arXiv:2604.04359v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems have been widely adopted in contemporary large language models (LLMs) due to their ability to improve generation quality while reducing the required input context length. In this work, we focus on RAG systems for long-document question answering. Current approaches suffer from a heavy reliance on LLM descriptions resulting in high resource consumption and latency, repetitive content across hierarchical levels, and hallucinations due to no or limited grounding in the source text. To improve both efficiency and factual accuracy through grounding, we propose GroundedKG-RAG, a RAG system in which the knowledge graph is explicitly extracted from and grounded in the source document. Specifically, we define nodes in GroundedKG as entities and actions, and edges as temporal or semantic relations, with each node and edge grounded in the original sentences. We construct GroundedKG from semantic role labeling (SRL) and abstract meaning representation (AMR) parses and then embed it for retrieval. During querying, we apply the same transformation to the query and retrieve the most relevant sentences from the grounded source text for question answering. We evaluate GroundedKG-RAG on examples from the NarrativeQA dataset and find that it performs on par with a state-of-the art proprietary long-context model at smaller cost and outperforms a competitive baseline. Additionally, our GroundedKG is interpretable and readable by humans, facilitating auditing of results and error analysis.

arXiv:2604.02368v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.