graphgen-eval
GraphGen: Enhancing Supervised Fine-Tuning for LLMs with Knowledge-Driven Synthetic Data Generation — Chen et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.20416, 2025)
What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of LLMs to answer knowledge-intensive questions across atomic, aggregated, and multi-hop reasoning scenarios in agricultural, medical, and general domains. It measures how well supervised fine-tuning with synthetic knowledge-graph data improves closed-book QA performance.
Datasets
- SeedEval — total 582; splits: test (582)
- PQArefEval — total 5815; splits: test (5815)
- HotpotEval — total 7405; splits: test (7405)
Metrics
ROUGE-F(primary) — range: [0, 1]- F1 score measuring the overlap of n-grams between the generated answer and the ground truth reference.
Input / output format
Input: A natural language question for closed-book QA.
Output: A natural language text answer.
Scoring recipe
def evaluate(predictions, references):
scores = []
for pred, ref in zip(predictions, references):
score = compute_rouge_f1(pred, ref) # ROUGE-F as specified in the paper
scores.append(score)
return sum(scores) / len(scores)
Common pitfalls
- The evaluation is strictly closed-book; allowing external retrieval during inference invalidates the benchmark.
- ROUGE-F measures lexical overlap, not factual correctness or reasoning depth, so high scores do not guarantee accurate multi-hop answers.
- Baseline methods can cause performance degradation on aggregated QA tasks due to single-segment generation limits, which should be attributed to data synthesis flaws rather than the evaluation metric itself.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
We use ROUGE-F as the metric. The baseline methods exhibit varying performance across the three datasets, while GraphGen consistently achieves optimal results.
Citation
@misc{chen2025graphgen,
title={GraphGen: Enhancing Supervised Fine-Tuning for LLMs with Knowledge-Driven Synthetic Data Generation},
author={Chen et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2505.20416}
}
- arXiv: 2505.20416