In the ELOQUENT 2025 Sensemaking task, LLM-based evaluators rated clearly garbled or mismatched question-answer pairs as acceptable, showing that LLM-as-a-Judge scores cannot be trusted.
Evaluation of Question Answering Systems: Complexity of judging a natural language
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Question answering (QA) systems are among the most important and rapidly developing research topics in natural language processing (NLP). A reason, therefore, is that a QA system allows humans to interact more naturally with a machine, e.g., via a virtual assistant or search engine. In the last decades, many QA systems have been proposed to address the requirements of different question-answering tasks. Furthermore, many error scores have been introduced, e.g., based on n-gram matching, word embeddings, or contextual embeddings to measure the performance of a QA system. This survey attempts to provide a systematic overview of the general framework of QA, QA paradigms, benchmark datasets, and assessment techniques for a quantitative evaluation of QA systems. The latter is particularly important because not only is the construction of a QA system complex but also its evaluation. We hypothesize that a reason, therefore, is that the quantitative formalization of human judgment is an open problem.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Overview of the Sensemaking Task at the ELOQUENT 2025 Lab: LLMs as Teachers, Students and Evaluators
In the ELOQUENT 2025 Sensemaking task, LLM-based evaluators rated clearly garbled or mismatched question-answer pairs as acceptable, showing that LLM-as-a-Judge scores cannot be trusted.