Daily Papers

Continuous episodic memory is a core capability for autonomous agents operating in dynamic, real-world environments, yet current streaming video benchmarks provide limited tools for diagnosing what models remember and for how long. We introduce Egostream, a diagnostic benchmark for streaming episodic memory evaluation in egocentric vision. \egostream organizes 2,250 curated questions along seven cognitive dimensions: detail, spatial, temporal, event, social, causal, and prospective memory. We introduce the Answer Validity Window (AVW), which specifies the temporal span an answer remains valid as the observed scene evolves. This allows us to expand the questions into 8,528 recall-conditioned evaluations, enabling controlled testing from instant to ultra-long-term recall while separating genuine model forgetting from natural world-state changes. We rigorously establish baseline performance through a unified streaming MLLM framework that compares several state-of-the-art memory-management mechanisms, covering sliding windows, attention sinks, KV-cache pruning, merging, and offloading. Experiments within a unified Qwen3-VL backbone reveal that comparable aggregate accuracies mask starkly different memory profiles. For instance, token pruning preserves fine-grained details and temporal structure significantly better than token merging, while quantized offloading rescues ultra-long-term recall. Ultimately, all mechanisms operate well below real-time (>1s per frame), and top performing methods ceil at about 45% accuracy, exposing critical gaps in current architectures. Egostream provides the diagnostic testbed needed to close these gaps. Project website, news and updates at: https://saroo25.github.io/Egostream/

Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch. In contrast, large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems. How then do LRMs perform at evaluating reasons? We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning (VAIR) dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers, designed to isolate reasoning evaluation from the confound of reasoning production. Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs: frontier models score as low as 48% when evaluating VAIR solutions, despite near-perfect solution production. Why this enigma? Through chain-of-thought (CoT) analysis, we find evidence of an answer confirmation bias: LRMs often produce then check for the correct answer instead of carefully verifying each step, fabricating rationalizations even when noticing anomalous reasoning. Linear probes corroborate this, showing that while LRM activations encode some representation of valid reasoning, they fail to robustly represent VAIR solutions as invalid. Causal patching of the final answer's representations causes LRM verdicts and activations to flip, demonstrating that answer validity is responsible for models' confirmation biases. These findings indicate an outstanding limitation in dominant approaches to reasoning training, which incentivize LRMs to produce and confirm reasoning towards correct answers, but not to robustly evaluate the underlying reasons.

Streaming video understanding requires models to interpret evidence as it arrives, yet current evaluations often report task scores without specifying when evidence becomes valid, how visual history is maintained, or how responses are triggered. As a result, similar scores may correspond to different workloads, failure modes, and operational behavior. We introduce TRACE (Temporal Audit and Condition-aware Evaluation), a condition-aware benchmark and evaluation framework that makes these factors explicit. TRACE combines temporally audited visual tasks with evidence timing and instruction-dependent trigger annotations, a unified causal Core--Adapter protocol that controls information availability while recording actual history processing and response events, and multidimensional reporting of answer quality, timeliness, response-selection behavior, workload, completion, and reliability. On 1,240 records from 517 videos, we evaluate eight publicly available models or systems in eight configurations. We find that nearly identical QA accuracy can mask substantial differences in completion, answer validity, and generation workload, while proactive performance separates into response quality, response delay, false alarms (responses emitted while no target window is currently valid and a later one remains), and missed target windows. These results show that streaming-video performance should be interpreted as execution-conditioned system behavior rather than a single score. Our benchmark and code can be accessed at https://github.com/om-ai-lab/trace-bench{https://github.com/om-ai-lab/trace-bench}.

High-quality pre-training data is a critical bottleneck for educational and STEM-specific language models targeting edge AI and on-device deployment where token budgets are tightly constrained. While major organizations train ever-larger models on private corpora, the open ecosystem lacks STEM-focused synthetic datasets that deliver high per-token learning value efficiently for small models. To address this gap, we introduce QVAC Genesis III, a 191.43B-token, STEM-focused multi-domain synthetic corpus covering 19 domains across several difficulty levels and different educational styles. QVAC Genesis III is built via a dual generation strategy that performs targeted teacher distillation using a weak edge-scale student model as signal: the student's failures are converted into corrective explanations, while its successes are expanded into contrastive option-level reasoning over all answer choices. We further introduce an LLM-as-a-parser evaluation protocol that extracts final answers from free-form outputs and tracks both accuracy and answer validity. To validate the effectiveness of our QVAC Genesis III data, we conduct controlled from-scratch ablations with 1.7B-parameter models, showing that models trained with QVAC Genesis III consistently outperform both models trained with the open-source synthetic corpus Cosmopedia-v2 and the publicly released Cosmo-1B model across ARC, GPQA Diamond, and MMLU STEM benchmarks, achieving up to +28.57% on ARC-E and +21.35% on ARC-C, while reaching a Valid Answer Rate of up to 99.45%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities, largely enabled by supervised fine-tuning (SFT)- and reinforcement learning (RL)-based post-training on high-quality reasoning data. However, reproducing and extending these capabilities in open and scalable settings is hindered by three fundamental data-centric challenges: (1) the cold-start problem, arising from the lack of seed datasets with detailed, long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories needed to initialize reasoning policies; (2) limited domain coverage, as most existing open-source reasoning datasets are concentrated in mathematics, with limited coverage of broader scientific disciplines; and (3) the annotation bottleneck, where the difficulty of frontier-level reasoning tasks makes reliable human annotation prohibitively expensive or infeasible. To address these challenges, we introduce CHIMERA, a compact synthetic reasoning dataset comprising 9K samples for generalizable cross-domain reasoning. CHIMERA is constructed with three key properties: (1) it provides rich, long CoT reasoning trajectories synthesized by state-of-the-art reasoning models; (2) it has broad and structured coverage, spanning 8 major scientific disciplines and over 1K fine-grained topics organized via a model-generated hierarchical taxonomy; and (3) it employs a fully automated, scalable evaluation pipeline that uses strong reasoning models to cross-validate both problem validity and answer correctness. We use CHIMERA to post-train a 4B Qwen3 model. Despite the dataset's modest size, the resulting model achieves strong performance on a suite of challenging reasoning benchmarks, including GPQA-Diamond, AIME 24/25/26, HMMT 25, and Humanity's Last Exam, approaching or matching the reasoning performance of substantially larger models such as DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3-235B.

Despite substantial progress in Deep Search agents, their ability to conduct end-to-end research in real-world open Web environments remains insufficiently evaluated. Unlike static retrieval settings, information on the real-world Web is distributed across diverse sources, modalities, and heterogeneous formats, often involving complex interaction mechanisms that require agents to autonomously search for, access, and integrate relevant evidence during execution. To address this gap, we introduce the OpenDS task, designed to evaluate agents' ability to perform multi-step deep search in the live, open Web. This task requires agents to autonomously explore the real Web, discover and connect relevant evidence from multiple independent sources through Web search, browser interaction, and evidence processing, and ultimately determine a unique factual answer. Building on this task formulation, we construct OpenDS-World, a benchmark comprising 200 challenging tasks spanning diverse information modalities, heterogeneous file formats, and interactive access requirements, with independent human verification to ensure evidence validity and answer uniqueness. We evaluate 12 frontier models under a unified tool environment and execution protocol. The best-performing model achieves 39.0% accuracy, while human evaluation across 1,000 independent attempts yields 21.1% accuracy. Further analyses of tool usage, search cost, termination behavior, and failure recovery reveal substantial differences in research strategies across models, as well as persistent challenges in tool coordination and long-horizon search management. OpenDS-World provides a unified evaluation platform for systematically assessing and advancing agents' autonomous deep search capabilities in real-world open Web environments.

We provide here a dataset for tasks related to natural language understanding and natural language inference. The dataset contains logical puzzles in natural language from three domains: comparing puzzles, knighs and knaves, and zebra puzzles. Each puzzle is associated with the entire set of atomic questions that can be generated based on the relations and individuals occurring in the text. For each question we provide the correct answer: entailment, contradiction or ambiguity. The answer's correctness is verified against theorem provers. Good puzzles have two properties: (i) each piece of information is necessary and (ii) no unnecessary information is provided. These properties make puzzles interesting candidates for machine comprehension tasks.

