100-LongBench: Are de facto Long-Context Benchmarks Literally Evaluating Long-Context Ability?
read the original abstract
Long-context capability is considered one of the most important abilities of LLMs, as a truly long context-capable LLM enables users to effortlessly process many originally exhausting tasks -- e.g., digesting a long-form document to find answers vs. directly asking an LLM about it. However, existing real-task-based long-context evaluation benchmarks have two major shortcomings. First, benchmarks like LongBench often do not provide proper metrics to separate long-context performance from the model's baseline ability, making cross-model comparison unclear. Second, such benchmarks are usually constructed with fixed input lengths, which limits their applicability across different models and fails to reveal when a model begins to break down. To address these issues, we introduce a length-controllable long-context benchmark and a novel metric that disentangles baseline knowledge from true long-context capabilities. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach in effectively evaluating LLMs.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Positional Failures in Long-Context LLMs: A Blind Spot in Reasoning Benchmarks
Audits reveal no reasoning benchmark controls position/filler/length jointly; CRE shows LLMs drop up to 88pp on middle-position tasks at 64K context, with diagnostic probe supporting positional cause.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.