Evaluates the ability of LLMs to answer knowledge-intensive questions across atomic, aggregated, and multi-hop reasoning scenarios in agricultural, medical, and general domains. It measures how well supervised fine-tuning with synthetic knowledge-graph data improves closed-book QA performance. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SeedEval, PQArefEval, HotpotEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-F.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill graphgen-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Graphgen Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-graphgen-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: graphgen-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of LLMs to answer knowledge-intensive questions across atomic, aggregated, and multi-hop reasoning scenarios in agricultural, medical, and general domains. It measures how well supervised fine-tuning with synthetic knowledge-graph data improves closed-book QA performance. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SeedEval, PQArefEval, HotpotEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports ROUGE-F.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2505.20416
bibtex_key: chen2025graphgen
confidence: high
---
# graphgen-eval
> GraphGen: Enhancing Supervised Fine-Tuning for LLMs with Knowledge-Driven Synthetic Data Generation — Chen et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.20416, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of LLMs to answer knowledge-intensive questions across atomic, aggregated, and multi-hop reasoning scenarios in agricultural, medical, and general domains. It measures how well supervised fine-tuning with synthetic knowledge-graph data improves closed-book QA performance.
## Datasets
- **SeedEval** — total 582; splits: test (582)
- **PQArefEval** — total 5815; splits: test (5815)
- **HotpotEval** — total 7405; splits: test (7405)
## Metrics
- `ROUGE-F` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score measuring the overlap of n-grams between the generated answer and the ground truth reference.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A natural language question for closed-book QA.
**Output**: A natural language text answer.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def evaluate(predictions, references):
scores = []
for pred, ref in zip(predictions, references):
score = compute_rouge_f1(pred, ref) # ROUGE-F as specified in the paper
scores.append(score)
return sum(scores) / len(scores)
```
## Common pitfalls
- The evaluation is strictly closed-book; allowing external retrieval during inference invalidates the benchmark.
- ROUGE-F measures lexical overlap, not factual correctness or reasoning depth, so high scores do not guarantee accurate multi-hop answers.
- Baseline methods can cause performance degradation on aggregated QA tasks due to single-segment generation limits, which should be attributed to data synthesis flaws rather than the evaluation metric itself.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We use ROUGE-F as the metric. The baseline methods exhibit varying performance across the three datasets, while GraphGen consistently achieves optimal results.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chen2025graphgen,
title={GraphGen: Enhancing Supervised Fine-Tuning for LLMs with Knowledge-Driven Synthetic Data Generation},
author={Chen et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2505.20416}
}
```
- arXiv: 2505.20416

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!