Naturally occurring information-seeking questions often contain questionable assumptions -- assumptions that are false or unverifiable. Questions containing questionable assumptions are challenging because they require a distinct answer strategy that deviates from typical answers for information-seeking questions. For instance, the question "When did Marie Curie discover Uranium?" cannot be answered as a typical "when" question without addressing the false assumption "Marie Curie discovered Uranium". In this work, we propose (QA)^2 (Question Answering with Questionable Assumptions), an open-domain evaluation dataset consisting of naturally occurring search engine queries that may or may not contain questionable assumptions. To be successful on (QA)^2, systems must be able to detect questionable assumptions and also be able to produce adequate responses for both typical information-seeking questions and ones with questionable assumptions. Through human rater acceptability on end-to-end QA with (QA)^2, we find that current models do struggle with handling questionable assumptions, leaving substantial headroom for progress.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing information retrieval, with chatbots becoming an important source for answering user queries. As by their design, LLMs prioritize generating correct answers, the value of highly plausible yet incorrect answers (candidate answers) tends to be overlooked. However, such answers can still prove useful, for example, they can play a crucial role in tasks like Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and QA Robustness Assessment (QARA). Existing QA datasets primarily focus on correct answers without explicit consideration of the plausibility of other candidate answers, limiting opportunity for more nuanced evaluations of models. To address this gap, we introduce PlausibleQA, a large-scale dataset comprising 10,000 questions and 100,000 candidate answers, each annotated with plausibility scores and justifications for their selection. Additionally, the dataset includes 900,000 justifications for pairwise comparisons between candidate answers, further refining plausibility assessments. We evaluate PlausibleQA through human assessments and empirical experiments, demonstrating its utility in MCQA and QARA analysis. Our findings show that plausibility-aware approaches are effective for MCQA distractor generation and QARA. We release PlausibleQA as a resource for advancing QA research and enhancing LLM performance in distinguishing plausible distractors from correct answers.

Context: Motivation is known to improve performance. In software development in particular, there has been considerable interest in the motivation of contributors to open source. Objective: We identify 11 motivators from the literature (enjoying programming, ownership of code, learning, self use, etc.), and evaluate their relative effect on motivation. Since motivation is an internal subjective feeling, we also analyze the validity of the answers. Method: We conducted a survey with 66 questions on motivation which was completed by 521 developers. Most of the questions used an 11 point scale. We evaluated the validity of the answers validity by comparing related questions, comparing to actual behavior on GitHub, and comparison with the same developer in a follow up survey. Results: Validity problems include moderate correlations between answers to related questions, as well as self promotion and mistakes in the answers. Despite these problems, predictive analysis, investigating how diverse motivators influence the probability of high motivation, provided valuable insights. The correlations between the different motivators are low, implying their independence. High values in all 11 motivators predict increased probability of high motivation. In addition, improvement analysis shows that an increase in most motivators predicts an increase in general motivation.

This article proposes a new approach for assessing the quality of answers in political question-and-answer sessions. We measure the quality of an answer based on how easily and accurately it can be recognized in a random set of candidate answers given the question's text. This measure reflects the answer's relevance and depth of engagement with the question. Like semantic search, we can implement this approach by training a language model on the corpus of observed questions and answers without additional human-labeled data. We showcase and validate our methodology within the context of the Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons. Our analysis reveals that while some answers have a weak semantic connection to questions, hinting at some evasion or obfuscation, they are generally at least moderately relevant, far exceeding what we would expect from random replies. We also find a meaningful correlation between answer quality and the party affiliation of the members of Parliament asking the questions.

One of the most widely used methods to evaluate LLMs are Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) tests. MCQ benchmarks enable the testing of LLM knowledge on almost any topic at scale as the results can be processed automatically. To help the LLM answer, a few examples called few shots can be included in the prompt. Moreover, the LLM can be asked to answer the question directly with the selected option or to first provide the reasoning and then the selected answer, which is known as chain of thought. In addition to checking whether the selected answer is correct, the evaluation can look at the LLM-estimated probability of its response as an indication of the confidence of the LLM in the response. In this paper, we study how the LLM confidence in its answer depends on whether the model has been asked to answer directly or to provide the reasoning before answering. The results of the evaluation of questions on a wide range of topics in seven different models show that LLMs are more confident in their answers when they provide reasoning before the answer. This occurs regardless of whether the selected answer is correct. Our hypothesis is that this behavior is due to the reasoning that modifies the probability of the selected answer, as the LLM predicts the answer based on the input question and the reasoning that supports the selection made. Therefore, LLM estimated probabilities seem to have intrinsic limitations that should be understood in order to use them in evaluation procedures. Interestingly, the same behavior has been observed in humans, for whom explaining an answer increases confidence in its correctness.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

Search engines and information platforms are increasingly scrutinized for their role in spreading misinformation. Traditional responses often focus on detecting falsehoods or verifying the ultimate validity of claims. This paper argues that such a validity-centered framing is inadequate for the epistemic challenges of search environments.

Multiple choice benchmarks have long been the workhorse of language model evaluation because grading multiple choice is objective and easy to automate. However, we show multiple choice questions from popular benchmarks can often be answered without even seeing the question. These shortcuts arise from a fundamental limitation of discriminative evaluation not shared by evaluations of the model's free-form, generative answers. Until recently, there appeared to be no viable, scalable alternative to multiple choice--but, we show that this has changed. We consider generative evaluation via what we call answer matching: Give the candidate model the question without the options, have it generate a free-form response, then use a modern language model with the reference answer to determine if the response matches the reference. To compare the validity of different evaluation strategies, we annotate MMLU-Pro and GPQA-Diamond to obtain human grading data, and measure the agreement of each evaluation approach. We find answer matching using recent models--even small ones--achieves near-perfect agreement, in the range of inter-annotator agreement. In contrast, both multiple choice evaluation and using LLM-as-a-judge without reference answers aligns poorly with human grading. Improving evaluations via answer matching is not merely a conceptual concern: the rankings of several models change significantly when evaluating their free-form responses with answer matching. In light of these findings, we discuss how to move the evaluation ecosystem from multiple choice to answer matching.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) gives agents access to accumulated knowledge, but has no model of time. When a fact changes (e.g., a function is renamed or API restructured), RAG retrieves both the stale and current value with near-identical embedding similarity. The agent then either abstains or serves the superseded fact. We show this is a structural problem: on a calibrated dataset, cosine similarity distinguishes a contradicted fact from a duplicated one with AUROC 0.59 (near chance), as contradictions are often more embedding-similar to the original than rephrased duplicates. We present MemStrata, a retrieval memory maintaining temporal validity. It stores facts like RAG, preserving static recall, but when a fact's value is contradicted, a deterministic (subject, relation, object) supersession rule retires the stale value in a bi-temporal ledger - with no similarity threshold and no LLM call. Across six benchmarks run locally with a 7B model, MemStrata ties RAG on static knowledge and reaches 0.95-1.00 accuracy on evolving knowledge (where RAG reaches 0.20-0.47). The central result is the stale-fact-error rate: when required to answer, RAG serves superseded values 15-40% of the time; MemStrata drives this to ~0%, a failure class RAG cannot avoid. MemStrata achieves this at retrieval latency (~2.1s) versus ~16-18s for LLM-reranking baselines. We release the harness, datasets, and a marker-free evaluation protocol for memory under knowledge evolution.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves multimodal reasoning by rewarding verifiable final answers. Yet answer-correct trajectories may still rely on incomplete derivations, weak evidence, or statements that contradict their conclusions. This gap between answer correctness and reasoning validity, which we call reasoning-answer inconsistency, motivates trajectory supervision in multimodal RL. We compare two main approaches: reward models (RMs), and Generative Rewards (GRs). RMs are efficient and help early in training, but their gains weaken as the policy distribution shifts; GRs improve performance, but may give unstable rewards and computationally expensive. We therefore propose Groupwise Ranking Reward, which ranks verifier-passed trajectories for the same prompt in one pass and redistributes reward accordingly. Groupwise comparison better separates stronger and weaker correct trajectories with lower judge overhead than GRs. Experiments show that RLVR aggravates reasoning-answer inconsistency, while trajectory supervision alleviates it. Groupwise Ranking Reward performs best overall, improving reliability-conditioned accuracy from 47.4% to 54.7% over RLVR.

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for biomedical question answering raises concerns about the accuracy and evidentiary support of their responses. To address this, we present Answered with Evidence, a framework for evaluating whether LLM-generated answers are grounded in scientific literature. We analyzed thousands of physician-submitted questions using a comparative pipeline that included: (1) Alexandria, fka the Atropos Evidence Library, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system based on novel observational studies, and (2) two PubMed-based retrieval-augmented systems (System and Perplexity). We found that PubMed-based systems provided evidence-supported answers for approximately 44% of questions, while the novel evidence source did so for about 50%. Combined, these sources enabled reliable answers to over 70% of biomedical queries. As LLMs become increasingly capable of summarizing scientific content, maximizing their value will require systems that can accurately retrieve both published and custom-generated evidence or generate such evidence in real time.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant advancements in various natural language processing tasks, including question answering (QA) tasks. While incorporating new information with the retrieval of relevant passages is a promising way to improve QA with LLMs, the existing methods often require additional fine-tuning which becomes infeasible with recent LLMs. Augmenting retrieved passages via prompting has the potential to address this limitation, but this direction has been limitedly explored. To this end, we design a simple yet effective framework to enhance open-domain QA (ODQA) with LLMs, based on the summarized retrieval (SuRe). SuRe helps LLMs predict more accurate answers for a given question, which are well-supported by the summarized retrieval that could be viewed as an explicit rationale extracted from the retrieved passages. Specifically, SuRe first constructs summaries of the retrieved passages for each of the multiple answer candidates. Then, SuRe confirms the most plausible answer from the candidate set by evaluating the validity and ranking of the generated summaries. Experimental results on diverse ODQA benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of SuRe, with improvements of up to 4.6% in exact match (EM) and 4.0% in F1 score over standard prompting approaches. SuRe also can be integrated with a broad range of retrieval methods and LLMs. Finally, the generated summaries from SuRe show additional advantages to measure the importance of retrieved passages and serve as more preferred rationales by models and humans.

