Evaluating attributed information retrieval (AIR) systems requires assessing both informativeness and attributability. To enable scalable evaluation, LLM-sourced ground truth data is frequently used, yet the validity of this practice remains unclear. We replicate the evaluation framework of Djeddal et al. [1] which relies on LLM-written ground truth answers, and additionally crowdsource human-written answers and pairwise preference judgments. This allows us to investigate (1) how robust reference-based evaluation measures are to gold reference variation; (2) to what extent do LLM judges agree with human annotators; and (3) which automatic measures best predict human and LLM preferences? Our findings reveal substantial sensitivity of reference-based measures to gold reference choice, and human and LLM judges exhibiting low agreement on preference judgments, despite similar aggregate tendencies. Furthermore, no automatic evaluation measure strongly predicts human preferences, suggesting a fundamental methodological shortcoming in current AIR evaluation practices.

The unjudged document problem, where systems that did not contribute to the original judgement pool may retrieve documents without a relevance judgement, is a key obstacle to the reuseability of test collections in information retrieval. While the de facto standard to deal with the problem is to treat unjudged documents as non-relevant, many alternatives have been proposed, such as the use of large language models (LLMs) as a relevance judge (LLM-as-a-judge). However, this has been criticized, among other things, as circular, since the same LLM can be used as the ranker and the judge. We propose to train topic-specific relevance classifiers instead: By finetuning monoT5 with independent LoRA weight adaptation on the judgments of a single assessor for a single topic's pool, we align it to that assessor's notion of relevance for the topic. The system rankings obtained through our classifier's relevance judgments achieve a Spearmans' $ρ$ correlation of $>0.94$ with ground truth system rankings. As little as 128 initial human judgments per topic suffice to improve the comparability of models, compared to treating unjudged documents as non-relevant, while achieving more reliability than existing LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Topic-specific relevance classifiers are thus a lightweight and straightforward way to tackle the unjudged document problem, while maintaining human judgments as the gold standard for retrieval evaluation. Code, models, and data are made openly available.

Rapidly changing climate conditions and the increase in extreme events are posing severe challenges to human life and infrastructure, requiring sophisticated analytical capabilities for hazard prediction and disaster risk management. Earth System Data Cubes (ESDCs) have become an essential tool in Earth System Sciences (ESS) by organizing large-scale, multivariate environmental datasets into a structured, scalable and analysis-ready format. However, modern machine learning techniques are not yet being utilized to their full potential on ESDCs. This is due to the lack of proper tooling, domain-specific challenges, and high barriers of entry for practitioners. We introduce ml4xcube, an open-source Python framework designed to assist ESS domain experts in applying ML techniques on ESDCs for advanced analysis and prediction of environmental variables and impacts. Through a comprehensive suite of tools, it addresses specific challenges associated with the nature of ESS data, such as the non-uniform data distribution due to dynamic gaps, or spatio-temporal autocorrelation of environmental variables. Due to its modular architecture, it covers the complete analysis process, from data exploration, and preparation, to model development, result interpretation and evaluation. With support for distributed computing, it handles large ESDC datasets efficiently. In order to ease the adoption it includes extensive documentation and tutorial notebooks. We demonstrate ml4xcube's capabilities through three examples, showcasing its potential and capabilities for integrating machine learning with ESDC data.

How good are humans at writing and judging responses in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) scenarios? To answer this question, we investigate the efficacy of crowdsourcing for RAG through two complementary studies: response writing and response utility judgment. Our new Webis Crowd RAG Corpus 2025 (Webis-CrowdRAG-25) consists of 903 human-written and 903 LLM-generated responses for the 301 topics of the TREC 2024 RAG~track, with each response composed according to one of the three discourse styles 'bullet list', 'essay', or 'news'. For a selection of 65 topics, the corpus further contains 47,320 pairwise human judgments and 10,556 pairwise LLM judgments across seven utility dimensions (e.g., coverage and coherence). Our analyses give insights into human writing behavior for RAG and the viability of crowdsourcing for RAG evaluation. We find that human pairwise judgments provide reliable and cost-effective results. This is much less the case for LLM-based pairwise and human/LLM-based pointwise judgments, nor for automated comparisons with human-written reference responses. All our data and tools are freely available.

The first International Workshop on Open Web Search (WOWS) was held on Thursday, March 28th, at ECIR 2024 in Glasgow, UK. The full-day workshop had two calls for contributions: the first call aimed at scientific contributions to building, operating, and evaluating search engines cooperatively and the cooperative use of the web as a resource for researchers and innovators. The second call for implementations of retrieval components aimed to gain practical experience with joint, cooperative evaluation of search engines and their components. In total, 2~papers were accepted for the first call, and 11~software components were submitted for the second. The workshop ended with breakout sessions on how the OpenWebSearch.eu project can incorporate collaborative evaluations and a hub of search engines.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled the development of viable generative retrieval systems. Instead of a traditional document ranking, generative retrieval systems often directly return a grounded generated text as a response to a query. Quantifying the utility of the textual responses is essential for appropriately evaluating such generative ad hoc retrieval. Yet, the established evaluation methodology for ranking-based ad hoc retrieval is not suited for the reliable and reproducible evaluation of generated responses. To lay a foundation for developing new evaluation methods for generative retrieval systems, we survey the relevant literature from the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing, identify search tasks and system architectures in generative retrieval, develop a new user model, and study its operationalization.

