Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05289v1
• Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 15:43:09 GMT
• Title: Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods
• Abstract summary: Existing meta-evaluation measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels.<n>We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods.
• Score: 1.0749048269398973
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated reference-based evaluation methods play a critical role in assessing natural language generation systems. Existing meta-evaluation primarily measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels, providing limited insight into evaluator behavior under controlled conditions. We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods. We define a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalize them through controlled response transformations that specify expected scoring behaviors. We evaluate diverse lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators and analyze their assumption-level behavior, stability, sensitivity, repeat-run variability, configuration sensitivity, and reproducibility. Our experiments reveal distinct behavioral trade-offs across evaluation paradigms: no evaluator satisfies all proposed correctness assumptions, and evaluators with similar aggregate performance can exhibit substantially different behavioral profiles. These findings demonstrate that behavioral correctness assumptions provide diagnostic information obscured by conventional aggregate meta-evaluation.

Related papers

• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation [59.539429430690156]
  Existing evaluation methods fail to capture user-specific preferences embedded in long-term interaction histories.<n>We propose Personalized Evaluation as Learning, a paradigm that formulates personalized evaluation as a learning problem rather than a static judgment.<n>Experiments show that PARL consistently induces high-fidelity rubrics that reliably identify user-aligned responses and generalize across users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T17:00:55Z)
• CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging [95.02210956333374]
  We propose a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation.<n>On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T10:59:19Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores [20.623498601506974]
  We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable.<n>We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue.<n>In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T18:38:50Z)
• The Validity of Coreference-based Evaluations of Natural Language Understanding [3.505146496638911]
  I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions.<n>I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T05:49:28Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• A Backdoor-based Explainable AI Benchmark for High Fidelity Evaluation of Attributions [60.06461883533697]
  We first identify a set of fidelity criteria that reliable benchmarks for attribution methods are expected to fulfill.<n>We then introduce a Backdoor-based eXplainable AI benchmark (BackX) that adheres to the desired fidelity criteria.<n>Our analysis also offers insights into defending against neural Trojans by utilizing the attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T13:48:37Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
  Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale. We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units. We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)

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.