As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness. Meanwhile, using LLMs themselves as evaluators without external grounding remains unreliable for objective tasks, as they systematically over-accept incorrect answers, fabricate supporting rationales, and degrade sharply on questions that fall outside their training data. We propose Search-AuGmented Evaluation (SAGE), a framework to assess LLM outputs without fixed ground-truth answers. Unlike conventional metrics that compare to static references or depend solely on LLM-as-a-judge knowledge, SAGE acts as an agent that actively retrieves and synthesizes external evidence. It iteratively generates web queries, collects information, summarizes findings, and refines subsequent searches through reflection. By reducing dependence on static reference-driven evaluation protocols, SAGE offers a scalable and adaptive alternative for evaluating the factuality of LLMs. Experimental results on multiple free-form QA benchmarks show that SAGE achieves substantial to perfect agreement with human evaluations.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics such as EM and F1, while useful, are inadequate for capturing the full semantics and contextual depth of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs as judges. Through experiments on free-form question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple models improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, especially in tasks where a single model may struggle. The results indicate a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing the proposed method as a reliable alternative to traditional metrics.

Evaluating free-form Question-Answering (QA) remains a challenge due to its diverse and open-ended nature. Traditional automatic metrics fail to capture semantic equivalence or accommodate the variability of open-ended responses. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators offers a promising alternative due to their strong language understanding and instruction-following capabilities. We propose the Consensus via Lightweight Efficient Voting (CLEV), which employs two primary LLMs as judges and engages a third judge only in cases of disagreement. This approach prioritizes evaluation reliability while reducing unnecessary computational demands. Through experiments, including human evaluation, we demonstrate CLEV’s ability to provide consistent, scalable, and resource-efficient assessments, establishing it as a robust framework for evaluating LLMs on free-form QA.