In this paper, we discuss the benefits and challenges of shared tasks as a teaching method. A shared task is a scientific event and a friendly competition to solve a research problem, the task. In terms of linking research and teaching, shared-task-based tutorials fulfill several faculty desires: they leverage students' interdisciplinary and heterogeneous skills, foster teamwork, and engage them in creative work that has the potential to produce original research contributions. Based on ten information retrieval (IR) courses at two universities since 2019 with shared tasks as tutorials, we derive a domain-neutral process model to capture the respective tutorial structure. Meanwhile, our teaching method has been adopted by other universities in IR courses, but also in other areas of AI such as natural language processing and robotics.

The Archive Query Log (AQL) is a previously unused, comprehensive query log collected at the Internet Archive over the last 25 years. Its first version includes 356 million queries, 137 million search result pages, and 1.4 billion search results across 550 search providers. Although many query logs have been studied in the literature, the search providers that own them generally do not publish their logs to protect user privacy and vital business data. Of the few query logs publicly available, none combines size, scope, and diversity. The AQL is the first to do so, enabling research on new retrieval models and (diachronic) search engine analyses. Provided in a privacy-preserving manner, it promotes open research as well as more transparency and accountability in the search industry.

The amount of near-duplicates in web crawls like the ClueWeb or Common Crawl demands from their users either to develop a preprocessing pipeline for deduplication, which is costly both computationally and in person hours, or accepting the undesired effects that near-duplicates have on reliability and validity of experiments. We introduce ChatNoir-CopyCat-21, which simplifies deduplication significantly. It comes in two parts: (1) A compilation of near-duplicate documents within the ClueWeb09, the ClueWeb12, and two Common Crawl snapshots, as well as between selections of these crawls, and (2) a software library that implements the deduplication of arbitrary document sets. Our analysis shows that 14--52, of the documents within a crawl and around~0.7--2.5, between the crawls are near-duplicates. Two showcases demonstrate the application and usefulness of our resource.

We present an efficient annotation framework for argument quality, a feature difficult to be measured reliably as per previous work.A stochastic transitivity model is combined with an effective sampling strategy to infer highquality labels with low effort from crowdsourced pairwise judgments.The model's capabilities are showcased by compiling Webis-ArgQuality-20, an argument quality corpus that comprises scores for rhetorical, logical, dialectical, and overall quality inferred from a total of 41,859 pairwise judgments among 1,271 arguments.With up to 93% cost savings, our approach significantly outperforms existing annotation procedures.Furthermore, novel insight into argument quality is provided through statistical analysis, and a new aggregation method to infer overall quality from individual quality dimensions is proposed.

Information retrieval evaluation has to consider the varying "difficulty" between topics. Topic difficulty is often defined in terms of the aggregated effectiveness of a set of retrieval systems to satisfy a respective information need. Current approaches to estimate topic difficulty come with drawbacks such as being incomparable across different experimental settings. We introduce a new approach to estimate topic difficulty, which is based on the ratio of systems that achieve an NDCG score that is better than a baseline formed as random ranking of the pool of judged documents. We modify the NDCG measure to explicitly reflect a system's divergence from this hypothetical random ranker. In this way we achieve relative comparability of topic difficulty scores across experimental settings as well as stability to outlier systems?features lacking in previous difficulty estimations. We reevaluate the TREC 2012 Web Track's ad hoc task to demonstrate the feasibility of our approach in practice.

NDCG is one of the most commonly used measures to quantify system performance in retrieval experiments. Though originally not considered, graded relevance judgments nowadays frequently include negative labels. Negative relevance labels cause NDCG to be unbounded. This is probably why widely used implementations of NDCG map negative relevance labels to zero, thus ensuring the resulting scores to originate from the [0,1] range. But zeroing negative labels discards valuable relevance information, e.g., by treating spam documents the same as unjudged ones, which are assigned the relevance label of zero by default. We show that, instead of zeroing negative labels, a min-max-normalization of NDCG retains its statistical power while improving its reliability and stability.

We report on the first user study on assessing argument relevance. Based on a search among more than 300,000 arguments, four standard retrieval models are compared on 40 topics for 20 controversial issues: every issue has one topic with a biased stance and another neutral one. Following TREC, the top results of the different models on a topic were pooled and relevance-judged by one assessor per topic. The assessors also judged the arguments' rhetorical, logical, and dialectical quality, the results of which were cross-referenced with the relevance judgments. Furthermore, the assessors were asked for their personal opinion, and whether it matched the predefined stance of a topic. Among other results, we find that Terrier's implementations of DirichletLM and DPH are on par, significantly outperforming TFIDF and BM25. The judgments of relevance and quality hardly correlate, giving rise to a more diverse set of ranking criteria than relevance alone. We did not measure a significant bias of assessors when their stance is at odds with a topic's stance.