# An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering

Source: [An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/68fa78431e209131cea777fc>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2025-10-26T04:35:18.340Z

Authors: Ning Xian, Yixing Fan, Ruqing Zhang, Maarten de Rijke, Jiafeng Guo

Published: 2025-04-25T15:14:25.000Z

## Abstract

\\Ac{LFQA} aims to generate lengthy answers to complex questions. This scenario presents great flexibility as well as significant challenges for evaluation. Most evaluations rely on deterministic metrics that depend on string or n-gram matching, while the reliability of large language model-based evaluations for long-form answers remains relatively unexplored. We address this gap by conducting an in-depth study of long-form answer evaluation with the following research questions: (i) To what extent do existing automatic evaluation metrics serve as a substitute for human evaluations? (ii) What are the limitations of existing evaluation metrics compared to human evaluations? (iii) How can the effectiveness and robustness of existing evaluation methods be improved? We collect 5,236 factoid and non-factoid long-form answers generated by different large language models and conduct a human evaluation on 2,079 of them, focusing on correctness and informativeness. Subsequently, we investigated the performance of automatic evaluation metrics by evaluating these answers, analyzing the consistency between these metrics and human evaluations. We find that the style, length of the answers, and the category of questions can bias the automatic evaluation metrics. However, fine-grained evaluation helps mitigate this issue on some metrics. Our findings have important implications for the use of large language models for evaluating long-form question answering. All code and datasets are available at https://github.com/bugtig6351/lfqa\_evaluation.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18413>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.18413.pdf>)
