arXiv preprint ·
Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Evaluating the factual correctness of large language models (LLMs) is vital for many applications. But are our evaluation tools themselves trustworthy? Despite the rise of factuality-based metrics, their sensitivity and reliability remain underexplored. This paper introduces a meta-evaluation framework that systematically tests these metrics using controlled corruptions of gold standard answers. Our method generates ranked outputs with known degrees of degradation to probe how metrics capture nuanced changes in truthfulness. Our experiments reveal that pipeline-based methods, such as the RAGAS's factual correctness metric, better track degradation than LLM-as-judge approaches. We also propose a new variant of the factual correctness metric that provides a competitive and cost-efficient.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
ModularRSI: Modular and Generalizable Recursive Harness Self-Improvement
Early-Bird Decoding: Accelerating Diffusion LLMs with Learnable Block Sizes and Parallel Sampling
Dream-RSI: Recursive Self-Improvement through Evolving Worlds
Language Orthogonalization for Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Audio Deepfake Detection
One Example Is Enough to Pass Fairness Benchmarks: Rethinking Fairness Evaluation for Aligned LLMs
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.