Empirical evaluation reveals massive train-test contamination in the GlobalQA benchmark, indicating that state-of-the-art model performance stems from memorization rather than reasoning.
GlobalQA is a recent benchmark for corpus-level question answering (counting, sorting, and extremum queries over a resume corpus), on which RL-based retrieval agents such as MARAG-R1 report a state-of-the-art answer-F1 of 28.60-31.22. While calibrating a simple training-free system against the training split, we discovered three facts that change how results on this benchmark should be interpreted. (1) Contamination: 1,073 of the 1,160 test questions (92.5%) appear verbatim in the training set with identical answers and identical gold document sets; a trivial lookup baseline that copies the duplicated training answer scores 92.5 answer-F1, roughly three times the published state of the art. (2) Reverse-engineerable gold rules: the gold document sets are not a pure function of document content. With a scored LLM judge calibrated on 928 labeled pairs, 30-46% of non-gold documents in counting and minimum-ID questions receive perfect relevance scores, evidencing an annotation process of the form retrieval exposure ∩ lenient LLM judgment. Because condition phrases are heavily reused across training questions (median support 86), the gold rule can be reconstructed as an explicit phrase-to-document-pool dictionary estimated from training labels. (3) A strong training-free baseline: query compilation into disjunctive normal form, the dictionary, and a lightweight LLM judge fallback yield 48.8 answer-F1 on the full test set under a twin-exclusion protocol that removes the verbatim duplicate before answering each question -- exceeding the published RL state of the art, trained with the duplicates available, by 17.6 points, with no model training and about $40 of API cost. On the 87 uncontaminated test questions our method scores 22.0. We propose reporting both twin-excluded and clean-subset numbers, and we have notified the benchmark authors to help strengthen the next revision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takao Morita (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: