100-LongBench: Are de facto Long-Context Benchmarks Literally Evaluating Long-Context Ability?

Wang Yang, Hongye Jin, Shaochen Zhong, Song Jiang, Qifan Wang +2 more
5/25/2025
cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

No official code found. Best implementation: uservan/100-LongBench (7 stars, MIT, last commit 2025-01-23).

Abstract

Long-context capability is considered one of the most important abilities of LLMs, as a truly long context-capable LLM enables users to effortlessly process many originally exhausting tasks -- e.g., digesting a long-form document to find answers vs. directly asking an LLM about it. However, existing real-task-based long-context evaluation benchmarks have two major shortcomings. First, benchmarks like LongBench often do not provide proper metrics to separate long-context performance from the model's baseline ability, making cross-model comparison unclear. Second, such benchmarks are usually constructed with fixed input lengths, which limits their applicability across different models and fails to reveal when a model begins to break down. To address these issues, we introduce a length-controllable long-context benchmark and a novel metric that disentangles baseline knowledge from true long-context capabilities. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach in effectively evaluating LLMs.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

MIT
70Python, Jupyter NotebookDec 16, 20241 years agoMIT

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{yang2025longbench,
  title  = {100-LongBench: Are de facto Long-Context Benchmarks Literally Evaluating Long-Context Ability?},
  author = {Wang Yang and Hongye Jin and Shaochen Zhong and Song Jiang and Qifan Wang and Vipin Chaudhary and Xiaotian Han},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2505.19293},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19293v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2505.19293.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2505.19293)

Discussion