Automatic metrics are the default for evaluating LLM-generated text, yet a metric is quietly asked to do two jobs: tell genuine content alignment from surface coincidence (validity), and tell a better system from a worse one (discriminative power). On open-ended, opinion-driven question answering, the two are in tension. We introduce RECOM (Reddit Evaluation for Correspondence of Models), a contamination-free evaluation dataset of 15,000 r/AskReddit questions (September 2025), each paired with its authentic community replies, which postdate every evaluated model's training cutoff. Scoring five open-source LLMs (7--10B) against every reply each metric paired with a random-derangement noise floor we find that no metric does both jobs well. Cosine similarity separates real from random answers (Cohen's d≈2) but cannot rank the five models (∣d∣<0.1); BERTScore precision appears to rank the models (raw ∣d∣ up to 0.63), but once response length is controlled this collapses to ∣d∣=0.09 and its validity is weak (d≈0.8, versus cosine's ≈2). Because every metric scores the same outputs, this validity--discrimination tradeoff is a property of the metrics, not the models, and we argue it stems from representation design. Three independent LLM judges reproduce the validity gap and likewise separate the five models only weakly. We recommend reporting metrics on both axes, with an explicit random-baseline floor. RECOM is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/recom-D4B0
Reliable evaluation of open-ended question answering remains a bottleneck for measuring answer correctness of modern LLMs. Unlike multiple-choice tasks, free-form answers may be correct in many surface forms and may fail in qualitatively different ways, including incompleteness, contradiction, overgeneration, and endorsement of false premises. Existing judgment-based and similarity-based metrics often collapse these distinctions. We address this gap with three reusable contributions. First, we introduce a semantic correctness taxonomy that assigns open-ended answers to eight ordered classes, separating verbose-but-correct answers from those contaminated by hallucinated content. Second, we release CAP-Correctness, an 8.8k-example benchmark spanning widely used QA datasets, and CAP-Statements, an 11k-example dataset for converting question-answer pairs into declarative statements for natural language inference (NLI) training and statement-based evaluation. Third, we introduce CAP (Context-Aware Precision), a reference-based metric that scores question-conditioned statements using bidirectional NLI. Under a monotonicity protocol testing whether metrics respect the taxonomy's intended ordering, CAP outperforms established baselines.
LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from 65.0% to 68.6%, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from 46.4% to 36.0% with little change in inter-judge agreement (α=.531→.519).
Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.