arXiv Computation and Language

The Bottleneck Is Retrieval, Not Reading: Diagnosing Evidence-Based Generation with RAG for Long Context Question Answering

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.

By Martin Docekal, Martin Fajcik, Pavel Smrz
arXiv AI
Aug 20

DeepWeaver: Bridging the Evidence Synthesis Gap in Open-Ended Question Answering

DeepWeaver is a framework designed to improve open‑ended question answering by weaving noisy retrieved evidence into comprehensive, well‑cited answers. It introduces Thought Block Chains (TBCs) that organize claims, key information, and supporting evidence, and uses subordinate TBCs to refine and expand the evidence before final generation. Evaluations on LoQA and DeepResearch Bench show that DeepWeaver enhances content sufficiency, citation grounding, and detail preservation across multiple LLMs.

By Xujia Wang, Yizhe Zhang, Bin Xu, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 23

REFACT: Adaptive Fact Restatement for Compact and Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Large language models increasingly rely on long-form reasoning for complex tasks, yet their reasoning traces may drift away from the supplied context when evidence is sparse, noisy, or in conflict with parametric knowledge. Existing grounding methods either attach citations after generation or encourage evidence retrieval inside the trace, but they often do not ensure that cited content is sufficient for the local inference and final answer.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence

CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.

By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 14

EAR: Entity-Aware Partitioning Approach for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Development

The paper introduces EAR, an Entity‑Aware Partitioning approach that improves retrieval‑augmented generation for multiple‑choice question answering by extracting normalized surface anchors from questions, answers, and the corpus. EAR retrieves local windows around matching anchors and can attach a larger parent passage via an extractive summary, reducing retrieved words by 37.5‑40.2% compared to fixed‑size chunks. Experiments on a cleaned MMLU‑style subset with Mistral, Gemma, and DeepSeek show modest accuracy changes, none statistically significant, highlighting EAR’s methodological contribution of compact, inspectable retrieval units.

By Cenab Batu Bora, Oylum Alatl{\i}, Sebnem Bora, Oguz Dikenelli
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Blind Men and the Elephant: Probing the Epistemic Myopia of LLMs under Long-Tail Divergent Knowledge

The paper introduces ElephantBench, a closed‑book knowledge probe with 1,094 multi‑account factual questions generated via an auditable graph‑based pipeline that pulls documents from a low‑exposure web corpus and identifies naturally occurring disagreements. Across 32 large language models, even the best model only recovers both divergent accounts on 52.4% of questions, and most models recall one account while omitting the other, indicating persistent epistemic myopia. The study shows that scaling model size and inference‑time reasoning improves recall but does not eliminate incompleteness, and that exposure imbalance in the corpus biases models toward the dominant account.

By Zhuoshi Pan, Junru Lu, Yan Qian, H. Vicky Zhao, Di Yin, Xing Sun