Daily Papers

When language models are trained on textual data, they acquire both knowledge about the structure of language as well as knowledge of facts about the world. At inference time, their knowledge of facts can be leveraged to solve interesting problems and perform useful knowledge work for users. It is well known that language models can verbatim memorize long sequences from their training data. However, it is much less well understood how language models memorize facts seen during training. In this work, we propose a new dataset to specifically empower researchers to study the dual processes of fact memorization and verbatim sequence memorization. The dataset consists of synthetically-generated, webtext-like documents about fictional events, as well as question-answer pairs about the events. We conduct training experiments showing how synthetic data about fictional events can be effective in teasing apart different forms of memorization. We also document the challenges in effectively building realistic, fictional synthetic data.

Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in large language models (LLMs) is challenging because benchmarks can quickly become stale. Questions initially requiring retrieval may become answerable from pretraining knowledge as newer models incorporate more recent information during pretraining, making it difficult to distinguish evidence-based reasoning from recall. We introduce NeoQA (News Events for Out-of-training Question Answering), a benchmark designed to address this issue. To construct NeoQA, we generated timelines and knowledge bases of fictional news events and entities along with news articles and Q\&A pairs to prevent LLMs from leveraging pretraining knowledge, ensuring that no prior evidence exists in their training data. We propose our dataset as a new platform for evaluating evidence-based question answering, as it requires LLMs to generate responses exclusively from retrieved evidence and only when sufficient evidence is available. NeoQA enables controlled evaluation across various evidence scenarios, including cases with missing or misleading details. Our findings indicate that LLMs struggle to distinguish subtle mismatches between questions and evidence, and suffer from short-cut reasoning when key information required to answer a question is missing from the evidence, underscoring key limitations in evidence-based reasoning.