How Correct Is Your Answer? A Semantic Correctness Framework for Open QA Evaluation

Calibration measures whether a model's predicted confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy, and is central to the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains such as medicine and law. While much recent work focuses on improving LLM calibration, the equally important question of how to evaluate it in realistic settings remains underdeveloped. Open-ended question answering (QA), the most common deployment setting for modern LLMs, is where existing evaluation methods fall short: logit-based metrics need restricted output formats and internal probabilities; verbalized confidence is self-reported and often overconfident; and sampling-based methods rely on task-specific extraction rules without a clear finite-sample target. We introduce Sem-ECE (Semantic-Sampling Expected Calibration Error), a calibration evaluation framework for open-ended QA that samples answers from the model, groups them into semantic classes, and uses the resulting frequencies as confidence. We study two estimators within this framework: Sem$_1$-ECE, the same-sample self-consistency score, and Sem$_2$-ECE, a held-out variant that separates answer selection from confidence evaluation. We prove both are asymptotically unbiased, and further show that they agree on easy questions but diverge on hard ones with Sem$_2$ achieving strictly smaller calibration error, so their gap also serves as a diagnostic for question difficulty. Experiments on three open-ended QA benchmarks across five leading commercial LLMs match our theoretical predictions and show that Sem-ECE outperforms verbalized confidence and existing sampling-based methods, while complementing logit-based evaluation when internal probabilities are unavailable.

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.

A model should refuse two different things: answers it would get wrong, and questions it should not answer at all, such as unanswerable ones or ones resting on a false premise. The usual recipe thresholds a single confidence score, which cannot tell these apart. Across five instruction-tuned models from three families (2B to 14B), we find they are separate axes. Ordinary answer-confidence tracks whether an answer is right but is nearly blind to whether the question is answerable; a linear probe on hidden states does the reverse. The blind spot does not shrink with scale. It is worst on naturally occurring false-premise questions (CREPE). There, answer-confidence, P(IK), P(True), and even asking the model outright whether a premise is false all stay near chance, while a hidden-state probe reaches 0.69 to 0.77 AUROC: the model represents a problem it will not report. This turns out to be fixable. Instructing a model to check premises backfires, because it then disputes sound and false premises alike (57% false challenges), unable to tell them apart; routing the same instruction with the probe roughly triples challenge precision. We turn the two axes into a calibrated policy that answers only when an answerability score and a correctness score each clear a separately certifies behave differently: the unanswerable-answer rate is controllable at every scale, while the wrong-answer rate is capped by model accuracy, so the guarantee tightens as threshold policy certifies both budgets at 0.75 coverage of correct answers, against 0.31 for a single threshold; at 14B it is the only policy that certifies at all.