Reliable evaluation is essential for understanding large language model (LLM) performance, yet today's go-to metrics, namely token-overlap scores (e.g., ROUGE) and embedding-based measures (e.g., BERTScore), often misjudge semantic similarity of documents. Our study shows that both token-overlap metrics and embedding-based metrics routinely assign nearly identical scores to texts that directly contradict each other, thereby potentially masking fundamental errors. We introduce MATCHA, an automatic metric that jointly rewards semantic agreement with a reference and penalizes contradictions. MATCHA employs a dual-view perspective that measures (i) proximity to the gold text and (ii) distance from an adversarially generated counterfactual contradiction. In eight public benchmarks, MATCHA outperforms popular metrics, compared with human annotations on question-answering, image caption generation, natural language inference, summarization, and semantic textual similarity tasks. On the TruthfulQA dataset (i.e., a dataset without a training set, where no embedding-based metrics could locally train on), this improvement in terms of matching texts with a reference reaches 18.38% over ROUGE-L and 20.82% over BERTScore. Both quantitative comparison and qualitative human assessments confirm the efficacy and validity of MATCHA and uncover fundamental weaknesses in pre-existing metrics. Compared with 23 embedding models, including top state-of-the-art ones, used as a metric similar to BERTScore, MATCHA remains the most accurate in distinguishing correct from incorrect statements solely based on a reference. Our code and metric are publicly available (https://github.com/Siran-Li/MATCHA).
Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings. However, as these metrics are increasingly used as optimization objectives, correlation alone is no longer sufficient: agents may strategically game the evaluation metric. We study this issue through two complementary notions of alignment. A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information. We make two contributions. First, we propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, degradation sensitivity, and manipulation robustness. These principles evaluate whether a metric agrees with human judgments, penalizes low-effort information loss, and resists strategic score inflation. Second, we develop a unified design framework for mutual-information-based metrics that decomposes existing and new metrics into four choices: information measure, estimation method, text representation, and prediction mechanism. Across peer review, summarization, and question answering, we find that strong human-rating correlation does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge achieves high correlation but is susceptible to manipulation. In contrast, mutual-information-based metrics substantially improve manipulation robustness. Our framework also uncovers a new metric that achieves the strongest overall robustness in our experiments while remaining competitive on human-rating correlation.
Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.
LLM judges are used to reduce the need for costly human labor in evaluating open-ended text generation. However, the reliability of these judges depends critically on their alignment with human raters -- a property that itself depends on costly human annotations. In this work, we develop a method (Metric Match) for estimating correlation-based reliability metrics of LLM judges from limited annotations. Metric Match selects a subset of samples for human annotation such that the subset matches the population reliability metric with respect to acquired synthetic labels. We empirically show that Metric Match achieves a win-rate of 0.838 against random subset selection across four different correlation metrics and 15 datasets, with an 18.7% decrease in average estimation error and reduces annotation needs by 32.5%. We provide a cost model and highlight a medical case study where our method saves $1,041.67 compared to random selection for expert annotation. Further, we shift our task from reliability estimation to reliability classification of whether a given judge is above a deployment threshold, outperforming random selection with Metric Match. All project code is publicly available, and we additionally provide an installable package for ease of use.