Licai Qi

Tianjun Pan, Xuan Lin, Wenyan Yang et al.

Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for meta-evaluation. However, prior meta-evaluation efforts largely focus on the response level, failing to assess the fine-grained judgment accuracy that rubric-based evaluation relies on. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricEval. Our benchmark features: (1) the first rubric-level meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction following, (2) diverse instructions and responses spanning multiple categories and model sources, and (3) a substantial set of 3,486 quality-controlled instances, along with Easy/Hard subsets that better differentiates judge performance. Our experiments reveal that rubric-level judging remains far from solved: even GPT-4o, a widely adopted judge in instruction-following benchmarks, achieves only 55.97% on Hard subset. Considering evaluation paradigm, rubric-level evaluation outperforms checklist-level, explicit reasoning improves accuracy, and both together reduce inter-judge variance. Through our established rubric taxonomy, we further identify common failure modes and offer actionable insights for reliable instruction-following evaluation.

Shisong Chen, Qian Zhu, Wenyan Yang et al.

Insurance, as a critical component of the global financial system, demands high standards of accuracy and reliability in AI applications. While existing benchmarks evaluate AI capabilities across various domains, they often fail to capture the unique characteristics and requirements of the insurance domain. To address this gap, we present INSEva, a comprehensive Chinese benchmark specifically designed for evaluating AI systems' knowledge and capabilities in insurance. INSEva features a multi-dimensional evaluation taxonomy covering business areas, task formats, difficulty levels, and cognitive-knowledge dimension, comprising 38,704 high-quality evaluation examples sourced from authoritative materials. Our benchmark implements tailored evaluation methods for assessing both faithfulness and completeness in open-ended responses. Through extensive evaluation of 8 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), we identify significant performance variations across different dimensions. While general LLMs demonstrate basic insurance domain competency with average scores above 80, substantial gaps remain in handling complex, real-world insurance scenarios. The benchmark will be public soon.