arXiv subjects

Charles L. A. Clarke

Publications and source records attributed to Charles L. A. Clarke.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2025

Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain

Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems provide a method for factually grounding the responses of a Large Language Model (LLM) by providing retrieved evidence, or context, as support. Guided by this context, RAG systems can reduce hallucinations and expand the ability of LLMs to accurately answer questions outside the scope of their training data. Unfortunately, this design introduces a critical vulnerability: LLMs may absorb and reproduce misinformation present in retrieved evidence. This problem is magnified if retrieved evidence contains adversarial material explicitly intended to promulgate misinformation. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of RAG robustness in the health domain and examines alignment between model outputs and ground-truth answers. We focus on the health domain due to the potential for harm caused by incorrect responses, as well as the availability of evidence-based ground truth for many common health-related questions. We conduct controlled experiments using common health questions, varying both the type and composition of the retrieved documents (helpful, harmful, and adversarial) as well as the framing of the question by the user (consistent, neutral, and inconsistent). Our findings reveal that adversarial documents substantially degrade alignment, but robustness can be preserved when helpful evidence is also present in the retrieval pool. These findings offer actionable insights for designing safer RAG systems in high-stakes domains by highlighting the need for retrieval safeguards. To enable reproducibility and facilitate future research, all experimental results are publicly available in our github repository. https://github.com/shakibaam/RAG_ROBUSTNESS_EVAL

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Adversarial Attacks against Neural Ranking Models via In-Context Learning

While neural ranking models (NRMs) have shown high effectiveness, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation. In this work, we introduce Few-Shot Adversarial Prompting (FSAP), a novel black-box attack framework that leverages the in-context learning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate high-ranking adversarial documents. Unlike previous approaches that rely on token-level perturbations or manual rewriting of existing documents, FSAP formulates adversarial attacks entirely through few-shot prompting, requiring no gradient access or internal model instrumentation. By conditioning the LLM on a small support set of previously observed harmful examples, FSAP synthesizes grammatically fluent and topically coherent documents that subtly embed false or misleading information and rank competitively against authentic content. We instantiate FSAP in two modes: FSAP-IntraQ, which leverages harmful examples from the same query to enhance topic fidelity, and FSAP-InterQ, which enables broader generalization by transferring adversarial patterns across unrelated queries. Our experiments on the TREC 2020 and 2021 Health Misinformation Tracks, using four diverse neural ranking models, reveal that FSAP-generated documents consistently outrank credible, factually accurate documents. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that these adversarial outputs exhibit strong stance alignment and low detectability, posing a realistic and scalable threat to neural retrieval systems. FSAP also effectively generalizes across both proprietary and open-source LLMs.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the ability to fairly resolve judicial issues is a prerequisite to ensure their trustworthiness. Based on theories of judicial fairness, we construct a comprehensive framework to measure LLM fairness, leading to a selection of 65 labels and 161 corresponding values. Applying this framework to the judicial system, we compile an extensive dataset, JudiFair, comprising 177,100 unique case facts. To achieve robust statistical inference, we develop three evaluation metrics, inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy, and introduce a method to assess the overall fairness of multiple LLMs across various labels. Through experiments with 16 LLMs, we uncover pervasive inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy across models, underscoring severe LLM judicial unfairness. Particularly, LLMs display notably more pronounced biases on demographic labels, with slightly less bias on substance labels compared to procedure ones. Interestingly, increased inconsistency correlates with reduced biases, but more accurate predictions exacerbate biases. While we find that adjusting the temperature parameter can influence LLM fairness, model size, release date, and country of origin do not exhibit significant effects on judicial fairness. Accordingly, we introduce a publicly available toolkit containing all datasets and code, designed to support future research in evaluating and improving LLM fairness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Annotative Indexing

