DetectiveQA: Evaluating Long-Context Reasoning on Detective Novels

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02465v1
• Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 06:28:22 GMT
• Title: DetectiveQA: Evaluating Long-Context Reasoning on Detective Novels
• Authors: Zhe Xu, Jiasheng Ye, Xiangyang Liu, Tianxiang Sun, Xiaoran Liu, Qipeng Guo, Linlin Li, Qun Liu, Xuanjing Huang, Xipeng Qiu,
• Abstract summary: We introduce DetectiveQA, a narrative reasoning benchmark with an average context length of over 100K tokens. We use detective novels as data sources, which naturally have various reasoning elements. We manually annotated 600 questions in Chinese and then also provided an English edition of the context information and questions.
• Score: 89.51834016940153
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), long-context information understanding and processing have become a hot topic in academia and industry. However, benchmarks for evaluating the ability of LLMs to handle long-context information do not seem to have kept pace with the development of LLMs. Despite the emergence of various long-context evaluation benchmarks, the types of capability assessed are still limited, without new capability dimensions. In this paper, we introduce DetectiveQA, a narrative reasoning benchmark featured with an average context length of over 100K tokens. DetectiveQA focuses on evaluating the long-context reasoning ability of LLMs, which not only requires a full understanding of context but also requires extracting important evidences from the context and reasoning according to extracted evidences to answer the given questions. This is a new dimension of capability evaluation, which is more in line with the current intelligence level of LLMs. We use detective novels as data sources, which naturally have various reasoning elements. Finally, we manually annotated 600 questions in Chinese and then also provided an English edition of the context information and questions. We evaluate many long-context LLMs on DetectiveQA, including commercial and open-sourced models, and the results indicate that existing long-context LLMs still require significant advancements to effectively process true long-context dependency questions.

Related papers

• Needle Threading: Can LLMs Follow Threads through Near-Million-Scale Haystacks? [36.83397306207386]
  We evaluate the capabilities of 17 leading Large Language Models (LLMs) Strikingly, many models are remarkably threadsafe: capable of simultaneously following multiple threads without significant loss in performance. We find the effective context limit is significantly shorter than the supported context length, with accuracy decreasing as the context window grows.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T18:59:27Z)
• ALR$^2$: A Retrieve-then-Reason Framework for Long-context Question Answering [42.146660039671076]
  We develop a retrieve-then-reason framework for large language models (LLMs) We find that modern LLMs struggle to accurately retrieve relevant facts and instead, often hallucinate "retrieved facts" We introduce ALR$2$, a method that augments the long-context reasoning capability of LLMs via an explicit two-stage procedure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T08:29:12Z)
• NeedleBench: Can LLMs Do Retrieval and Reasoning in 1 Million Context Window? [37.64593022203498]
  NeedleBench is a framework consisting of progressively more challenging tasks for assessing bilingual long-context capabilities. We use the framework to assess how well the leading open-source models can identify key information relevant to the question. We propose the Ancestral Trace Challenge to mimic the complexity of logical reasoning challenges that are likely to be present in real-world long-context tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T17:59:06Z)
• Leave No Document Behind: Benchmarking Long-Context LLMs with Extended Multi-Doc QA [71.04146366608904]
  Long-context modeling capabilities have garnered widespread attention, leading to the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) with ultra-context windows. We propose a novel long-context benchmark, Loong, aligning with realistic scenarios through extended multi-document question answering (QA) Loong introduces four types of tasks with a range of context lengths: Spotlight Locating, Comparison, Clustering, and Chain of Reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T09:42:56Z)
• Ada-LEval: Evaluating long-context LLMs with length-adaptable benchmarks [76.43527940649939]
  We introduce Ada-LEval, a benchmark for evaluating the long-context understanding of large language models (LLMs) Ada-LEval includes two challenging subsets, TSort and BestAnswer, which enable a more reliable evaluation of LLMs' long context capabilities. We evaluate 4 state-of-the-art closed-source API models and 6 open-source models with Ada-LEval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T17:30:48Z)
• NovelQA: Benchmarking Question Answering on Documents Exceeding 200K Tokens [63.7488938083696]
  NovelQA is a benchmark designed to test the capabilities of Large Language Models with extended texts. This paper presents the design and construction of NovelQA, highlighting its manual annotation, and diverse question types. Our evaluation of Long-context LLMs on NovelQA reveals significant insights into the models' performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T17:32:32Z)
• LooGLE: Can Long-Context Language Models Understand Long Contexts? [46.143956498529796]
  LooGLE is a benchmark for large language models' long context understanding. It features relatively new documents post-2022, with over 24,000 tokens per document and 6,000 newly generated questions spanning diverse domains. The evaluation of eight state-of-the-art LLMs on LooGLE revealed key findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T01:45:37Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.