Sarthak Chaturvedi

Rounak Meyur, Hung Phan, Koby Hayashi et al.

The National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) stands as a foundational piece of environmental legislation in the United States, requiring federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions. The primary mechanism for achieving this is through the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs) and, for significant impacts, comprehensive Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Large Language Model (LLM)s' effectiveness in specialized domains like NEPA remains untested for adoption in federal decision-making processes. To address this gap, we present NEPA Question and Answering Dataset (NEPAQuAD), the first comprehensive benchmark derived from EIS documents, along with a modular and transparent evaluation pipeline, MAPLE, to assess LLM performance on NEPA-focused regulatory reasoning tasks. Our benchmark leverages actual EIS documents to create diverse question types, ranging from factual to complex problem-solving ones. We built a modular and transparent evaluation pipeline to test both closed- and open-source models in zero-shot or context-driven QA benchmarks. We evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs using our framework to assess both their prior knowledge and their ability to process NEPA-specific information. The experimental results reveal that all the models consistently achieve their highest performance when provided with the gold passage as context. While comparing the other context-driven approaches for each model, Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)-based approaches substantially outperform PDF document contexts, indicating that neither model is well suited for long-context question-answering tasks. Our analysis suggests that NEPA-focused regulatory reasoning tasks pose a significant challenge for LLMs, particularly in terms of understanding the complex semantics and effectively processing the lengthy regulatory documents.

Sarthak Chaturvedi, Anurag Acharya, Rounak Meyur et al.

Evaluation benchmark characteristics may distort the true benefits of domain adaptation in retrieval models. This creates misleading assessments that influence deployment decisions in specialized domains. We show that two benchmarks with drastically different features such as topic diversity, boundary overlap, and semantic complexity can influence the perceived benefits of fine-tuning. Using environmental regulatory document retrieval as a case study, we fine-tune ColBERTv2 model on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) from federal agencies. We evaluate these models across two benchmarks with different semantic structures. Our findings reveal that identical domain adaptation approaches show very different perceived benefits depending on evaluation methodology. On one benchmark, with clearly separated topic boundaries, domain adaptation shows small improvements (maximum 0.61% NDCG gain). However, on the other benchmark with overlapping semantic structures, the same models demonstrate large improvements (up to 2.22% NDCG gain), a 3.6-fold difference in the performance benefit. We compare these benchmarks through topic diversity metrics, finding that the higher-performing benchmark shows 11% higher average cosine distances between contexts and 23% lower silhouette scores, directly contributing to the observed performance difference. These results demonstrate that benchmark selection strongly determines assessments of retrieval system effectiveness in specialized domains. Evaluation frameworks with well-separated topics regularly underestimate domain adaptation benefits, while those with overlapping semantic boundaries reveal improvements that better reflect real-world regulatory document complexity. Our findings have important implications for developing and deploying AI systems for interdisciplinary domains that integrate multiple topics.