This paper introduces annotative indexing, a novel framework that unifies and generalizes traditional inverted indexes, column stores, object stores, and graph databases. As a result, annotative indexing can provide the underlying indexing framework for databases that support retrieval augmented generation, knowledge graphs, entity retrieval, semi-structured data, and ranked retrieval. While we primarily focus on human language data in the form of text, annotative indexing is sufficiently general to support a range of other datatypes, and we provide examples of SQL-like queries over a JSON store that includes numbers and dates. Taking advantage of the flexibility of annotative indexing, we also demonstrate a fully dynamic annotative index incorporating support for ACID properties of transactions with hundreds of multiple concurrent readers and writers.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking LLM-based Relevance Judgment Methods

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in both academic and industry settings to automate the evaluation of information seeking systems, particularly by generating graded relevance judgments. Previous work on LLM-based relevance assessment has primarily focused on replicating graded human relevance judgments through various prompting strategies. However, there has been limited exploration of alternative assessment methods or comprehensive comparative studies. In this paper, we systematically compare multiple LLM-based relevance assessment methods, including binary relevance judgments, graded relevance assessments, pairwise preference-based methods, and two nugget-based evaluation methods~--~document-agnostic and document-dependent. In addition to a traditional comparison based on system rankings using Kendall correlations, we also examine how well LLM judgments align with human preferences, as inferred from relevance grades. We conduct extensive experiments on datasets from three TREC Deep Learning tracks 2019, 2020 and 2021 as well as the ANTIQUE dataset, which focuses on non-factoid open-domain question answering. As part of our data release, we include relevance judgments generated by both an open-source (Llama3.2b) and a commercial (gpt-4o) model. Our goal is to \textit{reproduce} various LLM-based relevance judgment methods to provide a comprehensive comparison. All code, data, and resources are publicly available in our GitHub Repository at https://github.com/Narabzad/llm-relevance-judgement-comparison.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

J&H: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models Under Knowledge-Injection Attacks in Legal Domain

As the scale and capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) increase, their applications in knowledge-intensive fields such as legal domain have garnered widespread attention. However, it remains doubtful whether these LLMs make judgments based on domain knowledge for reasoning. If LLMs base their judgments solely on specific words or patterns, rather than on the underlying logic of the language, the ''LLM-as-judges'' paradigm poses substantial risks in the real-world applications. To address this question, we propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing, thereby inferring whether LLMs have learned legal knowledge and reasoning logic. In this paper, we propose J&H: an evaluation framework for detecting the robustness of LLMs under knowledge injection attacks in the legal domain. The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks. To further this aim, we have attacked each part of the reasoning logic underlying these tasks (major premise, minor premise, and conclusion generation). We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world, such as typos, legal synonyms, inaccurate external legal statutes retrieval. However, in real legal practice, legal experts tend to overlook these mistakes and make judgments based on logic. However, when faced with these errors, LLMs are likely to be misled by typographical errors and may not utilize logic in their judgments. We conducted knowledge injection attacks on existing general and domain-specific LLMs. Current LLMs are not robust against the attacks employed in our experiments. In addition we propose and compare several methods to enhance the knowledge robustness of LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

EMPRA: Embedding Perturbation Rank Attack against Neural Ranking Models

Recent research has shown that neural information retrieval techniques may be susceptible to adversarial attacks. Adversarial attacks seek to manipulate the ranking of documents, with the intention of exposing users to targeted content. In this paper, we introduce the Embedding Perturbation Rank Attack (EMPRA) method, a novel approach designed to perform adversarial attacks on black-box Neural Ranking Models (NRMs). EMPRA manipulates sentence-level embeddings, guiding them towards pertinent context related to the query while preserving semantic integrity. This process generates adversarial texts that seamlessly integrate with the original content and remain imperceptible to humans. Our extensive evaluation conducted on the widely-used MS MARCO V1 passage collection demonstrate the effectiveness of EMPRA against a wide range of state-of-the-art baselines in promoting a specific set of target documents within a given ranked results. Specifically, EMPRA successfully achieves a re-ranking of almost 96% of target documents originally ranked between 51-100 to rank within the top 10. Furthermore, EMPRA does not depend on surrogate models for adversarial text generation, enhancing its robustness against different NRMs in realistic settings.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Judging the Judges: A Collection of LLM-Generated Relevance Judgements

