arXiv (OAI Expanded)
open access
Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation
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 framew
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Human-Anchored Factuality Evaluation with Strategic Annotation#819938
- Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English#923998
- Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English#919769
- Beyond Scores: Understanding LLM-as-a-Judge Mechanisms in Summarization Evaluation#627670
- Post-hoc Alignment of LLM-judges to Human Judgment Distribution#821056
Record · ID 1109553
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive