REVIEW 1 cited by
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
Can LLMs Evaluate Complex Attribution in QA? Automatic Benchmarking using Knowledge Graphs
read the original abstract
Attributed Question Answering (AQA) has attracted wide attention, but there are still several limitations in evaluating the attributions, including lacking fine-grained attribution categories, relying on manual annotations, and failing to compare attributions with only subtle differences. To bridge these gaps, we introduce Complex Attributed Question Answering (CAQA), a large-scale benchmark containing comprehensive attribution categories, automatically generated using Knowledge Graphs (KGs), and complex attribution scenarios. We have conducted extensive experiments to verify the effectiveness of CAQA, including the benchmarking of 25 automatic evaluators, their comparison with human evaluators, the testing of LLM evaluators fine-tuned by CAQA and so on. These experiments also lead to a series of important findings that can benefit the future research of AQA. All the codes and data are publicly accessible at https://github.com/HuuuNan/CAQA-Benchmark.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Constructing Evaluation Datasets for Procedural Reasoning: Balancing Naturalness, Grounding, and Multi-Hop Coverage
Strict generation directly from Task-Method-Knowledge models yields 96.5% grounded and 92.6% usable QA pairs across 23 topics, outperforming transcript-first and TMK-aware alternatives on representational grounding.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.