LLM-Driven Usefulness Labeling for IR Evaluation

In the information retrieval (IR) domain, evaluation plays a crucial role in optimizing search experiences and supporting diverse user intents. In the recent LLM era, research has been conducted to automate document relevance labels, as these labels have traditionally been assigned by crowd-sourced workers - a process that is both time and consuming and costly. This study focuses on LLM-generated usefulness labels, a crucial evaluation metric that considers the user's search intents and task objectives, an aspect where relevance falls short. Our experiment utilizes task-level, query-level, and document-level features along with user search behavior signals, which are essential in defining the usefulness of a document. Our research finds that (i) pre-trained LLMs can generate moderate usefulness labels by understanding the comprehensive search task session, (ii) pre-trained LLMs perform better judgement in short search sessions when provided with search session contexts. Additionally, we investigated whether LLMs can capture the unique divergence between relevance and usefulness, along with conducting an ablation study to identify the most critical metrics for accurate usefulness label generation. In conclusion, this work explores LLM-generated usefulness labels by evaluating critical metrics and optimizing for practicality in real-world settings.

Investigating the Impact of LLM Personality on Cognitive Bias Manifestation in Automated Decision-Making Tasks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making, yet their susceptibility to cognitive biases remains a pressing challenge. This study explores how personality traits influence these biases and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation strategies across various model architectures. Our findings identify six prevalent cognitive biases, while the sunk cost and group attribution biases exhibit minimal impact. Personality traits play a crucial role in either amplifying or reducing biases, significantly affecting how LLMs respond to debiasing techniques. Notably, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may generally enhance the efficacy of bias mitigation strategies, suggesting that LLMs exhibiting these traits are more receptive to corrective measures. These findings address the importance of personality-driven bias dynamics and highlight the need for targeted mitigation approaches to improve fairness and reliability in AI-assisted decision-making.

Who Gets Recommended? Investigating Gender, Race, and Country Disparities in Paper Recommendations from Large Language Models

This paper investigates the performance of several representative large models in the tasks of literature recommendation and explores potential biases in research exposure. The results indicate that not only LLMs' overall recommendation accuracy remains limited but also the models tend to recommend literature with greater citation counts, later publication date, and larger author teams. Yet, in scholar recommendation tasks, there is no evidence that LLMs disproportionately recommend male, white, or developed-country authors, contrasting with patterns of known human biases.

The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges

Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave "rationally", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examined the extent to which LLMs are cognitively biased in COVID-19 medical (mis)information assessment tasks compared to traditional human assessors as a baseline. The results, collected from a between-subject user experiment and a LLM-enabled replicate experiment, demonstrate that 1) Larger and more recent LLMs tend to show a higher level of consistency and accuracy in distinguishing credible information from misinformation. However, they are more likely to give higher ratings for misinformation due to the presence of a more salient, decoy misinformation result; 2) While decoy effect occurred in both human and LLM assessments, the effect is more prevalent across different conditions and topics in LLM judgments compared to human credibility ratings. In contrast to the generally assumed "rationality" of AI tools, our study empirically confirms the cognitive bias risks embedded in LLM agents, evaluates the decoy impact on LLMs against human credibility assessments, and thereby highlights the complexity and importance of debiasing AI agents and developing psychology-informed AI audit techniques and policies for automated judgment tasks and beyond.

The Landscape of Data Reuse in Interactive Information Retrieval: Motivations, Sources, and Evaluation of Reusability

Sharing and reusing research data can effectively reduce redundant efforts in data collection and curation, especially for small labs and research teams conducting human-centered system research, and enhance the replicability of evaluation experiments. Building a sustainable data reuse process and culture relies on frameworks that encompass policies, standards, roles, and responsibilities, all of which must address the diverse needs of data providers, curators, and reusers. To advance the knowledge and accumulate empirical understandings on data reuse, this study investigated the data reuse practices of experienced researchers from the area of Interactive Information Retrieval (IIR) studies, where data reuse has been strongly advocated but still remains a challenge. To enhance the knowledge on data reuse behavior and reusability assessment strategies within IIR community, we conducted 21 semi-structured in-depth interviews with IIR researchers from varying demographic backgrounds, institutions, and stages of careers on their motivations, experiences, and concerns over data reuse. We uncovered the reasons, strategies of reusability assessments, and challenges faced by data reusers within the field of IIR as they attempt to reuse researcher data in their studies. The empirical finding improves our understanding of researchers' motivations for reusing data, their approaches to discovering reusable research data, as well as their concerns and criteria for assessing data reusability, and also enriches the on-going discussions on evaluating user-generated data and research resources and promoting community-level data reuse culture and standards.

