Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02856v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 17:59:02 GMT
• Title: Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation
• Authors: Nikhil Chandak, Shashwat Goel, Ameya Prabhu, Moritz Hardt, Jonas Geiping,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 35.90520208701438
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

Related papers

• MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs [15.278241998033822]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T07:49:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Differentiating Choices via Commonality for Multiple-Choice Question Answering [54.04315943420376]
  Multiple-choice question answering can provide valuable clues for choosing the right answer. Existing models often rank each choice separately, overlooking the context provided by other choices. We propose a novel model by differentiating choices through identifying and eliminating their commonality, called DCQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T12:05:21Z)
• "My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Models [40.867655189493924]
  Open-ended nature of language generation makes evaluation of large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions (MCQ) to limit the response space. We evaluate how aligned first-token evaluation is with the text output along several dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T12:47:33Z)
• 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)
• A Semantic-based Method for Unsupervised Commonsense Question Answering [40.18557352036813]
  Unsupervised commonsense question answering is appealing since it does not rely on any labeled task data. We present a novel SEmantic-based Question Answering method (SEQA) for unsupervised commonsense question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T08:21:52Z)

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.