Francesco Maria Molfese

Francesco Maria Molfese, Momchil Hardalov, Rexhina Blloshmi et al.

With context windows of millions of tokens, Long-Context Language Models (LCLMs) can encode entire document collections, offering a strong alternative to conventional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). However, it remains unclear whether fine-tuning strategies can improve long-context performance and translate to greater robustness under KV-cache compression techniques. In this work, we investigate which training strategies most effectively enhance LCLMs' ability to identify and use relevant information, as well as enhancing their robustness under KV-cache compression. Our experiments show substantial in-domain improvements, achieving gains of up to +20 points over the base model. However, out-of-domain generalization remains task dependent with large variance -- LCLMs excels on finance questions (+9 points), while RAG shows stronger performance on multiple-choice questions (+6 points) over the baseline models. Finally, we show that our fine-tuning approaches bring moderate improvements in robustness under KV-cache compression, with gains varying across tasks.

Francesco Maria Molfese, Luca Moroni, Luca Gioffré et al.

One of the most widely used tasks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA). While open-ended question answering tasks are more challenging to evaluate, MCQA tasks are, in principle, easier to assess, as the model's answer is thought to be simple to extract and is compared directly to a set of predefined choices. However, recent studies have started to question the reliability of MCQA evaluation, showing that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs, especially when the model generates free-form text before selecting one of the answer choices. In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons. We systematically analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment, and how they are influenced by answer constraints in the prompt across different domains. Our experiments demonstrate that traditional evaluation strategies often underestimate LLM capabilities, while LLM-based answer extractors are prone to systematic errors. Moreover, we reveal a fundamental trade-off between including format constraints in the prompt to simplify answer extraction and allowing models to generate free-form text to improve reasoning. Our findings call for standardized evaluation methodologies and highlight the need for more reliable and consistent MCQA evaluation practices.

Francesco Maria Molfese, Luca Moroni, Ciro Porcaro et al.

While Small Language Models (SLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on an increasingly wide array of commonsense reasoning benchmarks, current evaluation practices rely almost exclusively on the accuracy of their final answers, neglecting the validity of the reasoning processes that lead to those answers. To address this issue, we introduce ReTraceQA, a novel benchmark that introduces process-level evaluation for commonsense reasoning tasks. Our expert-annotated dataset reveals that in a substantial portion of instances (14-24%), SLMs provide correct final answers despite flawed reasoning processes, suggesting that the capabilities of SLMs are often overestimated by evaluation metrics that focus only on comparing the final answer with the ground truth. Indeed, we show that when employing strong Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated judges for reasoning-aware evaluation rather than answer-only metrics, SLM performance drops significantly across all models and datasets, with scores decreasing by up to 25%.