Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been an increase in the number of knowledge graphs that can be only queried by experts. However, describing questions using structured queries is not straightforward for non-expert users who need to have sufficient knowledge about both the vocabulary and the structure of the queried knowledge graph, as well as the syntax of the structured query language used to describe the user's information needs. The most popular approach introduced to overcome the aforementioned challenges is to use natural language to query these knowledge graphs. Although several question answering benchmarks can be used to evaluate question-answering systems over a number of popular knowledge graphs, choosing a benchmark to accurately assess the quality of a question answering system is a challenging task. In this paper, we introduce CBench, an extensible, and more informative benchmarking suite for analyzing benchmarks and evaluating question answering systems. CBench can be used to analyze existing benchmarks with respect to several fine-grained linguistic, syntactic, and structural properties of the questions and queries in the benchmark. We show that existing benchmarks vary significantly with respect to these properties deeming choosing a small subset of them unreliable in evaluating QA systems. Until further research improves the quality and comprehensiveness of benchmarks, CBench can be used to facilitate this evaluation using a set of popular benchmarks that can be augmented with other user-provided benchmarks. CBench not only evaluates a question answering system based on popular single-number metrics but also gives a detailed analysis of the linguistic, syntactic, and structural properties of answered and unanswered questions to better help the developers of question answering systems to better understand where their system excels and where it struggles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.050 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".