PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

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 access
Monteiro, Joao, Noel, Pierre-Andre, Marcotte, Etienne, Rajeswar, Sai, Zantedeschi, Valentina, Vazquez, David, Chapados, Nicolas, Pal, Christopher, Taslakian, Perouz·2024·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.11811

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
OpenAlex
W4415798531
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
0.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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