LongProc: Benchmarking Long-Context Language Models on Long Procedural Generation
Ye, Xi, Yin, Fangcong, He, Yinghui, Zhang, Joie, Yen, Howard, Gao, Tianyu, Durrett, Greg, Chen, Danqi
–arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Existing benchmarks for evaluating long-context language models (LCLMs) primarily focus on long-context recall, requiring models to produce short responses based on a few critical snippets while processing thousands of irrelevant tokens. We introduce LongProc (Long Procedural Generation), a new benchmark that requires both the integration of highly dispersed information and long-form generation. LongProc consists of six diverse procedural generation tasks, such as extracting structured information from HTML pages into a TSV format and executing complex search procedures to create travel plans. These tasks challenge LCLMs by testing their ability to follow detailed procedural instructions, synthesize and reason over dispersed information, and generate structured, long-form outputs (up to 8K tokens). Furthermore, as these tasks adhere to deterministic procedures and yield structured outputs, they enable reliable rule-based evaluation. We evaluate 17 LCLMs on LongProc across three difficulty levels, with maximum numbers of output tokens set at 500, 2K, and 8K. Notably, while all tested models claim a context window size above 32K tokens, open-weight models typically falter on 2K-token tasks, and closed-source models like GPT-4o show significant degradation on 8K-token tasks. Further analysis reveals that LCLMs struggle to maintain long-range coherence in long-form generations. These findings highlight critical limitations in current LCLMs and suggest substantial room for improvement. Data and code available at: https://princeton-pli.github.io/LongProc
arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence
Jan-9-2025
- Country:
- Asia
- China
- Guangxi Province > Nanning (0.04)
- Hong Kong (0.04)
- Myanmar > Tanintharyi Region
- Dawei (0.04)
- Russia > Far Eastern Federal District
- Primorsky Krai > Vladivostok (0.04)
- China
- Europe
- Estonia > Harju County
- Tallinn (0.04)
- Poland > Lesser Poland Province
- Kraków (0.04)
- Czechia > Prague (0.04)
- United Kingdom
- England
- Dorset > Bournemouth (0.04)
- Lincolnshire (0.04)
- Nottinghamshire (0.04)
- Surrey > Guildford (0.04)
- West Sussex (0.04)
- Wales > Monmouthshire (0.04)
- England
- Finland > Uusimaa
- Helsinki (0.04)
- Russia > North Caucasian Federal District
- Portugal > Lisbon
- Lisbon (0.04)
- Romania > Vest Development Region
- Timiș County > Timișoara (0.04)
- Germany
- Baden-Württemberg > Stuttgart Region
- Stuttgart (0.05)
- Bavaria > Upper Bavaria
- Munich (0.05)
- Thuringia > Erfurt (0.04)
- Baden-Württemberg > Stuttgart Region
- Hungary > Budapest
- Budapest (0.04)
- Iceland > Capital Region
- Reykjavik (0.05)
- Latvia > Riga Municipality
- Riga (0.04)
- Switzerland > Zürich
- Zürich (0.04)
- Lithuania > Vilnius County
- Vilnius (0.04)
- Sweden > Stockholm
- Stockholm (0.05)
- Estonia > Harju County
- North America
- Canada
- United States
- California > Los Angeles County
- Beverly Hills (0.05)
- Los Angeles > Hollywood
- West Hollywood (0.04)
- Colorado > El Paso County
- Colorado Springs (0.04)
- Illinois > Will County
- Naperville (0.04)
- Indiana > Marion County
- Indianapolis (0.04)
- Texas
- Tarrant County > Fort Worth (0.04)
- Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- California > Los Angeles County
- South America > Chile
- Asia
- Genre:
- Research Report (1.00)
- Industry:
- Consumer Products & Services > Travel (0.69)
- Technology: