REVIEW 3 cited by
Accurate and Nuanced Open-QA Evaluation Through Textual Entailment
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Open-domain question answering (Open-QA) is a common task for evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, current Open-QA evaluations are criticized for the ambiguity in questions and the lack of semantic understanding in evaluators. Complex evaluators, powered by foundation models or LLMs and pertaining to semantic equivalence, still deviate from human judgments by a large margin. We propose to study the entailment relations of answers to identify more informative and more general system answers, offering a much closer evaluation to human judgment on both NaturalQuestions and TriviaQA while being learning-free. The entailment-based evaluation we propose allows the assignment of bonus or partial marks by quantifying the inference gap between answers, enabling a nuanced ranking of answer correctness that has higher AUC than current methods.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Leak@$k$: Unlearning Does Not Make LLMs Forget Under Probabilistic Decoding
LLM unlearning methods that pass greedy-decoding benchmarks leak forgotten facts when the model is sampled repeatedly, and the new leak@k metric quantifies this.
-
MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs
MinosEval improves open-ended QA evaluation by sorting questions into factoid and non-factoid and applying tailored scoring, outperforming baselines on four datasets.
-
A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data
A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.