Overview of the Sensemaking Task at the ELOQUENT 2025 Lab: LLMs as Teachers, Students and Evaluators
This work addresses the challenge of creating testable criteria for evaluating generative models, but it is incremental as it builds on existing shared task frameworks.
The paper tackled the problem of evaluating generative language models through a sensemaking task, where models act as teachers, students, and evaluators, and reported results from the 2025 edition with 4 participating teams and observations on performance limitations.
ELOQUENT is a set of shared tasks that aims to create easily testable high-level criteria for evaluating generative language models. Sensemaking is one such shared task. In Sensemaking, we try to assess how well generative models ``make sense out of a given text'' in three steps inspired by exams in a classroom setting: (1) Teacher systems should prepare a set of questions, (2) Student systems should answer these questions, and (3) Evaluator systems should score these answers, all adhering rather strictly to a given set of input materials. We report on the 2025 edition of Sensemaking, where we had 7 sources of test materials (fact-checking analyses of statements, textbooks, transcribed recordings of a lecture, and educational videos) spanning English, German, Ukrainian, and Czech languages. This year, 4 teams participated, providing us with 2 Teacher submissions, 2 Student submissions, and 2 Evaluator submissions. We added baselines for Teacher and Student using commercial large language model systems. We devised a fully automatic evaluation procedure, which we compare to a minimalistic manual evaluation. We were able to make some interesting observations. For the first task, the creation of questions, better evaluation strategies will still have to be devised because it is difficult to discern the quality of the various candidate question sets. In the second task, question answering, the LLMs examined overall perform acceptably, but restricting their answers to the given input texts remains problematic. In the third task, evaluation of question answers, our adversarial tests reveal that systems using the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm erroneously rate both garbled question-answer pairs and answers to mixed-up questions as acceptable.