AI answer engines increasingly mediate access to domain knowledge by generating responses and citing web sources. We introduce GEO-16, a 16 pillar auditing framework that converts on page quality signals into banded pillar scores and a normalized GEO score G that ranges from 0 to 1. Using 70 product intent prompts, we collected 1,702 citations across three engines (Brave Summary, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity) and audited 1,100 unique URLs. In our corpus, the engines differed in the GEO quality of the pages they cited, and pillars related to Metadata and Freshness, Semantic HTML, and Structured Data showed the strongest associations with citation. Logistic models with domain clustered standard errors indicate that overall page quality is a strong predictor of citation, and simple operating points (for example, G at least 0.70 combined with at least 12 pillar hits) align with substantially higher citation rates in our data. We report per engine contrasts, vertical effects, threshold analysis, and diagnostics, then translate findings into a practical playbook for publishers. The study is observational and focuses on English language B2B SaaS pages; we discuss limitations, threats to validity, and reproducibility considerations.

We describe a Question Answering (QA) dataset that contains complex questions with conditional answers, i.e. the answers are only applicable when certain conditions apply. We call this dataset ConditionalQA. In addition to conditional answers, the dataset also features: (1) long context documents with information that is related in logically complex ways; (2) multi-hop questions that require compositional logical reasoning; (3) a combination of extractive questions, yes/no questions, questions with multiple answers, and not-answerable questions; (4) questions asked without knowing the answers. We show that ConditionalQA is challenging for many of the existing QA models, especially in selecting answer conditions. We believe that this dataset will motivate further research in answering complex questions over long documents. Data and leaderboard are publicly available at https://github.com/haitian-sun/ConditionalQA.

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.

Tool-calling benchmarks are increasingly used to rank language-model agents, yet their scores are often treated as ground truth without validating the evaluators themselves. We present a systematic validity and reproducibility audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families: BFCL v4, τ2-Bench, LiveMCPBench, and MCP-Atlas. Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate. The failures are not isolated annotation mistakes: deterministic benchmarks exhibit brittle state matching, trajectory lock-in, incorrect ground truths, substring-based communication failures, and reward-basis misalignment, while LLM-judge benchmarks exhibit rubric drift, hallucinated completion, answer-only scoring, and substantial run-to-run variance. In LiveMCPBench, 23 repeated evaluations of the same setup produce scores ranging from 57.9% to 76.8%, a spread of 18.9 percentage points, large enough to change leaderboard conclusions. These results show that current tool-calling scores can reflect evaluator artifacts rather than agent capability. We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for decomposed metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification. Our findings suggest that progress in tool-using agents requires benchmarks whose evaluators are themselves reproducible, auditable, and aligned with human judgments of task success. We further introduce Tool-Veritas, a configurable benchmark that combines deterministic state verification with optional qualitative judging, and Harness Lab, an open-source system for benchmark execution, trace inspection, repeated-run comparison, and evaluator debugging.

This paper presents our submission to the SemEval 2024 Task 5: The Legal Argument Reasoning Task in Civil Procedure. We present two approaches to solving the task of legal answer validation, given an introduction to the case, a question and an answer candidate. Firstly, we fine-tuned pre-trained BERT-based models and found that models trained on domain knowledge perform better. Secondly, we performed few-shot prompting on GPT models and found that reformulating the answer validation task to be a multiple-choice QA task remarkably improves the performance of the model. Our best submission is a BERT-based model that achieved the 7th place out of 20.

Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct answers. We use historical texts to develop a benchmark for a model's representation of English-language contexts 1831-1930, relying on pairwise comparisons to multiple ground truths and strong distractors to score the hardest questions in an appropriately graduated way. We find that generative tasks are harder than discriminative ones; in fact, reasoning models can typically discern the weakness of their own generated answers. While models pretrained exclusively on historical text lead the pack when evaluated by answer likelihood, they cannot compete with commercial models in free generation. None of the models we tested represent historical contexts in a fully persuasive way yet, but progress toward that goal is evident.

Existing datasets that contain boolean questions, such as BoolQ and TYDI QA , provide the user with a YES/NO response to the question. However, a one word response is not sufficient for an explainable system. We promote explainability by releasing a new set of annotations marking the evidence in existing TyDi QA and BoolQ datasets. We show that our annotations can be used to train a model that extracts improved evidence spans compared to models that rely on existing resources. We confirm our findings with a user study which shows that our extracted evidence spans enhance the user experience. We also provide further insight into the challenges of answering boolean questions, such as passages containing conflicting YES and NO answers, and varying degrees of relevance of the predicted evidence.

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning has largely focused on elementary problems, competition-style questions, or formal theorem proving, leaving graduate-level and computational mathematics relatively underexplored. We introduce CompMath-MCQ, a new benchmark dataset for assessing LLMs on advanced mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice setting. The dataset consists of 1{,}500 originally authored questions by professors of graduate-level courses, covering topics including Linear Algebra, Numerical Optimization, Vector Calculus, Probability, and Python-based scientific computing. Three option choices are provided for each question, with exactly one of them being correct. To ensure the absence of data leakage, all questions are newly created and not sourced from existing materials. The validity of questions is verified through a procedure based on cross-LLM disagreement, followed by manual expert review. By adopting a multiple-choice format, our dataset enables objective, reproducible, and bias-free evaluation through lm_eval library. Baseline results with state-of-the-art LLMs indicate that advanced computational mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge. We release CompMath-MCQ at the following link: https://github.com/biancaraimondi/CompMath-MCQ.git

Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires data that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.

LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet. Do they weigh information appropriately -- updating more for reliable sources (source discernment) and more when claims bring priors closer to the truth (truth discernment)? We formalize this as information discernment and introduce Learn2Discern (L2D), an experimental framework and benchmark grounded in three normative axioms with interpretable metrics. To establish external validity, a pre-registered, quota-matched user study (n=299) confirms that real LLM users endorse all three axioms and report that violations reduce their trust and usage intent. Across 13 models and nearly 670K trials, we find consistent failures across both dimensions: models perform near chance on source and truth discernment, rely on source popularity twice as much as source reliability, and update roughly equally whether a claim improves or worsens their position relative to the ground truth. Models integrate external knowledge most effectively on datasets where their priors are already the most accurate. Newer and larger models improve truth discernment but not source discernment, a blind spot that model complexity does not address. We identify simple inference-time interventions that improve both forms of discernment. We release our dataset and survey as a testbed for a core alignment property that scales in importance as LLMs replace traditional search.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted for clinical question answering (QA). Current systems can attach citations to their answers, but these often point to broad texts, leaving time-pressed clinicians unable to verify them efficiently. An alternative is to ensure that responses are verifiable by construction: providing fine-grained verbatim quotes from reference material that substantiate claims, so users can verify an answer without opening other documents. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of current models to perform this task end-to-end: from providing citations for every factual claim, to producing verbatim quotes, to ensuring that those quotes fully substantiate the claims. To do so, we build a standardized harness over four clinical practice guidelines and evaluate twelve LLMs on 222 synthetic clinical questions, measuring each of these stages separately. We find that most models can attach verbatim quotes to over 90% of their claims from prompting alone, apart from some lightweight models such as claude-haiku-4.5. Yet these quotes often fail to substantiate every detail of the claims they accompany. For instance, claude-opus-5 produces verbatim quotes for 98.0% of its claims, but fully substantiates only 37.1%. Our work provides insights into the current capability gap of LLMs in building verifiable clinical QA systems, along with artifacts for future research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) leverage step-by-step reasoning to solve complex problems. Standard evaluation practice involves generating a complete reasoning trace and assessing the correctness of the final answer presented at its conclusion. In this paper, we challenge the reliance on the final answer by posing the following two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion? Can alternative reasoning paths yield different results? To answer these questions, we analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, and propose a method based on our findings. Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues. We start by prompting the model to generate continuations from the end-point of each intermediate subthought. We extract a potential answer from every completed continuation originating from different subthoughts. We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace. Analyzing the consistency among the answers derived from different subthoughts reveals characteristics that correlate with the model's confidence and correctness, suggesting potential for identifying less reliable answers. Our experiments across various LLMs and challenging mathematical reasoning datasets (AIME2024 and AIME2025) show consistent accuracy improvements, with gains reaching up to 13\% and 10\% respectively. Implementation is available at: https://github.com/hammoudhasan/SubthoughtReasoner.

As large language models (LLMs) grow larger and more sophisticated, assessing their "reasoning" capabilities in natural language grows more challenging. Recent question answering (QA) benchmarks that attempt to assess reasoning are often limited by a narrow scope of covered situations and subject matters. We introduce WikiWhy, a QA dataset built around a novel auxiliary task: explaining why an answer is true in natural language. WikiWhy contains over 9,000 "why" question-answer-rationale triples, grounded on Wikipedia facts across a diverse set of topics. Each rationale is a set of supporting statements connecting the question to the answer. WikiWhy serves as a benchmark for the reasoning capabilities of LLMs because it demands rigorous explicit rationales for each answer to demonstrate the acquisition of implicit commonsense knowledge, which is unlikely to be easily memorized. GPT-3 baselines achieve only 38.7% human-evaluated correctness in the end-to-end answer & explain condition, leaving significant room for future improvements.

