The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
RepLiQA: A Question-Answering Dataset for Benchmarking LLMs on Unseen Reference Content
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data, most of which is automatically scraped from the internet. This data includes encyclopedic documents that harbor a vast amount of general knowledge (e.g., Wikipedia) but also potentially overlap with benchmark datasets used for evaluating LLMs. Consequently, evaluating models on test splits that might have leaked into the training set is prone to misleading conclusions. To foster sound evaluation of language models, we introduce a new test dataset named RepLiQA, suited for question-answering and topic retrieval tasks. RepLiQA is a collection of five splits of test sets, four of which have not been released to the internet or exposed to LLM APIs prior to this publication. Each sample in RepLiQA comprises (1) a reference document crafted by a human annotator and depicting an imaginary scenario (e.g., a news article) absent from the internet; (2) a question about the document's topic; (3) a ground-truth answer derived directly from the information in the document; and (4) the paragraph extracted from the reference document containing the answer. As such, accurate answers can only be generated if a model can find relevant content within the provided document. We run a large-scale benchmark comprising several state-of-the-art LLMs to uncover differences in performance across models of various types and sizes in a context-conditional language modeling setting. Released splits of RepLiQA can be found here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ServiceNow/repliqa.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RepliQA's recent release and non-factual nature ensure that none of the LLMs in the study have been contaminated by this benchmark, making it an ideal candidate for the controlled pipeline.
“Its recent release 3 and non-factual nature ensure that none of the LLMs in our study have been contaminated by this benchmark, making it an ideal candidate for our controlled pipeline.”
From The Emperor's New Clothes in Benchmarking? A Rigorous Examination of Mitigation Strategies for LLM Benchmark Data Contamination (2025) · cites this paper as Monteiro et al., 2024
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Monteiro, J., Noel, P.-A., Marcotte, E., Rajeswar, S., Zantedeschi, V., Vazquez, D., Chapados, N., Pal, C., & Taslakian, P.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 24242-24276
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.11811
- OpenAlex
- W4415798531
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.58
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- question answering, large language models, benchmarking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review