SciTaRC: Benchmarking QA on Scientific Tabular Data that Requires Language Reasoning and Complex Computation

We introduce SciTaRC, an expert-authored benchmark of questions about tabular data in scientific papers requiring both deep language reasoning and complex computation. We show that current state-of-the-art AI models fail on at least 23% of these questions, a gap that remains significant even for highly capable open-weight models like Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, which fails on 65.5% of the tasks. Our analysis reveals a universal "execution bottleneck": both code and language models struggle to faithfully execute plans, even when provided with correct strategies. Specifically, code-based methods prove brittle on raw scientific tables, while natural language reasoning primarily fails due to initial comprehension issues and calculation errors.

How Grounded is Wikipedia? A Study on Structured Evidential Support

Wikipedia is a critical resource for modern NLP, serving as a rich repository of up-to-date and citation-backed information on a wide variety of subjects. The reliability of Wikipedia -- its groundedness in its cited sources -- is vital to this purpose. This work provides a quantitative analysis of the extent to which Wikipedia *is* so grounded and of how readily grounding evidence may be retrieved. To this end, we introduce PeopleProfiles -- a large-scale, multi-level dataset of claim support annotations on Wikipedia articles of notable people. We show that roughly 20% of claims in Wikipedia *lead* sections are unsupported by the article body; roughly 27% of annotated claims in the article *body* are unsupported by their (publicly accessible) cited sources; and >80% of lead claims cannot be traced to these sources via annotated body evidence. Further, we show that recovery of complex grounding evidence for claims that *are* supported remains a challenge for standard retrieval methods.