We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.

Sensitivity to false assumptions (or false premises) in information-seeking questions is critical for robust question-answering (QA) systems. Recent work has shown that false assumptions in naturally occurring questions pose challenges to current models, with low performance on both generative QA and simple detection tasks (Kim et al. 2023). However, the focus of existing work on naturally occurring questions leads to a gap in the analysis of model behavior on the long tail of the distribution of possible questions. To this end, we introduce Syn-(QA)^2, a set of two synthetically generated QA datasets: one generated using perturbed relations from Wikidata, and the other by perturbing HotpotQA (Yang et al. 2018). Our findings from evaluating a range of large language models are threefold: (1) false assumptions in QA are challenging, echoing the findings of prior work, (2) the binary detection task is challenging even compared to the difficulty of generative QA itself, possibly due to the linguistic structure of the problem, and (3) the detection task is more challenging with long-tail questions compared to naturally occurring questions, highlighting the utility of our synthetic datasets and generation method.

Verifying a question's validity before answering is crucial in real-world applications, where users may provide imperfect instructions. In this scenario, an ideal model should address the discrepancies in the query and convey them to the users rather than generating the best possible answer. Addressing this requirement, we introduce a new compositional visual question-answering dataset, VISREAS, that consists of answerable and unanswerable visual queries formulated by traversing and perturbing commonalities and differences among objects, attributes, and relations. VISREAS contains 2.07M semantically diverse queries generated automatically using Visual Genome scene graphs. The unique feature of this task, validating question answerability with respect to an image before answering, and the poor performance of state-of-the-art models inspired the design of a new modular baseline, LOGIC2VISION that reasons by producing and executing pseudocode without any external modules to generate the answer. LOGIC2VISION outperforms generative models in VISREAS (+4.82% over LLaVA-1.5; +12.23% over InstructBLIP) and achieves a significant gain in performance against the classification models.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1\% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5\% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.

We propose that benchmarking LLMs on questions which have no reasonable answer actually isn't as silly as it sounds. We also present a benchmark that allows such testing and a method to modify the existing datasets, and discover that existing models demonstrate a performance far from the perfect on such questions. Our code and data artifacts are available at https://github.com/L3G5/impossible-bench

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

Comprehensively retrieving diverse documents is crucial to address queries that admit a wide range of valid answers. We introduce retrieve-verify-retrieve (RVR), a multi-round retrieval framework designed to maximize answer coverage. Initially, a retriever takes the original query and returns a candidate document set, followed by a verifier that identifies a high-quality subset. For subsequent rounds, the query is augmented with previously verified documents to uncover answers that are not yet covered in previous rounds. RVR is effective even with off-the-shelf retrievers, and fine-tuning retrievers for our inference procedure brings further gains. Our method outperforms baselines, including agentic search approaches, achieving at least 10% relative and 3% absolute gain in complete recall percentage on a multi-answer retrieval dataset (QAMPARI). We also see consistent gains on two out-of-domain datasets (QUEST and WebQuestionsSP) across different base retrievers. Our work presents a promising iterative approach for comprehensive answer recall leveraging a verifier and adapting retrievers to a new inference scenario.

A robot that fails at a task faces the first decision in corrective dialogue: act on its own diagnosis, consult another onboard sensor, or interrupt a person. Choosing well requires knowing how much the robot's sensors reveal about the cause and how reliable the robot's own diagnosis is. We build a simulated benchmark in which every failure's true cause is known, because we injected it, and measure what each sensor reveals, with explicit checks against data leakage. Some failures are diagnosable from camera images; others only from the robot's force data (0.99 from force data, no image method above 0.55). We then test six open vision-language models. Their behavior tracks the surface of the prompt, not the evidence: moving the refusal option from last to first in the answer list collapses refusal rates from 78-100% to 0-6% in three of the six swept model-and-family pairs. Accuracy from frames stays at or below a majority-class baseline under every prompt variant, with or without worked examples, and stated confidence carries no information about correctness. Handing the same models the force data as ten lines of text produces the first above-baseline diagnoses, in four of the six models: much of the failure reflects missing sensor data, not missing ability. We pose the choice as a three-action decision problem, act, consult your own sensors, or ask a human, whose optimal policy follows from measured accuracy. The models do not follow it, and their ask rates ignore a fourfold change in question cost. One question to a human still lifts them from that baseline to roughly the answerer's own reliability (0.70-0.81 when they ask). The decision to ask should be tied to measured accuracy and stated costs, not to the model's confidence.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have shown unprecedented potential in various fields, especially as the backbones for question-answering (QA) systems. However, they tend to be easily deceived by tricky questions such as "How many eyes does the sun have?". Such frailties of PLMs often allude to the lack of knowledge within them. In this paper, we find that the PLMs already possess the knowledge required to rebut such questions, and the key is how to activate the knowledge. To systematize this observation, we investigate the PLMs' responses to one kind of tricky questions, i.e., the false premises questions (FPQs). We annotate a FalseQA dataset containing 2365 human-written FPQs, with the corresponding explanations for the false premises and the revised true premise questions. Using FalseQA, we discover that PLMs are capable of discriminating FPQs by fine-tuning on moderate numbers (e.g., 256) of examples. PLMs also generate reasonable explanations for the false premise, which serve as rebuttals. Further replaying a few general questions during training allows PLMs to excel on FPQs and general questions simultaneously. Our work suggests that once the rebuttal ability is stimulated, knowledge inside the PLMs can be effectively utilized to handle FPQs, which incentivizes the research on PLM-based QA systems.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Ambiguous questions are a challenge for Question Answering models, as they require answers that cover multiple interpretations of the original query. To this end, these models are required to generate long-form answers that often combine conflicting pieces of information. Although recent advances in the field have shown strong capabilities in generating fluent responses, certain research questions remain unanswered. Does model/data scaling improve the answers' quality? Do automated metrics align with human judgment? To what extent do these models ground their answers in evidence? In this study, we aim to thoroughly investigate these aspects, and provide valuable insights into the limitations of the current approaches. To aid in reproducibility and further extension of our work, we open-source our code at https://github.com/din0s/ambig_lfqa.

False-presupposition QA (FPQA) tests LLMs on their ability to identify false presuppositions in questions and abstain or correct them rather than reinforcing false assumptions. The common approach reduces the task to prompting LLMs to extract presuppositions and fact checking each presupposition. While the performance on dedicated benchmarks keeps improving, evaluation largely focuses on questions with false presuppositions (FPQs) while ignoring the performance on ``normal'' questions (TPQs). Since many benchmarks over-represent FPQs compared to their natural occurrence, the result is that performance on these benchmarks doesn't reflect real-world QA performance. Through extensive experiments across various model families, sizes, and benchmarks, we show that methods that perform better on FPQs tend to perform worse on TPQs. Our analysis reveals this is the result of weak fact checking modules that reject also true presuppositions. We hope our findings will help guide future work toward FPQA methods that generalize well to realistic settings.

The recent LLMs like GPT-4 and PaLM-2 have made tremendous progress in solving fundamental math problems like GSM8K by achieving over 90\% accuracy. However, their capabilities to solve more challenging math problems which require domain-specific knowledge (i.e. theorem) have yet to be investigated. In this paper, we introduce TheoremQA, the first theorem-driven question-answering dataset designed to evaluate AI models' capabilities to apply theorems to solve challenging science problems. \dataset is curated by domain experts containing 800 high-quality questions covering 350 theoremse.g. Taylor's theorem, Lagrange's theorem, Huffman coding, Quantum Theorem, Elasticity Theorem, etc from Math, Physics, EE\&CS, and Finance. We evaluate a wide spectrum of 16 large language and code models with different prompting strategies like Chain-of-Thoughts and Program-of-Thoughts. We found that GPT-4's capabilities to solve these problems are unparalleled, achieving an accuracy of 51\% with Program-of-Thoughts Prompting. All the existing open-sourced models are below 15\%, barely surpassing the random-guess baseline. Given the diversity and broad coverage of \dataset, we believe it can be used as a better benchmark to evaluate LLMs' capabilities to solve challenging science problems. The data and code are released in https://github.com/wenhuchen/TheoremQA.

Standard accuracy benchmarks are designed to test how closely large language models (LLMs) approach correct answers, but are not suitable for testing whether LLMs stick with a correct answer when that answer is challenged by a plausible counter-argument. We introduce a controlled protocol for evaluating answer stability: after a model answers a multiple-choice question correctly, we challenge the model's answer with a coherent argument for an incorrect option and measure whether the model flips. The setup a) isolates argumentative content from overt social pressure and b) varies argument length, self-attribution, and cross-model source. Across seven frontier models and 57 MMLU subjects, flip rates range from 17.5% to 97.3%, revealing large differences in stability that are not captured by accuracy metrics alone. We find that self-attribution consistently increases flip rates (mean +7.1pp, up to +18.7pp). Also, pooling wrong-answer arguments across models and selecting the most effective one per question yields stronger adversarial challenges than relying on any single source model. We further construct MaxFlip, a curated challenge set that amplifies flips by up to +23.6pp over standard self-generated challenges. We release the protocol, challenge records, and MaxFlip to support stability evaluation alongside standard accuracy benchmarks. Materials are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/WhoFlips and https://hf.co/datasets/nafisehNik/WhoFlips.

