PreprintCited by 3Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Michelangelo: Long Context Evaluations Beyond Haystacks via Latent Structure Queries

Open access

Abstract

We introduce Michelangelo: a minimal, synthetic, and unleaked long-context reasoning evaluation for large language models which is also easy to automatically score. This evaluation is derived via a novel, unifying framework for evaluations over arbitrarily long contexts which measure the model's ability to do more than retrieve a single piece of information from its context. The central idea of the Latent Structure Queries framework (LSQ) is to construct tasks which require a model to ``chisel away'' the irrelevant information in the context, revealing a latent structure in the context. To verify a model's understanding of this latent structure, we query the model for details of the structure. Using LSQ, we produce three diagnostic long-context evaluations across code and natural-language domains intended to provide a stronger signal of long-context language model capabilities. We perform evaluations on several state-of-the-art models and demonstrate both that a) the proposed evaluations are high-signal and b) that there is significant room for improvement in synthesizing long-context information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2409.12640

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?

    Hsieh, C.-P., Sun, S., Kriman, S., Acharya, S., Rekesh, D., Jia, F., Zhang, Y., & Ginsburg, B. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 13 · cited 15× · see citing works

    “As mentioned in Section 6, there are a few pre-existing evaluations which study arbitrarily long reasoning tasks, with evaluations sometimes going up to 1M context, including Hsieh et al. (2024); Kuratov et al. (2024); Lee et al. (2024); Li et al. (2024); Zhang et al. (2024).”
    BackgroundMethodResultInfluential

