evaluation measure using the generated relevance judgments as pseudo-labels; Also, this allows us to interpret predicted IR evaluation measures, and identify, track and rectify errors in generated relevance judgments to improve QPP quality. We judge relevance by leveraging a leading open-source large language model (LLM), LLaMA, to ensure scientific reproducibility. In doing so, we address two main challenges: (i) excessive computational costs of judging the entire corpus for predicting a recall-based metric, and (ii) poor performance in prompting LLaMA in a zero-/few-shot manner. We devise an approximation strategy to predict a recall-oriented IR measure and propose to fine-tune LLaMA using human-labeled relevance judgments. Experiments on the TREC 2019-2022 deep learning tracks show that QPP-GenRE achieves state-of-the-art QPP accuracy for both lexical and neural rankers in both precision- and recall-oriented metrics.

Generate then Retrieve: Conversational Response Retrieval Using LLMs as Answer and Query Generators

CIS is a prominent area in IR that focuses on developing interactive knowledge assistants. These systems must adeptly comprehend the user's information requirements within the conversational context and retrieve the relevant information. To this aim, the existing approaches model the user's information needs with one query called rewritten query and use this query for passage retrieval. In this paper, we propose three different methods for generating multiple queries to enhance the retrieval. In these methods, we leverage the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in understanding the user's information need and generating an appropriate response, to generate multiple queries. We implement and evaluate the proposed models utilizing various LLMs including GPT-4 and Llama-2 chat in zero-shot and few-shot settings. In addition, we propose a new benchmark for TREC iKAT based on gpt 3.5 judgments. Our experiments reveal the effectiveness of our proposed models on the TREC iKAT dataset.

CAUSE: Counterfactual Assessment of User Satisfaction Estimation in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systems

An important unexplored aspect in previous work on user satisfaction estimation for Task-Oriented Dialogue (TOD) systems is their evaluation in terms of robustness for the identification of user dissatisfaction: current benchmarks for user satisfaction estimation in TOD systems are highly skewed towards dialogues for which the user is satisfied. The effect of having a more balanced set of satisfaction labels on performance is unknown. However, balancing the data with more dissatisfactory dialogue samples requires further data collection and human annotation, which is costly and time-consuming. In this work, we leverage large language models (LLMs) and unlock their ability to generate satisfaction-aware counterfactual dialogues to augment the set of original dialogues of a test collection. We gather human annotations to ensure the reliability of the generated samples. We evaluate two open-source LLMs as user satisfaction estimators on our augmented collection against state-of-the-art fine-tuned models. Our experiments show that when used as few-shot user satisfaction estimators, open-source LLMs show higher robustness to the increase in the number of dissatisfaction labels in the test collection than the fine-tuned state-of-the-art models. Our results shed light on the need for data augmentation approaches for user satisfaction estimation in TOD systems. We release our aligned counterfactual dialogues, which are curated by human annotation, to facilitate further research on this topic.