We present HEAD-QA, a multi-choice question answering testbed to encourage research on complex reasoning. The questions come from exams to access a specialized position in the Spanish healthcare system, and are challenging even for highly specialized humans. We then consider monolingual (Spanish) and cross-lingual (to English) experiments with information retrieval and neural techniques. We show that: (i) HEAD-QA challenges current methods, and (ii) the results lag well behind human performance, demonstrating its usefulness as a benchmark for future work.

We present JEC-QA, the largest question answering dataset in the legal domain, collected from the National Judicial Examination of China. The examination is a comprehensive evaluation of professional skills for legal practitioners. College students are required to pass the examination to be certified as a lawyer or a judge. The dataset is challenging for existing question answering methods, because both retrieving relevant materials and answering questions require the ability of logic reasoning. Due to the high demand of multiple reasoning abilities to answer legal questions, the state-of-the-art models can only achieve about 28% accuracy on JEC-QA, while skilled humans and unskilled humans can reach 81% and 64% accuracy respectively, which indicates a huge gap between humans and machines on this task. We will release JEC-QA and our baselines to help improve the reasoning ability of machine comprehension models. You can access the dataset from http://jecqa.thunlp.org/.

In current NLP research, large-scale language models and their abilities are widely being discussed. Some recent works have also found notable failures of these models. Often these failure examples involve complex reasoning abilities. This work focuses on a simple commonsense ability, reasoning about when an action (or its effect) is feasible. To this end, we introduce FeasibilityQA, a question-answering dataset involving binary classification (BCQ) and multi-choice multi-correct questions (MCQ) that test understanding of feasibility. We show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-3, GPT-2, and T5 struggle to answer the feasibility questions correctly. Specifically, on MCQ and BCQ questions, GPT-3 achieves an accuracy of just (19%, 62%) and (25%, 64%) in zero-shot and few-shot settings, respectively. We also evaluate models by providing relevant knowledge statements required to answer the question. We find that the additional knowledge leads to a 7% gain in performance, but the overall performance still remains low. These results make one wonder how much commonsense knowledge about action feasibility is encoded in state-of-the-art models and how well they can reason about it.

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper F_1, 0.441 evidence F_1 and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Context: Recent research indicates that Web queries written by software developers are not very successful in retrieving relevant results, performing measurably worse compared to general purpose Web queries. Most approaches up to this point have addressed this problem with software engineering-specific automated query reformulation techniques, which work without developer involvement but are limited by the content of the original query. In other words, these techniques automatically improve the existing query but can not contribute new, previously unmentioned, concepts. Objective: In this paper, we propose a technique to guide software developers in manually improving their own Web search queries. We examine a conversational approach that follows unsuccessful queries with a clarification question aimed at eliciting additional query terms, thus providing to the developer a clear dimension along which the query could be improved. Methods: We describe a set of clarification questions derived from a corpus of software developer queries and a neural approach to recommending them for a newly issued query. Results: Our evaluation indicates that the recommendation technique is accurate, predicting a valid clarification question 80% of the time and outperforms simple baselines, as well as, state-of-the-art Learning To Rank (LTR) baselines. Conclusion: As shown in the experimental results, the described approach is capable at recommending appropriate clarification questions to software developers and considered useful by a sample of developers ranging from novices to experienced professionals.

Most large language models (LLMs) are trained once and never updated; thus, they lack the ability to dynamically adapt to our ever-changing world. In this work, we perform a detailed study of the factuality of LLM-generated text in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. Specifically, we introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types, including questions that require fast-changing world knowledge as well as questions with false premises that need to be debunked. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Through human evaluations involving more than 50K judgments, we shed light on limitations of these models and demonstrate significant room for improvement: for instance, all models (regardless of model size) struggle on questions that involve fast-changing knowledge and false premises. Motivated by these results, we present FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FreshQA by incorporating relevant and up-to-date information retrieved from a search engine into the prompt. Our experiments show that FreshPrompt outperforms both competing search engine-augmented prompting methods such as Self-Ask (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial systems such as Perplexity.AI. Further analysis of FreshPrompt reveals that both the number of retrieved evidences and their order play a key role in influencing the correctness of LLM-generated answers. Additionally, instructing the LLM to generate concise and direct answers helps reduce hallucination compared to encouraging more verbose answers. To facilitate future work, we release FreshQA at github.com/freshllms/freshqa and commit to updating it at regular intervals.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable success in open-book question answering (QA), where the task requires generating answers grounded in a provided external context. A critical challenge in open-book QA is to ensure that model responses are based on the provided context rather than its parametric knowledge, which can be outdated, incomplete, or incorrect. Existing evaluation methods, primarily based on the LLM-as-a-judge approach, face significant limitations, including biases, scalability issues, and dependence on costly external systems. To address these challenges, we propose a novel metric that contrasts the perplexity of the model response under two conditions: when the context is provided and when it is not. The resulting score quantifies the extent to which the model's answer relies on the provided context. The validity of this metric is demonstrated through a series of experiments that show its effectiveness in identifying whether a given answer is grounded in the provided context. Unlike existing approaches, this metric is computationally efficient, interpretable, and adaptable to various use cases, offering a scalable and practical solution to assess context utilization in open-book QA systems.

Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer. Such filtering assumes that a message likely to be correct is also worth keeping. Yet a wrong answer can contain a useful decomposition, constraint, or scientific principle. We test this distinction with Diverse Hypothesis Deliberation (DHD), a controlled measurement protocol that caches five independently generated messages and replays the same downstream solver, called the integrator, with each message available or hidden. The replay comparison measures a message's trajectory value: whether making the message available helps or harms subsequent reasoning. Across five mathematics and science benchmarks and two openly available model families, gpt-oss-120b and gemma-4-31B-it, wrong-helpful messages appear in every benchmark-model combination. Among wrong-answer messages that change final correctness, more than four in ten changes are helpful in each model. Controlled repeats show that the number of repeatable message effects is unlikely to arise from replay variation alone (p=0.0002). A focused intervention on repeatable wrong-helpful messages finds that the complete message works best, while retaining its reasoning preserves more success than retaining only its answer; the source of the complete-message advantage remains open. Within the same problem, repeated trajectory-value evidence also identifies a better keep-or-remove choice than answer correctness alone. Answer correctness is therefore informative but does not determine trajectory value. DHD measures this missing property and produces reusable labels for learning when agents should listen.

Answer verification is crucial not only for evaluating large language models (LLMs) by matching their unstructured outputs against standard answers, but also serves as the reward model to guide LLM optimization. Most evaluation frameworks rely on regularized matching or employ general LLMs for answer verification, which demands extensive, repetitive customization for regex rules or evaluation prompts. Two fundamental limitations persist in current methodologies: 1) the absence of comprehensive benchmarks that systematically evaluate verification capabilities across different LLMs; and 2) the nascent stage of verifier development, where existing approaches lack both the robustness to handle complex edge cases and the generalizability across different domains. In this work, we develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward. It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types, including multi-subproblems, formulas, and sequence answers, while effectively identifying abnormal/invalid responses. We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier. We anticipate that CompassVerifier and VerifierBench will facilitate answer verification, evaluation protocols, and reinforcement learning research. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/open-compass/CompassVerifier.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

We present GPQA, a challenging dataset of 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics, and chemistry. We ensure that the questions are high-quality and extremely difficult: experts who have or are pursuing PhDs in the corresponding domains reach 65% accuracy (74% when discounting clear mistakes the experts identified in retrospect), while highly skilled non-expert validators only reach 34% accuracy, despite spending on average over 30 minutes with unrestricted access to the web (i.e., the questions are "Google-proof"). The questions are also difficult for state-of-the-art AI systems, with our strongest GPT-4 based baseline achieving 39% accuracy. If we are to use future AI systems to help us answer very hard questions, for example, when developing new scientific knowledge, we need to develop scalable oversight methods that enable humans to supervise their outputs, which may be difficult even if the supervisors are themselves skilled and knowledgeable. The difficulty of GPQA both for skilled non-experts and frontier AI systems should enable realistic scalable oversight experiments, which we hope can help devise ways for human experts to reliably get truthful information from AI systems that surpass human capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their remarkable performance across various language understanding tasks. While emerging benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate LLMs in various domains such as mathematics and computer science, they merely measure the accuracy in terms of the final prediction on multi-choice questions. However, it remains insufficient to verify the essential understanding of LLMs given a chosen choice. To fill this gap, we present CLR-Bench to comprehensively evaluate the LLMs in complex college-level reasoning. Specifically, (i) we prioritize 16 challenging college disciplines in computer science and artificial intelligence. The dataset contains 5 types of questions, while each question is associated with detailed explanations from experts. (ii) To quantify a fair evaluation of LLMs' reasoning ability, we formalize the criteria with two novel metrics. QrightarrowA is utilized to measure the performance of direct answer prediction, and QrightarrowAR effectively considers the joint ability to answer the question and provide rationale simultaneously. Extensive experiments are conducted with 40 LLMs over 1,018 discipline-specific questions. The results demonstrate the key insights that LLMs, even the best closed-source LLM, i.e., GPT-4 turbo, tend to `guess' the college-level answers. It shows a dramatic decrease in accuracy from 63.31% QrightarrowA to 39.00% QrightarrowAR, indicating an unsatisfactory reasoning ability.

