Improving the Evaluation of Biomedical Question Answering with Few Human Preference Signals

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly used for biomedical Question Answering (QA). However, evaluating their effectiveness remains challenging due to the lack of reliable reference resources and the frequent misalignment between automatic evaluation metrics and human judgments. One practical question is how evaluation results should be used to guide development decisions, especially when they correlate weakly with human judgments and may even lead to different conclusions. We explore how to use a small amount of human preference signals to calibrate direct assessment evaluation metrics, and show that calibrated metrics consistently outperform baselines that either treat all metrics equally or rely on a single best metric across multiple datasets.