The Viability of Crowdsourcing for RAG Evaluation
Abstract
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.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence
- Navigating Generative Artificial Intelligence Promises and Perils for Knowledge and Creative Work
- Characterizing the evolving research on enterprise content management
- Large language models and multimodal foundation models for precision oncology
- From Generative AI to Extended Reality: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Challenges, Opportunities, and Future of Educational Computing
- Generative Artificial Intelligence: A New Engine for Advancing Environmental Science and Engineering
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.