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR experimenters to build evaluation collections with a fraction of the manual human labor currently required. This could help with fresh topics on which there is still limited knowledge and could mitigate the challenges of evaluating ranking systems in low-resource scenarios, where it is challenging to find human annotators. Given the fast-paced recent developments in the domain, many questions concerning LLMs as assessors are yet to be answered. Among the aspects that require further investigation, we can list the impact of various components in a relevance judgment generation pipeline, such as the prompt used or the LLM chosen. This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024, where different relevance assessment approaches were proposed. In detail, we release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams who participated in the challenge. Given their diverse nature, these automatically generated relevance judgments can help the community not only investigate systematic biases caused by LLMs but also explore the effectiveness of ensemble models, analyze the trade-offs between different models and human assessors, and advance methodologies for improving automated evaluation techniques. The released resource is available at the following link: https://llm4eval.github.io/LLMJudge-benchmark/

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

Generative Information Retrieval Evaluation

In this chapter, we consider generative information retrieval evaluation from two distinct but interrelated perspectives. First, large language models (LLMs) themselves are rapidly becoming tools for evaluation, with current research indicating that LLMs may be superior to crowdsource workers and other paid assessors on basic relevance judgement tasks. We review past and ongoing related research, including speculation on the future of shared task initiatives, such as TREC, and a discussion on the continuing need for human assessments. Second, we consider the evaluation of emerging LLM-based generative information retrieval (GenIR) systems, including retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems. We consider approaches that focus both on the end-to-end evaluation of GenIR systems and on the evaluation of a retrieval component as an element in a RAG system. Going forward, we expect the evaluation of GenIR systems to be at least partially based on LLM-based assessment, creating an apparent circularity, with a system seemingly evaluating its own output. We resolve this apparent circularity in two ways: 1) by viewing LLM-based assessment as a form of "slow search", where a slower IR system is used for evaluation and training of a faster production IR system; and 2) by recognizing a continuing need to ground evaluation in human assessment, even if the characteristics of that human assessment must change.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Report on the 1st Workshop on Large Language Model for Evaluation in Information Retrieval (LLM4Eval 2024) at SIGIR 2024

The first edition of the workshop on Large Language Model for Evaluation in Information Retrieval (LLM4Eval 2024) took place in July 2024, co-located with the ACM SIGIR Conference 2024 in the USA (SIGIR 2024). The aim was to bring information retrieval researchers together around the topic of LLMs for evaluation in information retrieval that gathered attention with the advancement of large language models and generative AI. Given the novelty of the topic, the workshop was focused around multi-sided discussions, namely panels and poster sessions of the accepted proceedings papers.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

LLMJudge: LLMs for Relevance Judgments

The LLMJudge challenge is organized as part of the LLM4Eval workshop at SIGIR 2024. Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems. The evaluation and tuning of a search system is largely based on relevance labels, which indicate whether a document is useful for a specific search and user. However, collecting relevance judgments on a large scale is costly and resource-intensive. Consequently, typical experiments rely on third-party labelers who may not always produce accurate annotations. The LLMJudge challenge aims to explore an alternative approach by using LLMs to generate relevance judgments. Recent studies have shown that LLMs can generate reliable relevance judgments for search systems. However, it remains unclear which LLMs can match the accuracy of human labelers, which prompts are most effective, how fine-tuned open-source LLMs compare to closed-source LLMs like GPT-4, whether there are biases in synthetically generated data, and if data leakage affects the quality of generated labels. This challenge will investigate these questions, and the collected data will be released as a package to support automatic relevance judgment research in information retrieval and search.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Assessing and Verifying Task Utility in LLM-Powered Applications

