Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form QA
Open accessAbstract
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics such as EM and F1, while useful, are inadequate for capturing the full semantics and contextual depth of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs as judges. Through experiments on free-form question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple models improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, especially in tasks where a single model may struggle. The results indicate a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing the proposed method as a reliable alternative to traditional metrics.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Prior studies have demonstrated that LLMs can reach high agreement with human annotators when grading correctness of responses to short-answer questions on existing datasets.
“Studies (Thakur et al., 2025;Badshah & Sajjad, 2024;Henkel et al., 2024;Badshah et al., 2025) have demonstrated that LLMs can reach high agreement with human annotators when grading the correctness of responses to short-answer questions on existing datasets.”
From No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding (2025) · cites this paper as Badshah & Sajjad, 2024
Assigning equal weight to all judges can be suboptimal because skill levels may vary across judges and tasks.
“First, assigning equal weight to all judges, as done in Verga et al. (2024); Badshah and Sajjad (2024), can be suboptimal because skill levels may vary across judges and tasks.”
From SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation (2025) · cites this paper as Badshah and Sajjad, 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Anonymous. 2025. SAGE: LLM-based evaluation through selective aggregation for free-form question- answering. In Submitted to ACL Rolling Review - May 2025. Under review.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Ma- teusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sas- try, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cum- mings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Eliza- beth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code.
- Cheng-Han Chiang and Hung-yi Lee. 2023. Can large language models be an alternative to human evalua- tions? In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 15607-15631, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Joseph L Fleiss and Jacob Cohen. 1973. The equiva- lence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and psychological measurement, 33(3):613-619.
- Ehsan Kamalloo, Nouha Dziri, Charles Clarke, and Davood Rafiei. 2023. Evaluating open-domain ques- tion answering in the era of large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5591-5606, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Ehsan Kamalloo, Shivani Upadhyay, and Jimmy Lin. 2024. Towards robust qa evaluation via open llms. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SI- GIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '24, page 2811-2816, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI · Paper page
- Oscar Mañas, Benno Krojer, and Aishwarya Agrawal. 2024. Improving automatic vqa evaluation using large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 4171-4179.
- Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3):276-282.
- Meta AI. 2024. Introducing meta llama 3: The most capable openly available llm to date. Meta AI Blog. Accessed: 2024-07-25, 12:14:31 p.m. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettle- moyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work? In Proceed- ings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 11048-11064, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Tianxiang Sun, Junliang He, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan- jing Huang. 2022. BERTScore is unfair: On social bias in language model-based metrics for text gen- eration. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3726-3739, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Cunxiang Wang, Sirui Cheng, Qipeng Guo, Yuanhao Yue, Bowen Ding, Zhikun Xu, Yidong Wang, Xi- angkun Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2023a. Evaluating open-qa evaluation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 77013-77042.
- Cunxiang Wang, Sirui Cheng, Qipeng Guo, Yuanhao Yue, Bowen Ding, Zhikun Xu, Yidong Wang, Xi- angkun Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2023b. Evaluating open-QA evaluation. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems Datasets and Benchmarks Track.
- Xuemin Yu, Fahim Dalvi, Nadir Durrani, Marzia Nouri, and Hassan Sajjad. 2024. Latent concept-based ex- planation of NLP models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12435-12459, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. Bertscore: Evalu- ating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenRe- view.net.
- Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 46595-46623.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation
Sun, G., Kagrecha, A., Manakul, P., Woodland, P., & Gales, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.756 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding
Krumdick, M., Lovering, C., Reddy, V., Ebner, S., & Tanner, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05061 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“To investigate this question, we collect a new dataset aimed at evaluating automated grading of response correctness.”
Play Favorites: A Statistical Method to Measure Self-Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
Spiliopoulou, E., Fogliato, R., Burnsky, H., Soliman, T., Ma, J., Horwood, G., & Ballesteros, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.06709
“In scenarios where human annotations are entirely unavailable, assembling a diverse panel of LLM-as-a-judge judges [Verga et al., 2024, Badshah and Sajjad, 2024, Li et al., b] drawn from multiple model families (such as GPT, Claude, and Llama) further minimizes systematic biases, ensuring fair,…”
Gu, J., Jiang, X., Shi, Z., Tan, H., Zhai, X., Xu, C., Li, W., Shen, Y., Ma, S., Liu, H., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.15594
- Authors
- Badshah, S., & Sajjad, H.
- Affiliations
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- ORCID
- Badshah, Sher
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 251-267
- arXiv
- 2408.09235
- OpenAlex
- W4416033657
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 7
- FWCI
- 16.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Widening NLP Workshop (WiNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Research Nova Scotia
- Alliance de recherche numérique du Canada
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- large language models, automated assessment, multi-model ensemble, LLM-as-a-judge, evaluation metrics, human evaluation correlation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