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. R. Agarwal, A. Singh, L. M. Zhang, B. Bohnet, L. Rosias, S. Chan, B. Zhang, A. Anand, Z. Abbas, A. Nova, J. D. Co-Reyes, E. Chu, F. Behbahani, A. Faust, and H. Larochelle. Many-shot in-context learning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11018. · arXiv
  2. M. Akter, N. Bansal, and S. K. Karmaker. Revisiting automatic evaluation of extractive summarization task: Can we do better than ROUGE? In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1547-1560, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.122. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-acl.122. · DOI
  3. S. Arora, S. Eyuboglu, A. Timalsina, I. Johnson, M. Poli, J. Zou, A. Rudra, and C. Ré. Zoology: Measuring and improving recall in efficient language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.04927. · arXiv
  4. Y. Bai, X. Lv, J. Zhang, H. Lyu, J. Tang, Z. Huang, Z. Du, X. Liu, A. Zeng, L. Hou, et al. Longbench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14508, 2023. · arXiv
  5. B. Bohnet, A. Nova, A. T. Parisi, K. Swersky, K. Goshvadi, H. Dai, D. Schuurmans, N. Fiedel, and H. Sedghi. Exploring and benchmarking the planning capabilities of large language models, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13094. · arXiv
  6. B. Bohnet, K. Swersky, R. Liu, P. Awasthi, A. Nova, J. Snaider, H. Sedghi, A. T. Parisi, M. Collins, A. Lazaridou, O. Firat, and N. Fiedel. Long-span question-answering: Automatic question generation and qa-system ranking via side-by-side evaluation, 2024b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 00179.
  7. Y. Chang, K. Lo, T. Goyal, and M. Iyyer. Booookscore: A systematic exploration of book-length sum- marization in the era of LLMs. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=7Ttk3RzDeu.
  8. A. Cohan and N. Goharian. Revisiting summarization evaluation for scientific articles. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, and S. Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 806-813, Portorož, Slovenia, May 2016. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). URL https://aclanthology.org/L16-1130.
  9. O. Goldman, A. Jacovi, A. Slobodkin, A. Maimon, I. Dagan, and R. Tsarfaty. Is it really long context if all you need is retrieval? towards genuinely difficult long context nlp, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.00402.
  10. Google, P. Georgiev, V. I. Lei, R. Burnell, L. Bai, A. Gulati, G. Tanzer, D. Vincent, Z. Pan, S. Wang, S. Mariooryad, Y. Ding, X. Geng, F. Alcober, R. Frostig, M. Omernick, L. Walker, C. Paduraru, C. Sorokin, A. Tacchetti, C. Gaffney, S. Daruki, O. Sercinoglu, Z. Gleicher, J. Love, P. Voigtlaender, Z. Gong, A. Ruddock, M. Bauer, N. Felt, A. GP, A. Arnab, D. Zelle, J. Rothfuss, B. Rosgen, A. Shenoy, B. Seybold, X. Li, J. Mudigonda, G. Erdogan, J. Xia, J. Simsa, A. Michi, Y. Yao, C. Yew, S. Kan, I. Caswell, C. Radebaugh, A. Elisseeff, P. Valenzuela, K. McKinney, K. Paterson, A. Cui, E. Latorre- Chimoto, S. Kim, W. Zeng, K. Durden, P. Ponnapalli, T. Sosea, C. A. Choquette-Choo, J. Manyika, B. Robenek, H. Vashisht, S. Pereira, H. Lam, M. Velic, D. Owusu-Afriyie, K. Lee, T. Bolukbasi, A. Parrish, S. Lu, J. Park, B. Venkatraman, A. Talbert, L. Rosique, Y. Cheng, A. Sozanschi, A. Paszke, P. Kumar, J. Austin, L. Li, K. Salama, W. Kim, N. Dukkipati, A. Baryshnikov, C. Kaplanis, X. Sheng, Y. Chervonyi, C. Unlu, D. de Las Casas, H. Askham, K. Tunyasuvunakool, F. Gimeno, S. Poder, C. Kwak, M. Miecnikowski, V. Mirrokni, A. Dimitriev, A. Parisi, D. Liu, T. Tsai, T. Shevlane, C. Kouridi, D. Garmon, A. Goedeckemeyer, A. R. Brown, A. Vijayakumar, A. Elqursh, S. Jazayeri, J. Huang, S. M. Carthy, J. Hoover, L. Kim, S. Kumar, W. Chen, C. Biles, G. Bingham, E. Rosen, L. Wang, Q. Tan, D. Engel, F. Pongetti, D. de Cesare, D. Hwang, L. Yu, J. Pullman, S. Narayanan, K. Levin, S. Gopal, M. Li, A. Aharoni, T. Trinh, J. Lo, N. Casagrande, R. Vij, L. Matthey, B. Ramadhana, A. Matthews, C. Carey, M. Johnson, K. Goranova, R. Shah, S. Ashraf, K. Dasgupta, R. Larsen, Y. Wang, M. R. Vuyyuru, C. Jiang, J. Ijazi, K. Osawa, C. Smith, R. S. Boppana, T. Bilal, Y. Koizumi, Y. Xu, Y. Altun, N. Shabat, B. Bariach, A. Korchemniy, K. Choo, O. Ronneberger, C. Iwuanyanwu, S. Zhao, D. Soergel, C.