Evaluates the ability of LLMs and hybrid QA systems to perform tree-structured, multi-hop reasoning over combined text and table data, including complex SQL operations like aggregation, grouping, ordering, and cross-modal retrieval. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SPARTA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill sparta-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sparta Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-sparta-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sparta-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of LLMs and hybrid QA systems to perform tree-structured, multi-hop reasoning over combined text and table data, including complex SQL operations like aggregation, grouping, ordering, and cross-modal retrieval. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SPARTA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.23286
bibtex_key: park2026sparta
confidence: high
---
# sparta-eval
> SPARTA: Scalable and Principled Benchmark of Tree-Structured Multi-hop QA over Text and Tables — Park et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.23286, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of LLMs and hybrid QA systems to perform tree-structured, multi-hop reasoning over combined text and table data, including complex SQL operations like aggregation, grouping, ordering, and cross-modal retrieval.
## Datasets
- **SPARTA** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/pshlego/SPARTA
## Metrics
- `F1` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall over normalized answer matches. Precision is the fraction of predicted answers that match gold, recall is the fraction of gold answers matched by predictions.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A natural language question, optionally accompanied by a set of relevant tables and text passages (Oracle setting) or provided with no evidence (Retrieval setting, requiring the model to first retrieve relevant tables/text).
**Output**: A natural language answer or executable query/response. The system evaluates the final answer string against gold answers using exact match and F1 scoring.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_f1(preds, golds):
em = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if normalize(p) == normalize(g)) / len(golds)
p = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if normalize(p) in normalize(g)) / len(golds)
r = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if normalize(g) in normalize(p)) / len(golds)
f1 = 2 * p * r / (p + r) if (p + r) > 0 else 0
return em, f1, p, r
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models are evaluated under two distinct settings: Oracle (given gold tables/text) vs. Retrieval (must find evidence first). Performance drops significantly in the Retrieval setting.
- Standard single-hop QA benchmarks do not capture the difficulty of tree-structured multi-hop queries with aggregations/grouping, leading to misleadingly high baseline scores on older datasets.
- Table size matters: domains with thousands of rows (e.g., NBA, Movie) cause sharper performance degradation than smaller tables.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> On SPARTA (Oracle), ODYSSEY with GPT-5 achieves an average F1 score of 35.6% across all domains, representing a sharp 33.9-point drop compared to its performance on HybridQA (69.5%). We evaluate SPARTA under two configurations: (1) SPARTA (Oracle), where models are given ground-truth tables and linked passages; and (2) SPARTA (Retrieval), where models must retrieve relevant content from the entire corpus.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{park2026sparta,
title={SPARTA: Scalable and Principled Benchmark of Tree-Structured Multi-hop QA over Text and Tables},
author={Park et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.23286}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.23286
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!