# SAGE: A Search-AuGmented Evaluation of Large Language Models on Free-Form QA

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07385 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07385/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04788/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03214/) (2023)
- [Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06782/) (2024)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07462/) (2023)
- [No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05061/) (2025)
- [Commercial LLM Agents Are Already Vulnerable to Simple Yet Dangerous Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08586/) (2025)
- [Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.09235/) (2024)
- [Quantifying the Capabilities of LLMs across Scale and Precision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.03146/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03248/) (2024)
- [Latent Concept-based Explanation of NLP Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12545/) (2024)
- [CLEV: LLM-Based Evaluation Through Lightweight Efficient Voting for Free-Form Question-Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08542/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Static Sandboxes Are Inadequate: Modeling Societal Complexity Requires Open-Ended Co-Evolution in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Simulations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13982/) (2025)
- [Judge, Retrieve, or Abstain: Uncertainty-Guarded LLM Judging with Provable Risk Guarantees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17994/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.