TREC 2023深度学习赛道收官,验证大模型提示在检索中的超越性表现。
Overview of the TREC 2023 deep learning track
- 采用清洗后的MS MARCO v2数据集,以未参与训练的查询构建更难测试集。
- 基于大模型提示的系统性能首次超越传统nnlm方法,提升显著。
- 合成查询评估结果与人工查询一致,适合未来检索系统评测参考。
这是TREC深度学习赛道的第五年。延续往年设计,使用包含数十万条人工标注的MS MARCO数据集,用于段落与文档排序任务。本年度主要任务为段落排序,文档排序作为次要任务(基于段落标签推断)。测试集由完全未参与语料构建的MS MARCO查询采样生成,较前三年更具挑战性。同时,引入微调T5和GPT-4生成的合成查询。新成果显示,使用大语言模型提示的系统在多数指标上优于过去四年的最优方法nnlm。所有查询类型均进行人工相关性评估。合成查询评估结果与人类查询一致,系统排序一致性τ=0.8487。未发现明显偏差:使用GPT-4生成的查询未使GPT-4相关系统占优,反之亦然。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This is the fifth year of the TREC Deep Learning track. As in previous years, we leverage the MS MARCO datasets that made hundreds of thousands of human-annotated training labels available for both passage and document ranking tasks. We mostly repeated last year's design, to get another matching test set, based on the larger, cleaner, less-biased v2 passage and document set, with passage ranking as primary and document ranking as a secondary task (using labels inferred from passage). As we did last year, we sample from MS MARCO queries that were completely held out, unused in corpus construction, unlike the test queries in the first three years. This approach yields a more difficult test with more headroom for improvement. Alongside the usual MS MARCO (human) queries from MS MARCO, this year we generated synthetic queries using a fine-tuned T5 model and using a GPT-4 prompt. The new headline result this year is that runs using Large Language Model (LLM) prompting in some way outperformed runs that use the "nnlm" approach, which was the best approach in the previous four years. Since this is the last year of the track, future iterations of prompt-based ranking can happen in other tracks. Human relevance assessments were applied to all query types, not just human MS MARCO queries. Evaluation using synthetic queries gave similar results to human queries, with system ordering agreement of $τ=0.8487$. However, human effort was needed to select a subset of the synthetic queries that were usable. We did not see clear evidence of bias, where runs using GPT-4 were favored when evaluated using synthetic GPT-4 queries, or where runs using T5 were favored when evaluated on synthetic T5 queries.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。