-J. Hsieh, I. Cai, S. Iqbal, M. Sundermeyer, Z. Chen, E. Bursztein, C. Malaviya, F. Biadsy, P. Shroff, I. Dhillon, T. Latkar, C. Dyer, H. Forbes, M. Nicosia, V. Nikolaev, S. Greene, M. Georgiev, P. Wang, N. Martin, H. Sedghi, J. Zhang, P. Banzal, D. Fritz, V. Rao, X. Wang, J. Zhang, V. Patraucean, D. Du, I. Mordatch, I. Jurin, L. Liu, A. Dubey, A. Mohan, J. Nowakowski, V.-D. Ion, N. Wei, R. Tojo, M. A. Raad, D. A. Hudson, V. Keshava, S. Agrawal, K. Ramirez, Z. Wu, H. Nguyen, J. Liu, M. Sewak, B. Petrini, D. Choi, I. Philips, Z. Wang, I. Bica, A. Garg, J. Wilkiewicz, P. Agrawal, X. Li, D. Guo, E. Xue, N. Shaik, A. Leach, S. M. Khan, J. Wiesinger, S. Jerome, A. Chakladar, A. W. Wang, T. Ornduff, F. Abu, A. Ghaffarkhah, M. Wainwright, M. Cortes, F. Liu, J. Maynez, S. Petrov, Y. Wu, D. Hassabis, K. Kavukcuoglu, J. Dean, and O. Vinyals. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05530. · arXiv
  11. M. Karpinska, K. Thai, K. Lo, T. Goyal, and M. Iyyer. One thousand and one pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16264. · arXiv
  12. D. Kaushik and Z. C. Lipton. How much reading does reading comprehension require? a critical investigation of popular benchmarks. In E. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. Hockenmaier, and J. Tsujii, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5010-5015, Brussels, Belgium, Oct.-Nov. 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D18-1546. URL https://aclanthology.org/D18-1546. · DOI
  13. Y. Kim, Y. Chang, M. Karpinska, A. Garimella, V. Manjunatha, K. Lo, T. Goyal, and M. Iyyer. Fables: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2404.01261.
  14. T. Kočiskỳ, J. Schwarz, P. Blunsom, C. Dyer, K. M. Hermann, G. Melis, and E. Grefenstette. The narrativeqa reading comprehension challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:317-328, 2018.
  15. Y. Kuratov, A. Bulatov, P. Anokhin, I. Rodkin, D. Sorokin, A. Sorokin, and M. Burtsev. Babilong: Testing the limits of llms with long context reasoning-in-a-haystack, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2406.10149. · arXiv
  16. J. Lee, A. Chen, Z. Dai, D. Dua, D. S. Sachan, M. Boratko, Y. Luan, S. M. R. Arnold, V. Perot, S. Dalmia, H. Hu, X. Lin, P. Pasupat, A. Amini, J. R. Cole, S. Riedel, I. Naim, M.-W. Chang, and K. Guu. Can long-context language models subsume retrieval, rag, sql, and more?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13121. · arXiv
  17. M. Levy, A. Jacoby, and Y. Goldberg. Same task, more tokens: the impact of input length on the reasoning performance of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14848, 2024. · arXiv
  18. M. Li, S. Zhang, Y. Liu, and K. Chen. Needlebench: Can llms do retrieval and reasoning in 1 million context window?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11963. · arXiv
  19. M. Nasr, N. Carlini, J. Hayase, M. Jagielski, A. F. Cooper, D. Ippolito, C. A. Choquette-Choo, E. Wallace, F. Tramèr, and K. Lee. Scalable extraction of training data from (production) language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17035, 2023. · arXiv
  20. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report, Mar. 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  21. Y. Tay, M. Dehghani, S. Abnar, Y. Shen, D. Bahri, P. Pham, J. Rao, L. Yang, S. Ruder, and D. Metzler. Long range arena: A benchmark for efficient transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04006, 2020. · arXiv
  22. X. Zhang, Y. Chen, S. Hu, Z. Xu, J. Chen, M. K. Hao, X. Han, Z. L. Thai, S. Wang, Z. Liu, et al. ∞-bench: Extending long context evaluation beyond 100k tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13718, 2024. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vodrahalli, K., Ontanon, S., Tripuraneni, N., Xu, K., Jain, S., Shivanna, R., Hui, J., Dikkala, N., Kazemi, M., Fatemi, B., Anil, R., Dyer, E., Shakeri, S., Vij, R., Mehta, H., Ramasesh, V., Le, Q., Chi, E., Lu, Y., Firat, O., Lazaridou, A., Lespiau, J.-B., Attaluri, N., & Olszewska, K.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403713491
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
long-context reasoning, large language models, evaluation benchmark, code reasoning, natural language reasoning, automatic scoring

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