Pass@k measures whether a model reaches a correct answer under repeated sampling, but never how: a lucky guess counts the same as sound reasoning. CoT-Pass@k was proposed to close that gap, adding an LLM-as-judge that must assess a solution's reasoning chain before it counts. Its value rests entirely on one assumption: that the judge catches flawed reasoning. That assumption has never been tested inside the metric that depends on it, and never outside English, though the metric's claims concern models used in many languages. We report the first audit of that verification step, run under the metric's own protocol on a multilingual suite of five mathematical benchmarks in English, Turkish and Portuguese, two of them natively written. We corrupt correct solutions with deterministic edits that damage the chain and the final answer separately. We observe that all three judges accept corrupted chains almost as often as clean ones. V4-Flash and Qwen3.6 reject a solution sharply only when its final answer is wrong and accept a wrong answer more readily when the chain agrees with it; the metric's own judge accepts most wrong answers as well. Our study shows that chain-answer agreement dominates the two larger judges' verdicts and that all three fail to reliably detect the tested reasoning errors. Consequently the difference Pass@k - CoT-Pass@k averages 19.7 points on an earlier solver generation but only 4.1 on the current one. What little remains depends on the token budgets on both sides and on the generation mode; raising the generation budget moves Pass@64 by more than fifty points while the difference stays at zero. We close with two checks any judged reasoning metric should pass before its numbers are read as evidence about reasoning.

To assess the ability of current AI systems to correctly answer research-level mathematics questions, we share a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now; the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time.

Most work in machine reading focuses on question answering problems where the answer is directly expressed in the text to read. However, many real-world question answering problems require the reading of text not because it contains the literal answer, but because it contains a recipe to derive an answer together with the reader's background knowledge. One example is the task of interpreting regulations to answer "Can I...?" or "Do I have to...?" questions such as "I am working in Canada. Do I have to carry on paying UK National Insurance?" after reading a UK government website about this topic. This task requires both the interpretation of rules and the application of background knowledge. It is further complicated due to the fact that, in practice, most questions are underspecified, and a human assistant will regularly have to ask clarification questions such as "How long have you been working abroad?" when the answer cannot be directly derived from the question and text. In this paper, we formalise this task and develop a crowd-sourcing strategy to collect 32k task instances based on real-world rules and crowd-generated questions and scenarios. We analyse the challenges of this task and assess its difficulty by evaluating the performance of rule-based and machine-learning baselines. We observe promising results when no background knowledge is necessary, and substantial room for improvement whenever background knowledge is needed.

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the exam would arguably signal that the system has acquired capacity of legal reasoning comparable to that of a human lawyer. This article describes the construction of a new data set and some preliminary experiments on it, treating the problem of finding the justification for the answers to questions. The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. We discuss the reasons to the poor performance and propose next steps.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have significantly advanced document understanding, yet current Doc-VQA evaluations score only the final answer and leave the supporting evidence unchecked. This answer-only approach masks a critical failure mode: a model can land on the correct answer while grounding it in the wrong passage -- a critical risk in high-stakes domains like law, finance, and medicine, where every conclusion must be traceable to a specific source region. To address this, we introduce CiteVQA, a benchmark that requires models to return element-level bounding-box citations alongside each answer, evaluating both jointly. CiteVQA comprises 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs spanning seven domains and two languages, averaging 40.6 pages per document. To ensure fidelity and scalability, the ground-truth citations are generated by an automated pipeline-which identifies crucial evidence via masking ablation-and are subsequently validated through expert review. At the core of our evaluation is Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), which credits a prediction only when the answer and the cited region are both correct. Auditing 20 MLLMs reveals a pervasive Attribution Hallucination: models frequently produce the right answer while citing the wrong region. The strongest system (Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview) achieves an SAA of only 76.0, and the strongest open-source MLLM reaches just 22.5. Ultimately, towards trustworthy document intelligence, CiteVQA exposes a reliability gap that answer-only evaluations overlook, providing the instrumentation needed to close it. Our repository is available at https://github.com/opendatalab/CiteVQA.

The recent application of LLMs to the legal field has spurred the creation of benchmarks across various jurisdictions and languages. However, no benchmark has yet been specifically designed for the Portuguese legal system. In this work, we present LegalBench.PT, the first comprehensive legal benchmark covering key areas of Portuguese law. To develop LegalBench.PT, we first collect long-form questions and answers from real law exams, and then use GPT-4o to convert them into multiple-choice, true/false, and matching formats. Once generated, the questions are filtered and processed to improve the quality of the dataset. To ensure accuracy and relevance, we validate our approach by having a legal professional review a sample of the generated questions. Although the questions are synthetically generated, we show that their basis in human-created exams and our rigorous filtering and processing methods applied result in a reliable benchmark for assessing LLMs' legal knowledge and reasoning abilities. Finally, we evaluate the performance of leading LLMs on LegalBench.PT and investigate potential biases in GPT-4o's responses. We also assess the performance of Portuguese lawyers on a sample of questions to establish a baseline for model comparison and validate the benchmark.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on final-answer correctness is the dominant paradigm. This approach, however, provides a coarse signal for model improvement and overlooks the quality of the underlying reasoning process. We argue that a more granular evaluation of reasoning offers a more effective path to building robust models. We decompose reasoning quality into two dimensions: relevance and coherence. Relevance measures if a step is grounded in the problem; coherence measures if it follows logically from prior steps. To measure these aspects reliably, we introduce causal stepwise evaluation (CaSE). This method assesses each reasoning step using only its preceding context, which avoids hindsight bias. We validate CaSE against human judgments on our new expert-annotated benchmarks, MRa-GSM8K and MRa-MATH. More importantly, we show that curating training data with CaSE-evaluated relevance and coherence directly improves final task performance. Our work provides a scalable framework for analyzing, debugging, and improving LLM reasoning, demonstrating the practical value of moving beyond validity checks.

There is a growing literature on reasoning by large language models (LLMs), but the discussion on the uncertainty in their responses is still lacking. Our aim is to assess the extent of confidence that LLMs have in their answers and how it correlates with accuracy. Confidence is measured (i) qualitatively in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider, and (ii) quantitatively in terms of self-reported confidence score. We investigate the performance of three LLMs -- GPT4o, GPT4-turbo and Mistral -- on two benchmark sets of questions on causal judgement and formal fallacies and a set of probability and statistical puzzles and paradoxes. Although the LLMs show significantly better performance than random guessing, there is a wide variability in their tendency to change their initial answers. There is a positive correlation between qualitative confidence and accuracy, but the overall accuracy for the second answer is often worse than for the first answer. There is a strong tendency to overstate the self-reported confidence score. Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability. The material effects of prompting on qualitative confidence and the strong tendency for overconfidence indicate that current LLMs do not have any internally coherent sense of confidence.

Creating test collections for offline retrieval evaluation requires human effort to judge documents' relevance. This expensive activity motivated much work in developing methods for constructing benchmarks with fewer assessment costs. In this respect, adjudication methods actively decide both which documents and the order in which experts review them, in order to better exploit the assessment budget or to lower it. Researchers evaluate the quality of those methods by measuring the correlation between the known gold ranking of systems under the full collection and the observed ranking of systems under the lower-cost one. This traditional analysis ignores whether and how the low-cost judgements impact on the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to the full collection. We fill this void by proposing a novel methodology to evaluate how the low-cost adjudication methods preserve the pairwise significant differences between systems as the full collection. In other terms, while traditional approaches look for stability in answering the question "is system A better than system B?", our proposed approach looks for stability in answering the question "is system A significantly better than system B?", which is the ultimate questions researchers need to answer to guarantee the generalisability of their results. Among other results, we found that the best methods in terms of ranking of systems correlation do not always match those preserving statistical significance.

Through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models have achieved substantial progress in domains with easily verifiable outcomes, such as mathematics and coding. However, when applied to more complex tasks like open-domain question answering, RLVR faces significant challenges due to the difficulty of verifying correctness. The nuanced and ambiguous nature of real-world knowledge makes it difficult to reliably evaluate correctness in these settings, necessitating further abilities that extend beyond mere logical consistency to encompass an understanding and assessment of both external and internal knowledge. Recent work has primarily focused on improving faithfulness, defined as semantic alignment with supporting documents, which can cause models to rely excessively on external sources and diminish their capacity for critical assessment. To address this, we propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM), which incorporates sentence-level thinking supervision to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities. Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness. By structuring reward modeling as a sequence of faithfulness, reasoning, and correctness evaluations, TRM encourages models to critically assess and leverage both external and internal knowledge. Experiments on reward signals demonstrate that TRM substantially improves the identification of incorrect sentences, and incorporating TRM into policy optimization leads to significant gains in both answer correctness and usefulness.

