Judge Like Human Examiners: A Weighted Importance Multi-Point Evaluation Framework for Generative Tasks with Long-form Answers

Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases. In practice, however, evaluating generative outputs typically relies on rigid lexical methods to extract and assess answers, which can conflate a model's true problem-solving ability with its compliance with predefined formatting guidelines. While recent LLM-as-a-Judge approaches mitigate this issue by assessing semantic correctness rather than strict structural conformity, they also introduce substantial computational overhead, making evaluation costly. In this work, we first systematically investigate the limitations of lexical evaluation through a large-scale empirical study spanning 36 models and 15 downstream tasks, demonstrating that such methods correlate poorly with human judgments. To address this limitation, we introduce BERT-as-a-Judge, an encoder-driven approach for assessing answer correctness in reference-based generative settings, robust to variations in output phrasing, and requiring only lightweight training on synthetically annotated question-candidate-reference triplets. We show that it consistently outperforms the lexical baseline while matching the performance of much larger LLM judges, providing a compelling trade-off between the two and enabling reliable, scalable evaluation. Finally, through extensive experimentation, we provide detailed insights into BERT-as-a-Judge's performance to offer practical guidance for practitioners, and release all project artifacts to foster downstream adoption.

Rubric-based evaluation of open-ended generation faces a fundamental tension between expressiveness and reliability. Authoring a faithful rubric requires expressing the structure of the space of good answers: open-ended sets of acceptable options, ordered processes, and the relative importance of facts. Grading with the rubric requires a judge to score consistently, and judges are far more reliable on flat, binary checks than on rich structure. We resolve this tension with a two-level meta-rubric framework. A structured meta-rubric captures the grading criteria at authoring time, and fixed mechanical rules compile it into a flat checklist of binary, machine-gradable checks that an LLM judge scores reliably at evaluation time. We instantiate the framework as Gamut (Grounded Assessment of Multimodal Factuality), a benchmark for factual completeness in long-form generation. Gamut comprises 1,813 questions grounded in real wearable imagery across 10 diverse domains, each paired with an evidence-backed rubric verified by expert human annotators. Evaluating 14 frontier and open-weight models, we find Gamut genuinely challenging (best score 58.7% from Gemini 3.1 Pro), highly discriminative, and robust to the choice of judge.

Evaluating the quality of automatically generated text often relies on LLM-as-a-judge (LLM-judge) methods. While effective, these approaches are computationally expensive and require post-processing. To address these limitations, we build upon ParaPLUIE, a perplexity-based LLM-judge metric that estimates confidence over ``Yes/No'' answers without generating text. We introduce *-PLUIE, task specific prompting variants of ParaPLUIE and evaluate their alignment with human judgement. Our experiments show that personalised *-PLUIE achieves stronger correlations with human ratings while maintaining low computational cost.