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a surge in applications that facilitate collaboration among multiple agents, assisting humans in their daily tasks. However, a significant gap remains in assessing to what extent LLM-powered applications genuinely enhance user experience and task execution efficiency. This highlights the need to verify utility of LLM-powered applications, particularly by ensuring alignment between the application's functionality and end-user needs. We introduce AgentEval, a novel framework designed to simplify the utility verification process by automatically proposing a set of criteria tailored to the unique purpose of any given application. This allows for a comprehensive assessment, quantifying the utility of an application against the suggested criteria. We present a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and robustness of AgentEval for two open source datasets including Math Problem solving and ALFWorld House-hold related tasks. For reproducibility purposes, we make the data, code and all the logs publicly available at https://bit.ly/3w3yKcS .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Generative IR

Information retrieval systems increasingly incorporate generative components. For example, in a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) system, a retrieval component might provide a source of ground truth, while a generative component summarizes and augments its responses. In other systems, a large language model (LLM) might directly generate responses without consulting a retrieval component. While there are multiple definitions of generative information retrieval (Gen-IR) systems, in this paper we focus on those systems where the system's response is not drawn from a fixed collection of documents or passages. The response to a query may be entirely new text. Since traditional IR evaluation methods break down under this model, we explore various methods that extend traditional offline evaluation approaches to the Gen-IR context. Offline IR evaluation traditionally employs paid human assessors, but increasingly LLMs are replacing human assessment, demonstrating capabilities similar or superior to crowdsourced labels. Given that Gen-IR systems do not generate responses from a fixed set, we assume that methods for Gen-IR evaluation must largely depend on LLM-generated labels. Along with methods based on binary and graded relevance, we explore methods based on explicit subtopics, pairwise preferences, and embeddings. We first validate these methods against human assessments on several TREC Deep Learning Track tasks; we then apply these methods to evaluate the output of several purely generative systems. For each method we consider both its ability to act autonomously, without the need for human labels or other input, and its ability to support human auditing. To trust these methods, we must be assured that their results align with human assessments. In order to do so, evaluation criteria must be transparent, so that outcomes can be audited by human assessors.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Fréchet Distance for Offline Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems with Sparse Labels

The rapid advancement of natural language processing, information retrieval (IR), computer vision, and other technologies has presented significant challenges in evaluating the performance of these systems. One of the main challenges is the scarcity of human-labeled data, which hinders the fair and accurate assessment of these systems. In this work, we specifically focus on evaluating IR systems with sparse labels, borrowing from recent research on evaluating computer vision tasks. taking inspiration from the success of using Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) in assessing text-to-image generation systems. We propose leveraging the Fréchet Distance to measure the distance between the distributions of relevant judged items and retrieved results. Our experimental results on MS MARCO V1 dataset and TREC Deep Learning Tracks query sets demonstrate the effectiveness of the Fréchet Distance as a metric for evaluating IR systems, particularly in settings where a few labels are available. This approach contributes to the advancement of evaluation methodologies in real-world scenarios such as the assessment of generative IR systems.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Adapting Standard Retrieval Benchmarks to Evaluate Generated Answers

Large language models can now directly generate answers to many factual questions without referencing external sources. Unfortunately, relatively little attention has been paid to methods for evaluating the quality and correctness of these answers, for comparing the performance of one model to another, or for comparing one prompt to another. In addition, the quality of generated answers are rarely directly compared to the quality of retrieved answers. As models evolve and prompts are modified, we have no systematic way to measure improvements without resorting to expensive human judgments. To address this problem we adapt standard retrieval benchmarks to evaluate answers generated by large language models. Inspired by the BERTScore metric for summarization, we explore two approaches. In the first, we base our evaluation on the benchmark relevance judgments. We empirically run experiments on how information retrieval relevance judgments can be utilized as an anchor to evaluating the generated answers. In the second, we compare generated answers to the top results retrieved by a diverse set of retrieval models, ranging from traditional approaches to advanced methods, allowing us to measure improvements without human judgments. In both cases, we measure the similarity between an embedded representation of the generated answer and an embedded representation of a known, or assumed, relevant passage from the retrieval benchmark.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2023

