Evaluating Open-QA Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12421v4
• Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:26:26 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Open-QA Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This study focuses on the evaluation of the Open Question Answering (Open-QA) task, which can directly estimate the factuality of large language models (LLMs) We introduce a new task, Evaluating QA Evaluation (QA-Eval) and the corresponding dataset EVOUNA, designed to assess the accuracy of AI-generated answers in relation to standard answers within Open-QA.
• Score: 29.43815593419996
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study focuses on the evaluation of the Open Question Answering (Open-QA) task, which can directly estimate the factuality of large language models (LLMs). Current automatic evaluation methods have shown limitations, indicating that human evaluation still remains the most reliable approach. We introduce a new task, Evaluating QA Evaluation (QA-Eval) and the corresponding dataset EVOUNA, designed to assess the accuracy of AI-generated answers in relation to standard answers within Open-QA. Our evaluation of these methods utilizes human-annotated results to measure their performance. Specifically, the work investigates methods that show high correlation with human evaluations, deeming them more reliable. We also discuss the pitfalls of current methods and methods to improve LLM-based evaluators. We believe this new QA-Eval task and corresponding dataset EVOUNA will facilitate the development of more effective automatic evaluation tools and prove valuable for future research in this area. All resources are available at \url{https://github.com/wangcunxiang/QA-Eval} and it is under the Apache-2.0 License.

Related papers

• Foundational Automatic Evaluators: Scaling Multi-Task Generative Evaluator Training for Reasoning-Centric Domains [97.5573252172065]
  We train a family of Automatic Reasoning Evaluators (FARE) with a simple iterative rejection-sampling supervised finetuning approach.<n>FARE-8B challenges larger specialized RL-trained evaluators and FARE-20B sets the new standard for open-source evaluators.<n>As inference-time rerankers, FARE-20B achieves near-oracle performance on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T17:52:06Z)
• AURA Score: A Metric For Holistic Audio Question Answering Evaluation [57.042210272137396]
  We introduce AQEval to enable systematic benchmarking of AQA metrics.<n>It is the first benchmark of its kind, consisting of 10k model responses annotated by multiple humans for their correctness and relevance.<n>Second, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of existing AQA metrics on AQEval, highlighting weak correlation with human judgment.<n>Third, we propose a new metric - AURA score, to better evaluate open-ended model responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T15:41:34Z)
• Analysis of instruction-based LLMs' capabilities to score and judge text-input problems in an academic setting [0.7699714865575188]
  Large language models (LLMs) can act as evaluators, a role studied by methods like LLM-as-a-Judge and fine-tuned judging LLMs.<n>We propose five evaluation systems that have been tested on a custom dataset of 110 answers about computer science from higher education students with three models: JudgeLM, Llama-3.1-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B.<n>With the lowest median absolute deviation (0.945) and the lowest root mean square deviation (1.214) when compared to human evaluation, Reference Aided Evaluation offers fair scoring as well as insightful and complete evaluations
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T10:26:23Z)
• PanguIR Technical Report for NTCIR-18 AEOLLM Task [12.061652026366591]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly critical and challenging to evaluate. Manual evaluation, while comprehensive, is often costly and resource-intensive. automatic evaluation offers greater scalability but is constrained by the limitations of its evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T07:40:02Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF) In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• A Comprehensive Survey of Action Quality Assessment: Method and Benchmark [25.694556140797832]
  Action Quality Assessment (AQA) quantitatively evaluates the quality of human actions, providing automated assessments that reduce biases in human judgment. Recent advances in AQA have introduced innovative methodologies, but similar methods often intertwine across different domains. The lack of a unified benchmark and limited computational comparisons hinder consistent evaluation and fair assessment of AQA approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T10:47:26Z)
• Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [52.76508734756661]
  Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• IQA-EVAL: Automatic Evaluation of Human-Model Interactive Question Answering [10.338962367542331]
  We introduce an automatic evaluation framework IQA-EVAL to achieve Interactive Question Answering Evaluations. We also introduce a LLM-based Evaluation Agent (LEA) that can simulate human behaviors to generate interactions with IQA models. We show that our evaluation framework with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a high correlation with human evaluations on the IQA task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T10:34:20Z)
• Accurate and Nuanced Open-QA Evaluation Through Textual Entailment [4.762213968673381]
  We propose to study the entailment relations of answers to identify more informative and more general system answers. The entailment-based evaluation we propose allows the assignment of bonus or partial marks by quantifying the inference gap between answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T21:33:27Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• The Generative AI Paradox on Evaluation: What It Can Solve, It May Not Evaluate [17.77014177096838]
  This paper explores the assumption that Large Language Models (LLMs) skilled in generation tasks are equally adept as evaluators. We assess the performance of three LLMs and one open-source LM in Question-Answering (QA) and evaluation tasks using the TriviaQA dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T06:16:08Z)
• PROXYQA: An Alternative Framework for Evaluating Long-Form Text Generation with Large Language Models [72.57329554067195]
  ProxyQA is an innovative framework dedicated to assessing longtext generation. It comprises in-depth human-curated meta-questions spanning various domains, each accompanied by specific proxy-questions with pre-annotated answers. It assesses the generated content's quality through the evaluator's accuracy in addressing the proxy-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:12:25Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• SQUARE: Automatic Question Answering Evaluation using Multiple Positive and Negative References [73.67707138779245]
  We propose a new evaluation metric: SQuArE (Sentence-level QUestion AnsweRing Evaluation) We evaluate SQuArE on both sentence-level extractive (Answer Selection) and generative (GenQA) QA systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T16:51:30Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method. We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.