Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

DetectBench: Can Large Language Model Detect and Piece Together Implicit Evidence?

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

arxiv 2406.12641 v2 pith:L5YDC4IW submitted 2024-06-18 cs.CL

DetectBench: Can Large Language Model Detect and Piece Together Implicit Evidence?

classification cs.CL
keywords evidencellmsreasoningdetectionperformancedetectdetectbenchimplicit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting evidence within the context is a key step in the process of reasoning task. Evaluating and enhancing the capabilities of LLMs in evidence detection will strengthen context-based reasoning performance. This paper proposes a benchmark called DetectBench for verifying the ability to detect and piece together implicit evidence within a long context. DetectBench contains 3,928 multiple-choice questions, with an average of 994 tokens per question. Each question contains an average of 4.55 pieces of implicit evidence, and solving the problem typically requires 7.62 logical jumps to find the correct answer. To enhance the performance of LLMs in evidence detection, this paper proposes Detective Reasoning Prompt and Finetune. Experiments demonstrate that the existing LLMs' abilities to detect evidence in long contexts are far inferior to humans. However, the Detective Reasoning Prompt effectively enhances the capability of powerful LLMs in evidence detection, while the Finetuning method shows significant effects in enhancing the performance of weaker LLMs. Moreover, when the abilities of LLMs in evidence detection are improved, their final reasoning performance is also enhanced accordingly.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Not All Needles Are Found: How Fact Distribution and Don't Make It Up Prompts Shape Retrieval, Reasoning, and Hallucination in Long-Context LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0

    On a new extended needle-in-a-haystack benchmark, explicit anti-hallucination prompts and dispersed fact placement cause some long-context LLMs to over-refuse or collapse in accuracy, while others remain robust.