Cross-Examination Framework: A Task-Agnostic Diagnostic for Information Fidelity in Text-to-Text Generation

Traditional metrics like BLEU and BERTScore fail to capture semantic fidelity in generative text-to-text tasks. We adapt the Cross-Examination Framework (CEF) for a reference-free, multi-dimensional evaluation by treating the source and candidate as independent knowledge bases. CEF generates verifiable questions from each text and performs a cross-examination to derive three interpretable scores: Coverage, Conformity, and Consistency. Validated across translation, summarization and clinical note-generation, our framework identifies critical errors, such as content omissions and factual contradictions, missed by standard metrics. A key contribution is a systematic robustness analysis to select a stable judge model. Crucially, the strong correlation between our reference-free and with-reference modes validates CEF's reliability without gold references. Furthermore, human expert validation demonstrates that CEF mismatching questions align with meaning-altering semantic errors higher than with non-semantic errors, particularly excelling at identifying entity-based and relational distortions.

Do Instruction-Tuned Models Always Perform Better Than Base Models? Evidence from Math and Domain-Shifted Benchmarks

Instruction finetuning is standard practice for improving LLM performance, yet it remains unclear whether it enhances reasoning or merely induces surface-level pattern matching. We investigate this by evaluating base and instruction-tuned models on standard math benchmarks, structurally perturbed variants, and domain-shifted tasks. Our analysis highlights two key (often overlooked) limitations of instruction tuning. First, the performance advantage is unstable and depends heavily on evaluation settings. In zero-shot CoT settings on GSM8K, base models consistently outperform instruction-tuned variants, with drops as high as 32.67\% (Llama3-70B). Instruction-tuned models only match or exceed this performance when provided with few-shot exemplars, suggesting a reliance on specific prompting patterns rather than intrinsic reasoning. Second, tuning gains are brittle under distribution shift. Our results show that base models surpass instruction-tuned variants on the domain-specific MedCalc benchmark. Additionally, instruction-tuned models show sharp declines on perturbed datasets, indicating sensitivity to prompt structure over robust reasoning.