Researchers have found that fake news spreads much times faster than real news. This is a major problem, especially in today's world where social media is the key source of news for many among the younger population. Fact verification, thus, becomes an important task and many media sites contribute to the cause. Manual fact verification is a tedious task, given the volume of fake news online. The Factify5WQA shared task aims to increase research towards automated fake news detection by providing a dataset with an aspect-based question answering based fact verification method. Each claim and its supporting document is associated with 5W questions that help compare the two information sources. The objective performance measure in the task is done by comparing answers using BLEU score to measure the accuracy of the answers, followed by an accuracy measure of the classification. The task had submissions using custom training setup and pre-trained language-models among others. The best performing team posted an accuracy of 69.56%, which is a near 35% improvement over the baseline.

Current AI systems are optimized for answering questions; the scientific enterprise is bottlenecked earlier, at discovering the questions worth investigating. We present a framework that turns a traceable, reproducible, scope controlled research corpus into ranked, falsifiable research questions: evidence is represented as provenance carrying claims; cross paper tensions are detected, typed, and human adjudicated; surviving signals are refined into questions and ranked by a two stage protocol separating scientific priority from execution priority. We instantiate the framework on exoplanet atmospheres, a domain that uniquely combines literature, structured catalogs, and space telescope archives. In a historical backtest, all questions generated from evidence available before 2021 were substantively engaged by the 2021 to 2026 literature the sys?tem never saw: two were answered, including one whose premise the community later explicitly refuted and the top ranked question is independently posed and still open. These results sug?gest that systematic question discovery from evidence tensions surfaces the questions working scientists subsequently invest in.

Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

When immigrating to a new country, it is easy to feel overwhelmed by the need to obtain information on financial support, housing, schooling, language courses, and other issues. If relocation is rushed or even forced, the necessity for high-quality answers to such questions is all the more urgent. Official immigration counselors are usually overbooked, and online systems could guide newcomers to the requested information or a suitable counseling service. To this end, we present OMoS-QA, a dataset of German and English questions paired with relevant trustworthy documents and manually annotated answers, specifically tailored to this scenario. Questions are automatically generated with an open-source large language model (LLM) and answer sentences are selected by crowd workers with high agreement. With our data, we conduct a comparison of 5 pretrained LLMs on the task of extractive question answering (QA) in German and English. Across all models and both languages, we find high precision and low-to-mid recall in selecting answer sentences, which is a favorable trade-off to avoid misleading users. This performance even holds up when the question language does not match the document language. When it comes to identifying unanswerable questions given a context, there are larger differences between the two languages.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly verbose, free form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big. LLM based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.

Intrinsic self-correct was a method that instructed large language models (LLMs) to verify and correct their responses without external feedback. Unfortunately, the study concluded that the LLMs could not self-correct reasoning yet. We find that a simple yet effective verification method can unleash inherent capabilities of the LLMs. That is to mask a key condition in the question, add the current response to construct a verification question, and predict the condition to verify the response. The condition can be an entity in an open-domain question or a numeric value in a math question, which requires minimal effort (via prompting) to identify. We propose an iterative verify-then-correct framework to progressively identify and correct (probably) false responses, named ProCo. We conduct experiments on three reasoning tasks. On average, ProCo, with GPT-3.5-Turbo as the backend LLM, yields +6.8 exact match on four open-domain question answering datasets, +14.1 accuracy on three arithmetic reasoning datasets, and +9.6 accuracy on a commonsense reasoning dataset, compared to Self-Correct. Our implementation is made publicly available at https://wzy6642.github.io/proco.github.io/.

Automatic fact verification has received significant attention recently. Contemporary automatic fact-checking systems focus on estimating truthfulness using numerical scores which are not human-interpretable. A human fact-checker generally follows several logical steps to verify a verisimilitude claim and conclude whether its truthful or a mere masquerade. Popular fact-checking websites follow a common structure for fact categorization such as half true, half false, false, pants on fire, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to have an aspect-based (delineating which part(s) are true and which are false) explainable system that can assist human fact-checkers in asking relevant questions related to a fact, which can then be validated separately to reach a final verdict. In this paper, we propose a 5W framework (who, what, when, where, and why) for question-answer-based fact explainability. To that end, we present a semi-automatically generated dataset called FACTIFY-5WQA, which consists of 391, 041 facts along with relevant 5W QAs - underscoring our major contribution to this paper. A semantic role labeling system has been utilized to locate 5Ws, which generates QA pairs for claims using a masked language model. Finally, we report a baseline QA system to automatically locate those answers from evidence documents, which can serve as a baseline for future research in the field. Lastly, we propose a robust fact verification system that takes paraphrased claims and automatically validates them. The dataset and the baseline model are available at https: //github.com/ankuranii/acl-5W-QA

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Although much research has focused on AI explanations to support decisions in complex information-seeking tasks such as fact-checking, the role of evidence is surprisingly under-researched. In our study, we systematically varied explanation type, AI prediction certainty, and correctness of AI system advice for non-expert participants, who evaluated the veracity of claims and AI system predictions. Participants were provided the option of easily inspecting the underlying evidence. We found that participants consistently relied on evidence to validate AI claims across all experimental conditions. When participants were presented with natural language explanations, evidence was used less frequently although they relied on it when these explanations seemed insufficient or flawed. Qualitative data suggests that participants attempted to infer evidence source reliability, despite source identities being deliberately omitted. Our results demonstrate that evidence is a key ingredient in how people evaluate the reliability of information presented by an AI system and, in combination with natural language explanations, offers valuable support for decision-making. Further research is urgently needed to understand how evidence ought to be presented and how people engage with it in practice.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence filed with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them filed by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence filed with those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.

We present WeaverBird, an intelligent dialogue system designed specifically for the finance domain. Our system harnesses a large language model of GPT architecture that has been tuned using extensive corpora of finance-related text. As a result, our system possesses the capability to understand complex financial queries, such as "How should I manage my investments during inflation?", and provide informed responses. Furthermore, our system incorporates a local knowledge base and a search engine to retrieve relevant information. The final responses are conditioned on the search results and include proper citations to the sources, thus enjoying an enhanced credibility. Through a range of finance-related questions, we have demonstrated the superior performance of our system compared to other models. To experience our system firsthand, users can interact with our live demo at https://weaverbird.ttic.edu, as well as watch our 2-min video illustration at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyV2qQkX6Tc.

LLM conformity is often used to describe cases where a model changes a correct answer toward a peer or group response. We show that most of this apparent conformity survives even after the peer is removed. The reason is a confound: standard conformity prompts mix two cues at once, the presence of a speaker and the repeated wrong answer itself. Existing benchmarks vary these cues together, so they cannot tell how much of the revision actually depends on the speaker. We introduce a no-source condition: the same asserted answer with the explicit speaker removed. Across six open-weight LLMs and seven QA and reasoning datasets, this condition alone causes harmful revision in 66.5% of initially correct cases, compared with 10.3% under a plain re-ask. The effect also remains when the repeated answer is paraphrased and when answer options are hidden in an open-ended setting. Source framing mainly modulates this floor: expert-panel framing raises it, while minimal person labels do not reliably raise it. When models flip, they are usually confidently wrong, and simple recalibration does not recover the original answer. Source attribution still matters, but it should be measured as an increment above this speaker-free floor. The methodological lesson is that conformity benchmarks should first measure what remains after the speaker is removed; without this step, benchmarks may mistake repeated text for social influence.

Given a question, a language model (LM) implicitly encodes a distribution over possible answers. In practice, post-training procedures for LMs often collapse this distribution onto a single dominant mode. While this is generally not a problem for benchmark-style evaluations that assume one correct answer, many real-world tasks inherently involve multiple valid answers or irreducible uncertainty. Examples include medical diagnosis, ambiguous question answering, and settings with incomplete information. In these cases, we would like LMs to generate multiple plausible hypotheses, ideally with confidence estimates for each one, and without computationally intensive repeated sampling to generate non-modal answers. This paper describes a multi-answer reinforcement learning approach for training LMs to perform distributional reasoning over multiple answers during inference. We modify the RL objective to enable models to explicitly generate multiple candidate answers in a single forward pass, internalizing aspects of inference-time search into the model's generative process. Across question-answering, medical diagnostic, and coding benchmarks, we observe improved diversity, coverage, and set-level calibration scores compared to single answer trained baselines. Models trained with our approach require fewer tokens to generate multiple answers than competing approaches. On coding tasks, they are also substantially more accurate. These results position multi-answer RL as a principled and compute-efficient alternative to inference-time scaling procedures such as best-of-k. Code and more information can be found at https://multi-answer-rl.github.io/.