Retrieving Supporting Evidence for Generative Question Answering

Current large language models (LLMs) can exhibit near-human levels of performance on many natural language-based tasks, including open-domain question answering. Unfortunately, at this time, they also convincingly hallucinate incorrect answers, so that responses to questions must be verified against external sources before they can be accepted at face value. In this paper, we report two simple experiments to automatically validate generated answers against a corpus. We base our experiments on questions and passages from the MS MARCO (V1) test collection, and a retrieval pipeline consisting of sparse retrieval, dense retrieval and neural rerankers. In the first experiment, we validate the generated answer in its entirety. After presenting a question to an LLM and receiving a generated answer, we query the corpus with the combination of the question + generated answer. We then present the LLM with the combination of the question + generated answer + retrieved answer, prompting it to indicate if the generated answer can be supported by the retrieved answer. In the second experiment, we consider the generated answer at a more granular level, prompting the LLM to extract a list of factual statements from the answer and verifying each statement separately. We query the corpus with each factual statement and then present the LLM with the statement and the corresponding retrieved evidence. The LLM is prompted to indicate if the statement can be supported and make necessary edits using the retrieved material. With an accuracy of over 80%, we find that an LLM is capable of verifying its generated answer when a corpus of supporting material is provided. However, manual assessment of a random sample of questions reveals that incorrect generated answers are missed by this verification process. While this verification process can reduce hallucinations, it can not entirely eliminate them.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2023

Evaluating Open-Domain Question Answering in the Era of Large Language Models

Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures since candidate answers become longer, thereby making matching with the gold answers even more challenging. Without accurate evaluation, the true progress in open-domain QA remains unknown. In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of various open-domain QA models, including LLMs, by manually evaluating their answers on a subset of NQ-open, a popular benchmark. Our assessments reveal that while the true performance of all models is significantly underestimated, the performance of the InstructGPT (zero-shot) LLM increases by nearly +60%, making it on par with existing top models, and the InstructGPT (few-shot) model actually achieves a new state-of-the-art on NQ-open. We also find that more than 50% of lexical matching failures are attributed to semantically equivalent answers. We further demonstrate that regex matching ranks QA models consistent with human judgments, although still suffering from unnecessary strictness. Finally, we demonstrate that automated evaluation models are a reasonable surrogate for lexical matching in some circumstances, but not for long-form answers generated by LLMs. The automated models struggle in detecting hallucinations in LLM answers and are thus unable to evaluate LLMs. At this time, there appears to be no substitute for human evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Retrieving Supporting Evidence for LLMs Generated Answers

Current large language models (LLMs) can exhibit near-human levels of performance on many natural language tasks, including open-domain question answering. Unfortunately, they also convincingly hallucinate incorrect answers, so that responses to questions must be verified against external sources before they can be accepted at face value. In this paper, we report a simple experiment to automatically verify generated answers against a corpus. After presenting a question to an LLM and receiving a generated answer, we query the corpus with the combination of the question + generated answer. We then present the LLM with the combination of the question + generated answer + retrieved answer, prompting it to indicate if the generated answer can be supported by the retrieved answer. We base our experiment on questions and passages from the MS MARCO (V1) test collection, exploring three retrieval approaches ranging from standard BM25 to a full question answering stack, including a reader based on the LLM. For a large fraction of questions, we find that an LLM is capable of verifying its generated answer if appropriate supporting material is provided. However, with an accuracy of 70-80%, this approach cannot be fully relied upon to detect hallucinations.

cs.IR↗