REVIEW 6 cited by
PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviews
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
PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviews
read the original abstract
We present PeerQA, a real-world, scientific, document-level Question Answering (QA) dataset. PeerQA questions have been sourced from peer reviews, which contain questions that reviewers raised while thoroughly examining the scientific article. Answers have been annotated by the original authors of each paper. The dataset contains 579 QA pairs from 208 academic articles, with a majority from ML and NLP, as well as a subset of other scientific communities like Geoscience and Public Health. PeerQA supports three critical tasks for developing practical QA systems: Evidence retrieval, unanswerable question classification, and answer generation. We provide a detailed analysis of the collected dataset and conduct experiments establishing baseline systems for all three tasks. Our experiments and analyses reveal the need for decontextualization in document-level retrieval, where we find that even simple decontextualization approaches consistently improve retrieval performance across architectures. On answer generation, PeerQA serves as a challenging benchmark for long-context modeling, as the papers have an average size of 12k tokens. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/UKPLab/peerqa.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
MMEB-V3: Measuring the Performance Gaps of Omni-Modality Embedding Models
MMEB-V3 benchmark shows omni-modality embedding models fail to enforce instruction-specified modality constraints and exhibit asymmetric, query-biased retrieval.
-
PaperMind: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning and Critique over Scientific Papers in Multimodal LLMs
PaperMind is a new benchmark that evaluates integrated multimodal reasoning and critique over scientific papers through four complementary task families across seven domains.
-
Beyond Memory Leaderboards: Evaluating Scientific Memory as Budgeted Context Restoration
Scientific-memory leaderboards are misleading unless retrieval budget and modality are reported; under matched budgets, simple RAG baselines tie with structured memory systems.
-
RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension
RPC-Bench supplies 15K verified QA pairs and a research-flow taxonomy that shows top foundation models still achieve only 68.2 percent correctness-completeness on academic paper comprehension.
-
LinkNav: Surfacing Interconnected Information in Scientific Articles
LinkNav creates intra-document connections in academic papers by generating questions from passages via LLM and retrieving answer passages from other parts of the document, with connected passages averaging ten segmen...
-
MMEB-V3: Measuring the Performance Gaps of Omni-Modality Embedding Models
On 190 tasks and a 12-direction cross-modal diagnostic, seven embedding models frequently fail to honor explicit target-modality instructions: retrieval is biased toward the query modality and instruction-induced shif...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.