REVIEW 4 cited by
Hurdles to Progress in Long-form Question Answering
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Hurdles to Progress in Long-form Question Answering
read the original abstract
The task of long-form question answering (LFQA) involves retrieving documents relevant to a given question and using them to generate a paragraph-length answer. While many models have recently been proposed for LFQA, we show in this paper that the task formulation raises fundamental challenges regarding evaluation and dataset creation that currently preclude meaningful modeling progress. To demonstrate these challenges, we first design a new system that relies on sparse attention and contrastive retriever learning to achieve state-of-the-art performance on the ELI5 LFQA dataset. While our system tops the public leaderboard, a detailed analysis reveals several troubling trends: (1) our system's generated answers are not actually grounded in the documents that it retrieves; (2) ELI5 contains significant train / validation overlap, as at least 81% of ELI5 validation questions occur in paraphrased form in the training set; (3) ROUGE-L is not an informative metric of generated answer quality and can be easily gamed; and (4) human evaluations used for other text generation tasks are unreliable for LFQA. We offer suggestions to mitigate each of these issues, which we hope will lead to more rigorous LFQA research and meaningful progress in the future.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation
RWGBench is a citation-centric benchmark for related work generation built from 40k CS papers and a 100-paper test set, with multi-dimensional metrics that better match human expert judgment than standard similarity scores.
-
RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation
RWGBench evaluates related-work generation as citation decision-making (selection, placement, organization, discourse) rather than text similarity, exposing retrieval and generation failures that standard metrics miss.
-
RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation
RWGBench measures related-work generation by citation choices, and shows citation-focused metrics expose failures that text-similarity and LLM-judge scores miss.
-
RWGBench: Evaluating Scholarly Positioning in Related Work Generation
RWGBench evaluates related-work generation as citation decision-making with multi-dimensional metrics that track expert judgment better than ROUGE/BERTScore.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.