REVIEW 2 cited by
Lost in the Middle, and In-Between: Enhancing Language Models' Ability to Reason Over Long Contexts in Multi-Hop QA
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
Previous work finds that recent long-context language models fail to make equal use of information in the middle of their inputs, preferring pieces of information located at the tail ends which creates an undue bias in situations where we would like models to be equally capable of using different parts of the input. Thus far, the problem has mainly only been considered in settings with single pieces of critical information, leading us to question what happens when multiple necessary pieces of information are spread out over the inputs. Here, we demonstrate the effects of the "lost in the middle" problem in the multi-hop question answering setting -- in which multiple reasoning "hops" over disconnected documents are required -- and show that performance degrades not only with respect to the distance of information from the edges of the context, but also between pieces of information. Additionally, we experiment with means of alleviating the problem by reducing superfluous document contents through knowledge graph triple extraction and summarization, and prompting models to reason more thoroughly using chain-of-thought prompting.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Beyond Isolated Capabilities: Bridging Long CoT Reasoning and Long-Context Understanding
DeepSeek-R1-distilled models show higher multi-document QA accuracy than their base counterparts and flatter position-bias curves, especially with 50-80 documents.
-
Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks
LLM-as-judge scoring of multi-round lateral thinking tasks can be fooled by answer leakage and question substitution, so response-based metrics may overstate reasoning ability.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.