Incremental Pooled LLM Evaluation for Cost-Effective Retrieval Model Selection

arXiv:2609.02745v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting a retrieval model for a production RAG system requires reliable comparative evaluation, but obtaining relevance judgments at scale is expensive and difficult to repeat as new candidate systems arrive. We study pooled LLM evaluation, in which an LLM judges the union of documents retrieved by the current set of candidate systems, and the pool is then expanded incrementally as new systems are introduced by judging only the new documents they contribute. These judgments are reused to evaluate all systems on a common basis. We validate this approach on four retrieval benchmarks with 11 systems spanning dense, sparse, and hybrid configurations, and deploy it to compare 62 retrieval configurations for a financial news QA system. Pooled LLM rankings correlate strongly with gold-standard evaluation across datasets, and 97% of pairwise system orderings are preserved once bootstrap uncertainty in the qrels is taken into account. In production, document overlap yields 65-80% judgment reuse and up to 4.9x lower evaluation cost, allowing teams to benchmark new retrieval candidates without re-judging previously assessed documents. These results suggest pooled LLM evaluation is a practical and cost-effective workflow for incremental retrieval model selection in deployed systems.

Abstract:Selecting a retrieval model for a production RAG system requires reliable comparative evaluation, but obtaining relevance judgments at scale is expensive and difficult to repeat as new candidate systems arrive. We study pooled LLM evaluation, in which an LLM judges the union of documents retrieved by the current set of candidate systems, and the pool is then expanded incrementally as new systems are introduced by judging only the new documents they contribute. These judgments are reused to evaluate all systems on a common basis. We validate this approach on four retrieval benchmarks with 11 systems spanning dense, sparse, and hybrid configurations, and deploy it to compare 62 retrieval configurations for a financial news QA system. Pooled LLM rankings correlate strongly with gold-standard evaluation across datasets, and 97% of pairwise system orderings are preserved once bootstrap uncertainty in the qrels is taken into account. In production, document overlap yields 65-80% judgment reuse and up to 4.9x lower evaluation cost, allowing teams to benchmark new retrieval candidates without re-judging previously assessed documents. These results suggest pooled LLM evaluation is a practical and cost-effective workflow for incremental retrieval model selection in deployed systems.

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2609.02745 [cs.IR]

(or arXiv:2609.02745v1 [cs.IR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02745 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Incremental Pooled LLM Evaluation for Cost-Effective Retrieval Model Selection

Related coverage