CoverBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Complex Claim Verification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
There is a growing line of research on verifying the correctness of language models' outputs. At the same time, LMs are being used to tackle complex queries that require reasoning. We introduce CoverBench, a challenging benchmark focused on verifying LM outputs in complex reasoning settings. Datasets that can be used for this purpose are often designed for other complex reasoning tasks (e.g., QA) targeting specific use-cases (e.g., financial tables), requiring transformations, negative sampling and selection of hard examples to collect such a benchmark. CoverBench provides a diversified evaluation for complex claim verification in a variety of domains, types of reasoning, relatively long inputs, and a variety of standardizations, such as multiple representations for tables where available, and a consistent schema. We manually vet the data for quality to ensure low levels of label noise. Finally, we report a variety of competitive baseline results to show CoverBench is challenging and has very significant headroom. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/google/coverbench .
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2024.
Builds on
30 of 42 references.
References · 30
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,175
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
- 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,271
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
- 2021Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategiescited by 736
- 2024Yi: Open Foundation Models by 01.AIcited by 706
- 2021FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Datacited by 552
- 2019TabFact: A Large-scale Dataset for Table-based Fact Verificationcited by 425
- 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 295
18 more
- 2020HybridQA: A Dataset of Multi-Hop Question Answering over Tabular and Textual Datacited by 263
- 2021Measuring Attribution in Natural Language Generation Modelscited by 253
- 2024MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documentscited by 251
- 2022ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 175
- 2024Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Toolscited by 170
- 2021FEVEROUS: Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured informationcited by 166
- 2023Fact-Checking Complex Claims with Program-Guided Reasoningcited by 146
- 2021ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contractscited by 145
- 2022MultiHiertt: Numerical Reasoning over Multi Hierarchical Tabular and Textual Datacited by 120
- 2023LongEval: Guidelines for Human Evaluation of Faithfulness in Long-form Summarizationcited by 96
- 2024A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chainscited by 63
- 2024Are LLMs Capable of Data-based Statistical and Causal Reasoning? Benchmarking Advanced Quantitative Reasoning with Datacited by 61
- 2023SCITAB: A Challenging Benchmark for Compositional Reasoning and Claim Verification on Scientific Tablescited by 51
- 2022Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Futurecited by 45
- 2023LongDocFACTScore: Evaluating the Factuality of Long Document Abstractive Summarisationcited by 16
- 2024Husky: A Unified, Open-Source Language Agent for Multi-Step Reasoningcited by 16
- 2024Are Machines Better at Complex Reasoning? Unveiling Human-Machine Inference Gaps in Entailment Verificationcited by 13
- 2024TACT: Advancing Complex Aggregative Reasoning with Information Extraction Toolscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Inputcited by 49
- 2026DeepSearchQA: Bridging the Comprehensiveness Gap for Deep Research Agentscited by 44
- 2025Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifierscited by 12
- 2024FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verificationcited by 10
- 2026CAAFC: Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker for misinformation / non-factual hallucination detection and correctioncited by 0
- 2026TriQua: Reconciling Granularity and Context in Factuality Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026TriQua: Reconciling Granularity and Context in Factuality Evaluation5 Aug 2026
- 2026CAAFC: Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker for misinformation / non-factual hallucination detection and correction12 May 2026
- 2026DeepSearchQA: Bridging the Comprehensiveness Gap for Deep Research Agents28 Jan 2026
- 2025Verifying the Verifiers: Unveiling Pitfalls and Potentials in Fact Verifiers16 Jun 2025
- 2025The FACTS Grounding Leaderboard: Benchmarking LLMs' Ability to Ground Responses to Long-Form Input6 Jan 2025
- 2024FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification8 Nov 2024