Synthetic data augmentation helps language models learn new knowledge in data-constrained domains. However, naively scaling existing synthetic data methods by training on more synthetic tokens or using stronger generators yields diminishing returns below the performance of RAG. To break the RAG ceiling, we introduce Synthetic Mixed Training, which combines synthetic QAs and synthetic documents. This leverages their complementary training signals, and enables log-linear improvements as both synthetic data volume and generator strength increase. This allows the model to outperform RAG by a 2.6% relative gain on QuaLITY, a long-document reading comprehension benchmark. In addition, we introduce Focal Rewriting, a simple technique for synthetic document generation that explicitly conditions document generation on specific questions, improving the diversity of synthetic documents and yielding a steeper log-linear scaling curve. On QuaLITY, our final recipe trains a Llama 8B model that outperforms RAG by 4.4% relatively. Across models and benchmarks (QuaLITY, LongHealth, FinanceBench), our training enables models to beat RAG in five of six settings, outperforms by 2.6%, and achieves a 9.1% gain when combined with RAG.

We introduce an expert-guided, real-world benchmark for evaluating document-grounded question-answering (QA) motivated by generic drug assessment, using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug label documents. Drug labels contain rich but heterogeneous clinical and regulatory information, making accurate question answering difficult for current language models. In collaboration with FDA regulatory assessors, we introduce FDARxBench, and construct a multi-stage pipeline for generating high-quality, expert-guided, LLM-assisted, QA examples spanning factual, multi-hop, and refusal tasks, and design evaluation protocols to assess both open-book and closed-book reasoning. Experiments across proprietary and open-weight models reveal substantial gaps in factual grounding, long-context retrieval, and safe refusal behavior. While motivated by FDA generic drug assessment needs, this benchmark also provides a substantial foundation for challenging regulatory-grade evaluation of label comprehension.

When conducting literature reviews, scientists often create literature review tables—tables whose rows are publications and whose columns constitute a schema, a set of aspects used to compare and contrast the papers. Can we automatically generate these tables using language models (LMs)? In this work, we introduce a framework that leverages LMs to perform this task by decomposing it into separate schema and value generation steps. To enable experimentation, we address two main challenges: First, we overcome a lack of high-quality datasets to benchmark table generation by curating and releasing arxivDIGESTables, a new dataset of 2,228 literature review tables extracted from ArXiv papers that synthesize a total of 7,542 research papers. Second, to support scalable evaluation of model generations against human-authored reference tables, we develop DecontextEval, an automatic evaluation method that aligns elements of tables with the same underlying aspects despite differing surface forms. Given these tools, we evaluate LMs’ abilities to reconstruct reference tables, finding this task benefits from additional context to ground the generation (e.g. table captions, in-text references). Finally, through a human evaluation study we find that even when LMs fail to fully reconstruct a reference table, their generated novel aspects can still be useful.

Many real-world applications (e.g., note taking, search) require extracting a sentence or paragraph from a document and showing that snippet to a human outside of the source document. Yet, users may find snippets difficult to understand as they lack context from the original document. In this work, we use language models to rewrite snippets from scientific documents to be read on their own. First, we define the requirements and challenges for this user-facing decontextualization task, such as clarifying where edits occur and handling references to other documents. Second, we propose a framework that decomposes the task into three stages: question generation, question answering, and rewriting. Using this framework, we collect gold decontextualizations from experienced scientific article readers. We then conduct a range of experiments across state-of-the-art commercial and open-source language models to identify how to best provide missing-but-relevant information to models for our task. Finally, we develop QaDecontext, a simple prompting strategy inspired by our framework that improves over end-to-end prompting. We conclude with analysis that finds, while rewriting is easy, question generation and answering remain challenging for today’s models.

Despite growing interest in applying natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV) models to the scholarly domain, scientific documents remain challenging to work with. They’re often in difficult-to-use PDF formats, and the ecosystem of models to process them is fragmented and incomplete. We introduce PaperMage, an open-source Python toolkit for analyzing and processing visually-rich, structured scientific documents. PaperMage offers clean and intuitive abstractions for seamlessly representing and manipulating both textual and visual document elements. PaperMage achieves this by integrating disparate state-of-the-art NLP and CV models into a unified framework, and provides turn-key recipes for common scientific document processing use-cases. PaperMage has powered multiple research prototypes of AI applications over scientific documents, along with Semantic Scholar’s large-scale production system for processing millions of PDFs. GitHub: https://github.com/allenai/papermage

Targeted syntactic evaluation of subject-verb number agreement in English (TSE) evaluates language models’ syntactic knowledge using hand-crafted minimal pairs of sentences that differ only in the main verb’s conjugation. The method evaluates whether language models rate each grammatical sentence as more likely than its ungrammatical counterpart. We identify two distinct goals for TSE. First, evaluating the systematicity of a language model’s syntactic knowledge: given a sentence, can it conjugate arbitrary verbs correctly? Second, evaluating a model’s likely behavior: given a sentence, does the model concentrate its probability mass on correctly conjugated verbs, even if only on a subset of the possible verbs? We argue that current implementations of TSE do not directly capture either of these goals, and propose new metrics to capture each goal separately. Under our metrics, we find that TSE overestimates systematicity of language models, but that models score up to 40% better on verbs that they predict are likely in context.

Extrapolation to unseen sequence lengths is a challenge for neural generative models of language. In this work, we characterize the effect on length extrapolation of a modeling decision often overlooked: predicting the end of the generative process through the use of a special end-of-sequence (EOS) vocabulary item. We study an oracle setting - forcing models to generate to the correct sequence length at test time - to compare the length-extrapolative behavior of networks trained to predict EOS (+EOS) with networks not trained to (-EOS). We find that -EOS substantially outperforms +EOS, for example extrapolating well to lengths 10 times longer than those seen at training time in a bracket closing task, as well as achieving a 40% improvement over +EOS in the difficult SCAN dataset length generalization task. By comparing the hidden states and dynamics of -EOS and +EOS models, we observe that +EOS models fail to generalize because they (1) unnecessarily stratify their hidden states by their linear position is a sequence (structures we call length manifolds) or (2) get stuck in clusters (which we refer to as length attractors) once the EOS token is the highest-probability prediction.