RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14289v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:37:00 GMT
• Title: RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension
• Authors: Yelin Chen, Fanjin Zhang, Suping Sun, Yunhe Pang, Yuanchun Wang, Jian Song, Xiaoyan Li, Lei Hou, Shu Zhao, Jie Tang, Juanzi Li,
• Abstract summary: RPC-Bench is a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers.<n>We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts.
• Score: 65.81339691942757
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Understanding research papers remains challenging for foundation models due to specialized scientific discourse and complex figures and tables, yet existing benchmarks offer limited fine-grained evaluation at scale. To address this gap, we introduce RPC-Bench, a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers, containing 15K human-verified QA pairs. We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts. We also define an elaborate LLM-human interaction annotation framework to support large-scale labeling and quality control. Following the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, we develop a scalable framework that evaluates models on correctness-completeness and conciseness, with high agreement to human judgment. Experiments reveal that even the strongest models (GPT-5) achieve only 68.2% correctness-completeness, dropping to 37.46% after conciseness adjustment, highlighting substantial gaps in precise academic paper understanding. Our code and data are available at https://rpc-bench.github.io/.

Related papers

• Evaluating AI Grading on Real-World Handwritten College Mathematics: A Large-Scale Study Toward a Benchmark [9.922581736690159]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of AI grading on real, handwritten calculus work from UC Irvine.<n>Using OCR-conditioned large language models with structured, rubric-guided prompting, our system produces scores and formative feedback for thousands of free-response quiz submissions.<n>In a setting with no single ground-truth label, we evaluate performance against official teaching-assistant grades, student surveys, and independent human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T03:32:51Z)
• Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays [15.895792302323883]
  In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback.<n>We study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms.<n>We show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T14:30:52Z)
• SciCoQA: Quality Assurance for Scientific Paper--Code Alignment [53.70401063640645]
  We present SciCoQA, a dataset for detecting discrepancies between scientific publications and theirs.<n>Our dataset consists of 611 paper-code discrepancies (81 real, 530 synthetic), spanning diverse computational science disciplines.<n>The best performing model in our evaluation, GPT-5, can only detect 45.7% of real-world paper-code discrepancies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T10:04:33Z)
• SurGE: A Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Scientific Survey Generation [37.921524136479825]
  SurGE (Survey Generation Evaluation) is a new benchmark for scientific survey generation in computer science.<n>SurGE consists of (1) a collection of test instances, each including a topic description, an expert-written survey, and its full set of cited references, and (2) a large-scale academic corpus of over one million papers.<n>In addition, we propose an automated evaluation framework that measures the quality of generated surveys across four dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T15:45:10Z)
• XtraGPT: Context-Aware and Controllable Academic Paper Revision [43.263488839387584]
  We propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision centered on criteria-guided intent alignment and context-aware modeling.<n>We instantiate the framework in XtraGPT, the first suite of open-source LLMs for context-aware, instruction-guided writing assistance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T15:02:19Z)
• Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning [88.68573198200698]
  We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data.<n>Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios.<n>Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T21:29:00Z)
• Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions [62.12545440385489]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought substantial advancements in text generation, but their potential for enhancing classification tasks remains underexplored. We propose a framework for thoroughly investigating fine-tuning LLMs for classification, including both generation- and encoding-based approaches. We instantiate this framework in edit intent classification (EIC), a challenging and underexplored classification task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T20:48:28Z)
• RelevAI-Reviewer: A Benchmark on AI Reviewers for Survey Paper Relevance [0.8089605035945486]
  We propose RelevAI-Reviewer, an automatic system that conceptualizes the task of survey paper review as a classification problem. We introduce a novel dataset comprised of 25,164 instances. Each instance contains one prompt and four candidate papers, each varying in relevance to the prompt. We develop a machine learning (ML) model capable of determining the relevance of each paper and identifying the most pertinent one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T06:42:32Z)
• Scalable Learning of Item Response Theory Models [48.91265296134559]
  Item Response Theory (IRT) models aim to assess latent abilities of $n$ examinees along with latent difficulty characteristics of $m$ test items from categorical data. We leverage the similarity of these models to logistic regression, which can be approximated accurately using small weighted subsets called coresets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T17:12:53Z)
• Are LLMs Capable of Data-based Statistical and Causal Reasoning? Benchmarking Advanced Quantitative Reasoning with Data [89.2410799619405]
  We introduce the Quantitative Reasoning with Data benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models' capability in statistical and causal reasoning with real-world data. The benchmark comprises a dataset of 411 questions accompanied by data sheets from textbooks, online learning materials, and academic papers. To compare models' quantitative reasoning abilities on data and text, we enrich the benchmark with an auxiliary set of 290 text-only questions, namely QRText.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T16:15:03Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)

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.