Overview of the TREC 2023 deep learning track

July 10, 2025 ยท The Cartographer ยท ๐Ÿ› Text Retrieval Conference

๐Ÿ“š THE CARTOGRAPHER: The Cartographer
Survey/review paper โ€” maps the landscape rather than implementing a method.

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
"Title-pattern auto-detect: Overview of the TREC 2023 deep learning track"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Hossein A. Rahmani, Daniel Campos, Jimmy Lin, Ellen M. Voorhees, Ian Soboroff arXiv ID 2507.08890 Category cs.IR: Information Retrieval Cross-listed cs.AI, cs.CL Citations 31 Venue Text Retrieval Conference Last Checked 9 days ago
Abstract
This is the fifth year of the TREC Deep Learning track. As in previous years, we leverage the MS MARCO datasets that made hundreds of thousands of human-annotated training labels available for both passage and document ranking tasks. We mostly repeated last year's design, to get another matching test set, based on the larger, cleaner, less-biased v2 passage and document set, with passage ranking as primary and document ranking as a secondary task (using labels inferred from passage). As we did last year, we sample from MS MARCO queries that were completely held out, unused in corpus construction, unlike the test queries in the first three years. This approach yields a more difficult test with more headroom for improvement. Alongside the usual MS MARCO (human) queries from MS MARCO, this year we generated synthetic queries using a fine-tuned T5 model and using a GPT-4 prompt. The new headline result this year is that runs using Large Language Model (LLM) prompting in some way outperformed runs that use the "nnlm" approach, which was the best approach in the previous four years. Since this is the last year of the track, future iterations of prompt-based ranking can happen in other tracks. Human relevance assessments were applied to all query types, not just human MS MARCO queries. Evaluation using synthetic queries gave similar results to human queries, with system ordering agreement of $ฯ„=0.8487$. However, human effort was needed to select a subset of the synthetic queries that were usable. We did not see clear evidence of bias, where runs using GPT-4 were favored when evaluated using synthetic GPT-4 queries, or where runs using T5 were favored when evaluated on synthetic T5 queries.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Information Retrieval