Commonsense reasoning is a key language model capability, as it is purportedly a prerequisite for many basic tasks, unlike specific factual knowledge. It is often measured with multiple-choice questions (MCQ) benchmarks, e.g. HellaSwag and PIQA. Some of these benchmarks, however, are outdated and contain numerous validity issues. We illustrate some typical validity issues with a case study on HellaSwag, one of the most popular and problematic benchmarks for commonsense reasoning. The issues we find range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. We show that if we remove question prompts or replace them with "Lorem ipsum dolor...", about 68% of model predictions remain the same. We argue that this occurs due to inner flaws in the benchmark, not mere contamination that might be present in some models. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. Based on our findings, we propose BenCheck, a package for benchmark validity analysis that encapsulates the main checks performed in our case study and can be used to audit MCQ benchmarks. We apply these checks to other commonsense reasoning benchmarks.

RAG systems are usually compared as complete pipelines, making it difficult to attribute improvements to individual components. We evaluate chunking, retrieval, fusion, and reranking through a full factorial design with paired component substitutions and equal context budgets. Across five benchmarks, chunking interacts with retrieval architecture, BM25 fusion changes direction by domain, and reranking is the only intervention we test that remains beneficial across nearly all upstream configurations. Claim-level transitions further show that similar net recall can conceal very different changes in visible evidence. These findings demonstrate that RAG components cannot be ranked independently and motivate interaction-aware evaluation instead of winner-take-all pipeline comparisons.

This paper studies how the model architecture and data configurations influence the empirical memorization capacity of generative transformers. The models are trained using synthetic text datasets derived from the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) knowledge graph: triplets, representing static connections, and sequences, simulating complex relation patterns. The results show that embedding size is the primary determinant of learning speed and capacity, while additional layers provide limited benefits and may hinder performance on simpler datasets. Activation functions play a crucial role, and Softmax demonstrates greater stability and capacity. Furthermore, increasing the complexity of the data set seems to improve the final memorization. These insights improve our understanding of transformer memory mechanisms and provide a framework for optimizing model design with structured real-world data.