NoisyBench
Models answer tasks from 11 existing datasets in RAG, reasoning, alignment and tool use while their context holds distractors, such as random documents, unrelated chat history and hard negatives. The score shows how much accuracy drops from the clean version of each task.
Built from existing datasets with added noise. The paper also proposes a training reward (RARE). 33 Hugging Face upvotes. No code link was listed on the paper page on November 5th, 2026.
- Made by
- KAIST AI
- Released
- January 2026
- Kind
- Faithful to sources
- Level
- Everyday
- Answers
- Short answer
In the authors’ words
Recent advances in reasoning models and agentic AI systems have led to an increased reliance on diverse external information. However, this shift introduces input contexts that are inherently noisy, a reality that current sanitized benchmarks fail to capture. We introduce NoisyBench, a comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates model robustness across 11 datasets in RAG, reasoning, alignment, and tool-use tasks against diverse noise types, including random documents, irrelevant chat histories, and hard negative distractors. Our evaluation reveals a catastrophic performance drop of up to 80% in state-of-the-art models when faced with contextual distractors. Crucially, we find that agentic workflows often amplify these errors by over-trusting noisy tool outputs, and distractors can trigger emergent misalignment even without adversarial intent. We find that prompting, context engineering, SFT, and outcome-reward only RL fail to ensure robustness; in contrast, our proposed Rationale-Aware Reward (RARE) significantly strengthens resilience by incentivizing the identification of helpful information within noise. Finally, we uncover an inverse scaling trend where increased test-time computation leads to worse performance in noisy settings and demonstrate via attention visualization that models disproportionately focus on distractor tokens, providing vital insights for building the next generation of robust, reasoning-capable agents.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for NoisyBench yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Factuality
- SimpleVQA In use Models answer 2,025 short factual questions about images across 9 tasks and 9 topics. An LLM judge grades answers against fixed references.
Qwen3.7-Plus 81.7%
- HallusionBench In use Models answer 1,129 yes or no questions about 346 images, built in pairs to expose language hallucination and visual illusion. Scored by accuracy.
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 73.5%
- SimpleQA Verified In use 1,000 human-verified, de-duplicated short-answer factual questions measuring parametric knowledge.
Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.5%
- Kimi Hallu Bench In use Models answer hard prompts drawn from practical work tasks. Fact-checking agents score the share of claims that are hallucinated. GPT-6 Astra 4.20%
- Internal adversarially-designed factuality evaluations In use Models answer adversarial questions in nine categories such as history, math and code. Scored on agreement with human ideal responses. GPT-6 Luna 7.60%
- AA-Omniscience v1.1 In use Models answer 3,000 knowledge questions in six domains without tools and may abstain. The index adds correct answers and subtracts wrong ones.
Inkling 2 Small 16.1