MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15215v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:49:13 GMT
• Title: MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs
• Authors: Yongqi Fan, Yating Wang, Guandong Wang, Jie Zhai, Jingping Liu, Qi Ye, Tong Ruan,
• Abstract summary: Open-ended question answering (QA) is a key task for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose textbfMinosEval, a novel evaluation method that first distinguishes open-ended questions and then ranks candidate answers.
• Score: 15.278241998033822
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Open-ended question answering (QA) is a key task for evaluating the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Compared to closed-ended QA, it demands longer answer statements, more nuanced reasoning processes, and diverse expressions, making refined and interpretable automatic evaluation both crucial and challenging. Traditional metrics like ROUGE and BERTScore struggle to capture semantic similarities due to different patterns between model responses and reference answers. Current LLM-based evaluation approaches, such as pairwise or listwise comparisons of candidate answers, lack intuitive interpretability. While pointwise scoring of each response provides some descriptions, it fails to adapt across different question contents. Most notably, existing methods overlook the distinction between factoid and non-factoid questions. To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{MinosEval}, a novel evaluation method that first distinguishes open-ended questions and then ranks candidate answers using different evaluation strategies. For factoid questions, it applies an adaptive key-point scoring strategy, while for non-factoid questions, it uses an instance-aware listwise ranking strategy. Experiments on multiple open-ended QA datasets, including self-built ones with more candidate responses to complement community resources, show that MinosEval better aligns with human annotations and offers more interpretable results.

Related papers

• Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation [35.90520208701438]
  We show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question.<n>We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:59:02Z)
• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is widely used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We show that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs.<n>We analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• ELOQ: Resources for Enhancing LLM Detection of Out-of-Scope Questions [52.33835101586687]
  We study out-of-scope questions, where the retrieved document appears semantically similar to the question but lacks the necessary information to answer it.<n>We propose a guided hallucination-based approach ELOQ to automatically generate a diverse set of out-of-scope questions from post-cutoff documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T16:11:29Z)
• LINKAGE: Listwise Ranking among Varied-Quality References for Non-Factoid QA Evaluation via LLMs [61.57691505683534]
  Non-Factoid (NF) Question Answering (QA) is challenging to evaluate due to diverse potential answers and no objective criterion. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been resorted to for NFQA evaluation due to their compelling performance on various NLP tasks. We propose a novel listwise NFQA evaluation approach, that utilizes LLMs to rank candidate answers in a list of reference answers sorted by descending quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T06:42:21Z)
• QUDSELECT: Selective Decoding for Questions Under Discussion Parsing [90.92351108691014]
  Question Under Discussion (QUD) is a discourse framework that uses implicit questions to reveal discourse relationships between sentences. We introduce QUDSELECT, a joint-training framework that selectively decodes the QUD dependency structures considering the QUD criteria. Our method outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline models by 9% in human evaluation and 4% in automatic evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T06:46:08Z)
• 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)
• PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalence [10.367359022491181]
  We provide rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods(BERTScore)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T01:56:19Z)
• 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)
• Answering Ambiguous Questions via Iterative Prompting [84.3426020642704]
  In open-domain question answering, due to the ambiguity of questions, multiple plausible answers may exist. One approach is to directly predict all valid answers, but this can struggle with balancing relevance and diversity. We present AmbigPrompt to address the imperfections of existing approaches to answering ambiguous questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-08T04:32:17Z)
• Match$^2$: A Matching over Matching Model for Similar Question Identification [74.7142127303489]
  Community Question Answering (CQA) has become a primary means for people to acquire knowledge, where people are free to ask questions or submit answers. Similar question identification becomes a core task in CQA which aims to find a similar question from the archived repository whenever a new question is asked. It has long been a challenge to properly measure the similarity between two questions due to the inherent variation of natural language, i.e., there could be different ways to ask a same question or different questions sharing similar expressions. Traditional methods typically take a one-side usage, which leverages the answer as some expanded representation of the
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-21T05:59:34Z)

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.