Haozhe Duan

Qi Liu, Haozhe Duan, Yiqun Chen et al.

Utilizing large language models (LLMs) for document reranking has been a popular and promising research direction in recent years, many studies are dedicated to improving the performance and efficiency of using LLMs for reranking. Besides, it can also be applied in many real-world applications, such as search engines or retrieval-augmented generation. In response to the growing demand for research and application in practice, we introduce a unified framework, \textbf{LLM4Ranking}, which enables users to adopt different ranking methods using open-source or closed-source API-based LLMs. Our framework provides a simple and extensible interface for document reranking with LLMs, as well as easy-to-use evaluation and fine-tuning scripts for this task. We conducted experiments based on this framework and evaluated various models and methods on several widely used datasets, providing reproducibility results on utilizing LLMs for document reranking. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/liuqi6777/llm4ranking.

Shengjie Ma, Qi Chu, Jiaxin Mao et al.

Determining which legal cases are relevant to a given query involves navigating lengthy texts and applying nuanced legal reasoning. Traditionally, this task has demanded significant time and domain expertise to identify key Legal Facts and reach sound juridical conclusions. In addition, existing data with legal case similarities often lack interpretability, making it difficult to understand the rationale behind relevance judgments. With the growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs), researchers have begun investigating their potential in this domain. Nonetheless, the method of employing a general large language model for reliable relevance judgments in legal case retrieval remains largely unexplored. To address this gap in research, we propose a novel few-shot approach where LLMs assist in generating expert-aligned interpretable relevance judgments. The proposed approach decomposes the judgment process into several stages, mimicking the workflow of human annotators and allowing for the flexible incorporation of expert reasoning to improve the accuracy of relevance judgments. Importantly, it also ensures interpretable data labeling, providing transparency and clarity in the relevance assessment process. Through a comparison of relevance judgments made by LLMs and human experts, we empirically demonstrate that the proposed approach can yield reliable and valid relevance assessments. Furthermore, we demonstrate that with minimal expert supervision, our approach enables a large language model to acquire case analysis expertise and subsequently transfers this ability to a smaller model via annotation-based knowledge distillation.