Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for question answering (QA). By simply prepending relevant documents and an instruction to their input, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional training. However, these models tend to produce verbose responses with supplementary information, which makes traditional QA metrics like exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we evaluate instruction-following models along two fronts: 1) how well they satisfy user’s information need (correctness), and 2) whether they disseminate information supported by the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness and propose simple token-overlap metrics that correlate highly with human judgments. Our analysis reveals that for correctness, instruction-following models perform comparably to models specifically fine-tuned for that task. However, they struggle to accurately judge the relevance of the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and human annotation data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".