arXiv:2611.10238v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Context selection can reduce input length during long-input inference but can remove evidence required to answer a query. We introduce CoRA-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating evidence preservation under shared token budgets. We compare head and tail truncation, BM25, dense retrieval, dense retrieval with reranking, LLMLingua-2, and Provence across BABILong, LOONG Financial Spotlight, a custom NoLiMa diagnostic, and LongMemEval. Evidence-preservation results reveal task-dependent tradeoffs: BM25 achieves 0.921 supporting-fact recall on BABILong at 128K, dense retrieval and dense reranking each achieve 0.908 needle recall on NoLiMa at 64K, and dense retrieval achieves 0.993 answer-bearing-turn recall on LongMemEval at 64K. Evidence, token retention, and complementary reader evaluations use the same selected contexts. Reader evaluations use dataset-native answer metrics and three runs on the same questions, with paired bootstrap confidence intervals. At a 32K budget, BM25 achieves 46.20% BABILong answer accuracy and dense retrieval achieves 71.13% LongMemEval accuracy. The results show that method rankings vary across evidence types and between evidence recall and downstream accuracy.
Abstract: Context selection can reduce input length during long-input inference but can remove evidence required to answer a query. We introduce CoRA-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating evidence preservation under shared token budgets. We compare head and tail truncation, BM25, dense retrieval, dense retrieval with reranking, LLMLingua-2, and Provence across BABILong, LOONG Financial Spotlight, a custom NoLiMa diagnostic, and LongMemEval. Evidence-preservation results reveal task-dependent tradeoffs: BM25 achieves 0.921 supporting-fact recall on BABILong at 128K, dense retrieval and dense reranking each achieve 0.908 needle recall on NoLiMa at 64K, and dense retrieval achieves 0.993 answer-bearing-turn recall on LongMemEval at 64K. Evidence, token retention, and complementary reader evaluations use the same selected contexts. Reader evaluations use dataset-native answer metrics and three runs on the same questions, with paired bootstrap confidence intervals. At a 32K budget, BM25 achieves 46.20% BABILong answer accuracy and dense retrieval achieves 71.13% LongMemEval accuracy. The results show that method rankings vary across evidence types and between evidence recall and downstream accuracy.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article:
CoRA-Bench: Evaluating Evidence Preservation by Context Selectors Under Token Budgets