Summary of a Haystack
Models read a synthetic haystack of conversation or news documents where specific insights repeat, then write a query-focused summary that cites its sources. An automatic evaluation scores insight coverage and citation accuracy.
The paper tested 10 long-context LLMs and 50 RAG systems. Humans score about 56% on the joint score, and long-context models without retrieval scored under 20%. The paper has 87 HF upvotes.
In the authors’ words
LLMs and RAG systems are now capable of handling millions of input tokens or more. However, evaluating the output quality of such systems on long-context tasks remains challenging, as tasks like Needle-in-a-Haystack lack complexity. In this work, we argue that summarization can play a central role in such evaluation. We design a procedure to synthesize Haystacks of documents, ensuring that specific insights repeat across documents. The "Summary of a Haystack" (SummHay) task then requires a system to process the Haystack and generate, given a query, a summary that identifies the relevant insights and precisely cites the source documents. Since we have precise knowledge of what insights should appear in a haystack summary and what documents should be cited, we implement a highly reproducible automatic evaluation that can score summaries on two aspects - Coverage and Citation. We generate Haystacks in two domains (conversation, news), and perform a large-scale evaluation of 10 LLMs and corresponding 50 RAG systems. Our findings indicate that SummHay is an open challenge for current systems, as even systems provided with an Oracle signal of document relevance lag our estimate of human performance (56%) by 10+ points on a Joint Score. Without a retriever, long-context LLMs like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus score below 20% on SummHay. We show SummHay can also be used to study enterprise RAG systems and position bias in long-context models. We hope future systems can equal and surpass human performance on SummHay.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Summary of a Haystack yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Long context
- MRCR v2 In use Multi-round coreference: retrieve the n-th of several similar requests hidden in a long synthetic conversation, up to 1M tokens.
Muse Spark 1.3 98.5%
- LongBench v2 In use 503 multiple-choice questions over 8K-2M-word contexts (QA, dialogue, code repos, structured data). Accuracy. Beam 1.0 66.9%
- GraphWalks In use A graph is given as an edge list in long context. The model answers BFS or parent queries, scored by F1. Claude Fable 5 100%
- OpenAI MRCR v2 In use Models read a long synthetic chat that hides 2, 4 or 8 identical writing requests and must reproduce the response to the i-th one. Scored by mean string match ratio per context bin.
K-EXAONE 2.0 94.4%
- CL-bench In use Model must learn new knowledge from a supplied long context (rules, procedures, data) and solve tasks. Strict LLM-verified rubrics. GPT-5.4 27.9%
- AA-LCR 1.1 In use Models answer 100 questions that need reasoning across sets of real documents of about 100K tokens. An LLM equality checker with a fixed system prompt compares each answer with the key.
Step 5 Preview 88.3%