Update README.md

README.md

@@ -45,17 +45,18 @@ extra_gated_fields:
 
 # KEEP-Bench
 
-**KEEP-Bench** (**K**ey **E**videnc**E** **P**reservation) is a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating whether context compressors preserve the evidence needed to answer a question. Instead of inferring compression quality from downstream task accuracy, KEEP-Bench annotates each case with the evidence propositions a faithful compression must retain and checks each proposition directly in the compressed context.
+**KEEP-Bench** (**K**ey **E**videnc**E** **P**reservation) is a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating whether context compressors preserve the evidence needed to answer a question. Instead of inferring compression quality from downstream task accuracy, KEEP-Bench annotates each case with the evidence propositions that a faithful compression must retain, and checks each proposition directly in the compressed context.
 
 The benchmark contains **4,102 cases** in three settings, each targeting an evidence structure that compressors tend to break:
 
-- **Parallel evidence**: the question mentions an underspecified entity with two valid referents. Each referent leads through its own reasoning chain to a different answer, and both chains must be preserved.
-- **Conditional evidence**: one hop of the reasoning chain holds only under an explicit condition (a period, edition, survey, version, ...). The condition must be preserved together with the claim it governs.
+- **Parallel evidence**: the question contains underspecified mentions that admit two valid interpretations. Each interpretation leads through its own reasoning chain to a different answer, and both chains must be preserved.
+- **Conditional evidence**: one hop of the reasoning chain holds only under an explicit qualifier, such as a period, edition, survey or version. The qualifier must be preserved together with the claim it scopes.
 - **Imbalanced evidence**: an open-ended question has three or four valid answer perspectives. Dominant perspectives are supported by several paragraphs, while each minority perspective is supported by a single sentence. All perspectives must be preserved.
 
 <!-- TODO: add links once public -->
 - Paper: coming soon
-- Code (compression prompts, judge prompts, evaluation scripts): coming soon
+- Code: coming soon
+- Website: coming soon
 
 ## Dataset structure
 
@@ -106,13 +107,13 @@ The input to a compressor is `question` and `context`. `context` is the exact st
 |---|---|---|
 | `id` | string | Case id, e.g. `conditional_2hop_0001`. |
 | `hop_type`, `hops` | string, int | As in `parallel`. |
-| `question_group` | string | Cases sharing the same question, usually paired with different conditions (536 groups have two cases). |
+| `question_group` | string | Cases sharing the same question, usually paired with different qualifiers (536 groups have two cases). |
 | `question` | string | Question. |
-| `answer` | string | Gold answer, stated together with its condition. |
-| `key` | string | The condition, e.g. `In the 1990s`. |
-| `logical_chain` | list[string] | Evidence propositions, one per hop. Exactly one proposition contains `key`; it is the condition-bearing proposition. |
-| `disambiguation_proposition` | string | States that the conditioned relation differs across conditions. It explains the scope of the condition to the judge and is **not** an evaluated proposition. |
-| `paragraphs` | list[struct] | `idx`, `title`, `paragraph_text`, `is_supporting` (string: `supporting`, `disambiguating` or `distractor`). The `disambiguating` paragraph shows that the relation is not valid without the condition. |
+| `answer` | string | Gold answer, stated together with its qualifier. |
+| `key` | string | The qualifier, e.g. `In the 1990s`. |
+| `logical_chain` | list[string] | Evidence propositions, one per hop. Exactly one proposition contains `key`; it is the qualified proposition. |
+| `disambiguation_proposition` | string | States that the qualified relation differs across qualifiers. It explains the scope of the qualifier to the judge and is **not** an evaluated proposition. |
+| `paragraphs` | list[struct] | `idx`, `title`, `paragraph_text`, `is_supporting` (string: `supporting`, `disambiguating` or `distractor`). The `disambiguating` paragraph shows that the relation is not valid without the qualifier. |
 | `context` | string | Rendered as in `parallel`. |
 
 ### Fields: `imbalanced_science` and `imbalanced_policy`
@@ -162,4 +163,3 @@ If you are a rights holder and want content removed, please open a discussion in
   year    = {2026}
 }
 ```
-