Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27226v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:14:50 GMT
• Title: Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement
• Abstract summary: BINEVAL is a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions.<n>Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions.<n>An LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback.
• Score: 13.774572921429217
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a framework that decomposes evaluation criteria into atomic binary questions and aggregates the resulting verdicts into interpretable, multi-dimensional scores. Given a task prompt, a meta-prompt generates fine-grained evaluation questions, and an LLM answers them independently for each output, yielding transparent question-level feedback together with calibrated overall scores. This decomposition makes evaluation easier to inspect, easier to diagnose, and directly usable for prompt improvement. Across SummEval, Topical-Chat, and QAGS, BINEVAL matches or outperforms strong baselines including UniEval and G-Eval, with especially strong results on factual consistency benchmarks such as QAGS. Beyond competitive correlation with human judgments, BINEVAL better matches human score distributions and avoids the ceiling effects common in prior LLM judges, leading to better discrimination between borderline and clearly flawed outputs. We further show that the same question-level feedback supports iterative prompt optimization, improving evaluator prompts on summarization and generation prompts on IFBench under both self-update and cross-model update settings. Overall, BINEVAL provides a task-agnostic, training-free, and interpretable evaluation framework that combines strong empirical performance with practical diagnostic and optimization value.

Related papers

• (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models [0.0]
  This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs.<n>An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings.<n>Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T14:31:07Z)
• BERT-as-a-Judge: A Robust Alternative to Lexical Methods for Efficient Reference-Based LLM Evaluation [11.37493959290663]
  We introduce BERT-as-a-Judge, an encoder-driven approach for assessing answer correctness in reference-based generative settings.<n>We show that it consistently outperforms the lexical baseline while matching the performance of much larger LLM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T17:08:40Z)
• IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation [85.56193980646981]
  We propose IF-RewardBench, a comprehensive meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction-following.<n>For each instruction, we construct a preference graph containing all pairwise preferences among multiple responses.<n>Experiments on IF-RewardBench reveal significant deficiencies in current judge models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T02:21:17Z)
• MILE-RefHumEval: A Reference-Free, Multi-Independent LLM Framework for Human-Aligned Evaluation [1.3299507495084417]
  We introduce MILE-RefHumEval, a reference-free framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) without ground-truth annotations or evaluator coordination.<n>It leverages an ensemble of independently prompted evaluators guided by a human-aligned schema, supporting both discrete and continuous scoring judgement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T10:10:41Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluation [57.6469531082784]
  The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of language models in practice.<n>A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark.<n>This approach often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset.<n>We train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T16:15:02Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• EQUATOR: A Deterministic Framework for Evaluating LLM Reasoning with Open-Ended Questions. # v1.0.0-beta [2.1249213103048414]
  We introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator, which combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment.<n>Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations.<n>Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T03:56:17Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)

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.