ELITR-Bench: A Meeting Assistant Benchmark for Long-Context Language Models

Abstract

Research on Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently witnessed an increasing interest in extending the models' context size to better capture dependencies within long documents. While benchmarks have been proposed to assess long-range abilities, existing efforts primarily considered generic tasks that are not necessarily aligned with real-world applications. In contrast, we propose a new benchmark for long-context LLMs focused on a practical meeting assistant scenario in which the long contexts consist of transcripts obtained by automatic speech recognition, presenting unique challenges for LLMs due to the inherent noisiness and oral nature of such data. Our benchmark, ELITR-Bench, augments the existing ELITR corpus by adding 271 manually crafted questions with their ground-truth answers, as well as noisy versions of meeting transcripts altered to target different Word Error Rate levels. Our experiments with 12 long-context LLMs on ELITR-Bench confirm the progress made across successive generations of both proprietary and open models, and point out their discrepancies in terms of robustness to transcript noise. We also provide a thorough analysis of our GPT-4-based evaluation, including insights from a crowdsourcing study. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4's scores align with human judges, its ability to distinguish beyond three score levels may be limited.

--
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Study specs

Institution
NAVER Labs
Year
2024
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.