Paper detail

Evaluating LLMs on Document-Based QA: Exact Answer Selection and Numerical Extraction using Cogtale dataset

Document-based Question-Answering (QA) tasks are crucial for precise information retrieval. While some existing work focus on evaluating large language models performance on retrieving and answering questions from documents, assessing the LLMs performance on QA types that require exact answer selection from predefined options and numerical extraction is yet to be fully assessed. In this paper, we specifically focus on this underexplored context and conduct empirical analysis of LLMs (GPT-4 and GPT-3.5) on question types, including single-choice, yes-no, multiple-choice, and number extraction questions from documents in zero-shot setting. We use the CogTale dataset for evaluation, which provide human expert-tagged responses, offering a robust benchmark for precision and factual grounding. We found that LLMs, particularly GPT-4, can precisely answer many single-choice and yes-no questions given relevant context, demonstrating their efficacy in information retrieval tasks. However, their performance diminishes when confronted with multiple-choice and number extraction formats, lowering the overall performance of the model on this task, indicating that these models may not yet be sufficiently reliable for the task. This limits the applications of LLMs on applications demanding precise information extraction from documents, such as meta-analysis tasks. These findings hinge on the assumption that the retrievers furnish pertinent context necessary for accurate responses, emphasizing the need for further research. Our work offers a framework for ongoing dataset evaluation, ensuring that LLM applications for information retrieval and document analysis continue to meet evolving standards.

preprint2024arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.