REVIEW 3 cited by
PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviews
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
read the original abstract
We present PeerQA, a real-world, scientific, document-level Question Answering (QA) dataset. PeerQA questions have been sourced from peer reviews, which contain questions that reviewers raised while thoroughly examining the scientific article. Answers have been annotated by the original authors of each paper. The dataset contains 579 QA pairs from 208 academic articles, with a majority from ML and NLP, as well as a subset of other scientific communities like Geoscience and Public Health. PeerQA supports three critical tasks for developing practical QA systems: Evidence retrieval, unanswerable question classification, and answer generation. We provide a detailed analysis of the collected dataset and conduct experiments establishing baseline systems for all three tasks. Our experiments and analyses reveal the need for decontextualization in document-level retrieval, where we find that even simple decontextualization approaches consistently improve retrieval performance across architectures. On answer generation, PeerQA serves as a challenging benchmark for long-context modeling, as the papers have an average size of 12k tokens. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/UKPLab/peerqa.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
MMEB-V3: Measuring the Performance Gaps of Omni-Modality Embedding Models
On 190 tasks and a 12-direction cross-modal diagnostic, seven embedding models frequently fail to honor explicit target-modality instructions: retrieval is biased toward the query modality and instruction-induced shif...
-
Beyond Memory Leaderboards: Evaluating Scientific Memory as Budgeted Context Restoration
Scientific-memory leaderboards are misleading unless retrieval budget and modality are reported; under matched budgets, simple RAG baselines tie with structured memory systems.
-
How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?
This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.