Report on the Workshop on Simulations for Information Access (Sim4IA 2024) at SIGIR 2024

This paper is a report of the Workshop on Simulations for Information Access (Sim4IA) workshop at SIGIR 2024. The workshop had two keynotes, a panel discussion, nine lightning talks, and two breakout sessions. Key takeaways were user simulation's importance in academia and industry, the possible bridging of online and offline evaluation, and the issues of organizing a companion shared task around user simulations for information access. We report on how we organized the workshop, provide a brief overview of what happened at the workshop, and summarize the main topics and findings of the workshop and future work.

AI Can Be Cognitively Biased: An Exploratory Study on Threshold Priming in LLM-Based Batch Relevance Assessment

Cognitive biases are systematic deviations in thinking that lead to irrational judgments and problematic decision-making, extensively studied across various fields. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have shown advanced understanding capabilities but may inherit human biases from their training data. While social biases in LLMs have been well-studied, cognitive biases have received less attention, with existing research focusing on specific scenarios. The broader impact of cognitive biases on LLMs in various decision-making contexts remains underexplored. We investigated whether LLMs are influenced by the threshold priming effect in relevance judgments, a core task and widely-discussed research topic in the Information Retrieval (IR) coummunity. The priming effect occurs when exposure to certain stimuli unconsciously affects subsequent behavior and decisions. Our experiment employed 10 topics from the TREC 2019 Deep Learning passage track collection, and tested AI judgments under different document relevance scores, batch lengths, and LLM models, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, LLaMa2-13B and LLaMa2-70B. Results showed that LLMs tend to give lower scores to later documents if earlier ones have high relevance, and vice versa, regardless of the combination and model used. Our finding demonstrates that LLM%u2019s judgments, similar to human judgments, are also influenced by threshold priming biases, and suggests that researchers and system engineers should take into account potential human-like cognitive biases in designing, evaluating, and auditing LLMs in IR tasks and beyond.

Decoy Effect In Search Interaction: Understanding User Behavior and Measuring System Vulnerability

This study examines the decoy effect's underexplored influence on user search interactions and methods for measuring information retrieval (IR) systems' vulnerability to this effect. It explores how decoy results alter users' interactions on search engine result pages, focusing on metrics like click-through likelihood, browsing time, and perceived document usefulness. By analyzing user interaction logs from multiple datasets, the study demonstrates that decoy results significantly affect users' behavior and perceptions. Furthermore, it investigates how different levels of task difficulty and user knowledge modify the decoy effect's impact, finding that easier tasks and lower knowledge levels lead to higher engagement with target documents. In terms of IR system evaluation, the study introduces the DEJA-VU metric to assess systems' susceptibility to the decoy effect, testing it on specific retrieval tasks. The results show differences in systems' effectiveness and vulnerability, contributing to our understanding of cognitive biases in search behavior and suggesting pathways for creating more balanced and bias-aware IR evaluations.

Cognitively Biased Users Interacting with Algorithmically Biased Results in Whole-Session Search on Controversial Topics

When interacting with information retrieval (IR) systems, users, affected by confirmation biases, tend to select search results that confirm their existing beliefs on socially significant contentious issues. To understand the judgments and attitude changes of users searching online, our study examined how cognitively biased users interact with algorithmically biased search engine result pages (SERPs). We designed three-query search sessions on debated topics under various bias conditions. We recruited 1,321 crowdsourcing participants and explored their attitude changes, search interactions, and the effects of confirmation bias. Three key findings emerged: 1) most attitude changes occur in the initial query of a search session; 2) confirmation bias and result presentation on SERPs affect search behaviors in the current query and perceived familiarity with clicked results in subsequent queries. The bias position also affect attitude changes of users with lower perceived openness to conflicting opinions; 3) Interactions in the first query and and dwell time throughout the session are associated with users' attitude changes in different forms. Our study goes beyond traditional simulation-based evaluation settings and simulated rational users, sheds light on the mixed effects of human biases and algorithmic biases in controversial information retrieval tasks, and can inform the design of bias-aware user models, human-centered bias mitigation techniques, and socially responsible intelligent IR systems.

Task Supportive and Personalized Human-Large Language Model Interaction: A User Study

Large language model (LLM) applications, such as ChatGPT, are a powerful tool for online information-seeking (IS) and problem-solving tasks. However, users still face challenges initializing and refining prompts, and their cognitive barriers and biased perceptions further impede task completion. These issues reflect broader challenges identified within the fields of IS and interactive information retrieval (IIR). To address these, our approach integrates task context and user perceptions into human-ChatGPT interactions through prompt engineering. We developed a ChatGPT-like platform integrated with supportive functions, including perception articulation, prompt suggestion, and conversation explanation. Our findings of a user study demonstrate that the supportive functions help users manage expectations, reduce cognitive loads, better refine prompts, and increase user engagement. This research enhances our comprehension of designing proactive and user-centric systems with LLMs. It offers insights into evaluating human-LLM interactions and emphasizes potential challenges for under served users.