Solid geometry problem solving demands spatial mathematical reasoning that integrates spatial intelligence and symbolic reasoning. However, most existing multimodal mathematical reasoning benchmarks focus primarily on 2D plane geometry, rely on static datasets prone to data contamination and memorization, and evaluate models solely by final answers, overlooking the reasoning process. To address these limitations, we introduce DynaSolidGeo, the first dynamic benchmark for evaluating genuine spatial reasoning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Constructed through a semi-automatic annotation pipeline, DynaSolidGeo contains 503 expert-curated seed questions that can, in principle, dynamically generate an unbounded number of diverse multimodal text-visual instances. Beyond answer accuracy, we incorporate process evaluation based on expert-annotated reasoning chains to measure logical validity and causal coherence. Experiments across representative open-source and closed-source VLMs reveal large performance gaps, severe degradation in dynamic settings, and poor performance on tasks requiring high-level spatial intelligence, such as mental rotation and visualization. The code and dataset are available at https://zgca-ai4edu.github.io/DynaSolidGeo/{DynaSolidGeo}.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in question answering (QA) tasks. However, Multi-Answer Question Answering (MAQA), where a question may have several valid answers, remains challenging. Traditional QA settings often assume consistency across evidences, but MAQA can involve conflicting answers. Constructing datasets that reflect such conflicts is costly and labor-intensive, while existing benchmarks often rely on synthetic data, restrict the task to yes/no questions, or apply unverified automated annotation. To advance research in this area, we extend the conflict-aware MAQA setting to require models not only to identify all valid answers, but also to detect specific conflicting answer pairs, if any. To support this task, we introduce a novel cost-effective methodology for leveraging fact-checking datasets to construct NATCONFQA, a new benchmark for realistic, conflict-aware MAQA, enriched with detailed conflict labels, for all answer pairs. We evaluate eight high-end LLMs on NATCONFQA, revealing their fragility in handling various types of conflicts and the flawed strategies they employ to resolve them.

Scholastic trivia competitions test knowledge and intelligence through mastery of question answering. Modern question answering benchmarks are one variant of the Turing test. Specifically, answering a set of questions as well as a human is a minimum bar towards demonstrating human-like intelligence. This paper makes the case that the format of one competition -- where participants can answer in the middle of hearing a question (incremental) -- better differentiates the skill between (human or machine) players. Additionally, merging a sequential decision-making sub-task with question answering (QA) provides a good setting for research in model calibration and opponent modeling. Thus, embedded in this task are three machine learning challenges: (1) factoid QA over thousands of Wikipedia-like answers, (2) calibration of the QA model's confidence scores, and (3) sequential decision-making that incorporates knowledge of the QA model, its calibration, and what the opponent may do. We make two contributions: (1) collecting and curating a large factoid QA dataset and an accompanying gameplay dataset, and (2) developing a model that addresses these three machine learning challenges. In addition to offline evaluation, we pitted our model against some of the most accomplished trivia players in the world in a series of exhibition matches spanning several years. Throughout this paper, we show that collaborations with the vibrant trivia community have contributed to the quality of our dataset, spawned new research directions, and doubled as an exciting way to engage the public with research in machine learning and natural language processing.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems. Unlike prior studies that focus solely on answer correctness, we rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models - including Mixtral, Llama, Gemini, GPT-4o, and OpenAI's o1 variants - we find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic, sometimes producing correct answers through flawed logic. Common failure modes include unwarranted assumptions, over-reliance on numerical patterns, and difficulty translating physical intuition into mathematical steps. Manual analysis reveals that models struggle with problems requiring multi-step deduction or real-world knowledge, despite possessing broad mathematical knowledge. Our results underscore the importance of evaluating reasoning processes, not just answers, and caution against overestimating LLMs' problem-solving proficiency. The study highlights persistent gaps in LLMs' generalization abilities, emphasizing the need for targeted improvements in structured reasoning and constraint handling.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Tool use enables large language models to solve complex tasks through sequences of API calls, yet existing reinforcement learning approaches fail to scale to multi-step composition settings. Outcome-based rewards provide only sparse feedback, while trajectory-supervised rewards depend on annotated reference solutions, penalizing valid alternatives and limiting scalability. We propose TIER: Trajectory-Invariant Execution Rewards, a reward framework that derives supervision directly from function schemas and runtime execution, rather than from reference trajectories. The reward decomposes into format validity, schema adherence, execution success, and answer correctness, providing dense, interpretable sequence-level feedback derived from fine-grained verification of individual steps of tool use. This design allows any valid execution path to receive credit, naturally supporting multiple solution strategies and adapting to evolving tool interfaces. On DepthBench, a compositional benchmark stratified by depth (1 to 6 steps), TIER achieves >90% accuracy across steps, where trajectory-supervised rewards collapse beyond step-4. We further demonstrate consistent gains on benchmarks like BFCL v3 and NestFUL. Ablation studies confirm that all reward components are necessary, highlighting the importance of multi-level supervision for compositional reasoning.

In this paper, we present the current progress of the project Verif.ai, an open-source scientific generative question-answering system with referenced and verified answers. The components of the system are (1) an information retrieval system combining semantic and lexical search techniques over scientific papers (PubMed), (2) a fine-tuned generative model (Mistral 7B) taking top answers and generating answers with references to the papers from which the claim was derived, and (3) a verification engine that cross-checks the generated claim and the abstract or paper from which the claim was derived, verifying whether there may have been any hallucinations in generating the claim. We are reinforcing the generative model by providing the abstract in context, but in addition, an independent set of methods and models are verifying the answer and checking for hallucinations. Therefore, we believe that by using our method, we can make scientists more productive, while building trust in the use of generative language models in scientific environments, where hallucinations and misinformation cannot be tolerated.

Self-consistency improves large language models by sampling multiple reasoning paths and selecting the most frequent answer, but majority voting often fails to recover correct answers that are already present among the samples. We address this limitation with Ranking-Improved Self-Consistency (RISC), which reformulates answer selection in self-consistency as a ranking problem. Instead of relying on a single uncertainty or confidence signal, RISC uses a lightweight LambdaRank model to score candidate answers with five carefully designed features that capture answer frequency, semantic centrality, and reasoning-trace consistency. We evaluate RISC on three datasets under a range of test-time budgets. Across datasets, RISC consistently achieves a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off than standard self-consistency and strong baselines, with particularly large gains on question answering benchmarks. Further analysis shows that the proposed features are individually useful and, more importantly, complementary, highlighting the value of learning to combine multiple informative signals for test-time answer selection.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

Large language models have achieved remarkable success on final-answer mathematical problems, largely due to the ease of applying reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. However, the reasoning underlying these solutions is often flawed. Advancing to rigorous proof-based mathematics requires reliable proof verification capabilities. We begin by analyzing multiple evaluation setups and show that focusing on a single benchmark can lead to brittle or misleading conclusions. To address this, we evaluate both proof-based and final-answer reasoning to obtain a more reliable measure of model performance. We then scale two major generative verification methods (GenSelect and LLM-as-a-Judge) to millions of tokens and identify their combination as the most effective framework for solution verification and selection. We further show that the choice of prompt for LLM-as-a-Judge significantly affects the model's performance, but reinforcement learning can reduce this sensitivity. However, despite improving proof-level metrics, reinforcement learning does not enhance final-answer precision, indicating that current models often reward stylistic or procedural correctness rather than mathematical validity. Our results establish practical guidelines for designing and evaluating scalable proof-verification and selection systems.

FinanceBench is a first-of-its-kind test suite for evaluating the performance of LLMs on open book financial question answering (QA). It comprises 10,231 questions about publicly traded companies, with corresponding answers and evidence strings. The questions in FinanceBench are ecologically valid and cover a diverse set of scenarios. They are intended to be clear-cut and straightforward to answer to serve as a minimum performance standard. We test 16 state of the art model configurations (including GPT-4-Turbo, Llama2 and Claude2, with vector stores and long context prompts) on a sample of 150 cases from FinanceBench, and manually review their answers (n=2,400). The cases are available open-source. We show that existing LLMs have clear limitations for financial QA. Notably, GPT-4-Turbo used with a retrieval system incorrectly answered or refused to answer 81% of questions. While augmentation techniques such as using longer context window to feed in relevant evidence improve performance, they are unrealistic for enterprise settings due to increased latency and cannot support larger financial documents. We find that all models examined exhibit weaknesses, such as hallucinations, that limit their suitability for use by enterprises.

When evaluating large language models (LLMs) with multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), it is common to end the prompt with the string "Answer:" to facilitate automated answer extraction via next-token probabilities. However, there is no consensus on how to tokenize the space following the colon, often overlooked as a trivial choice. In this paper, we uncover accuracy differences of up to 11% due to this (seemingly irrelevant) tokenization variation as well as reshuffled model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM comparisons in prior work. Surprisingly, we are able to recommend one specific strategy -- tokenizing the space together with the answer letter -- as we observe consistent and statistically significant performance improvements. Additionally, it improves model calibration, enhancing the reliability of the model's confidence estimates. Our findings underscore the importance of careful evaluation design and highlight the need for standardized, transparent evaluation protocols to ensure reliable and comparable results.

Large language models have achieved substantial progress in mathematical reasoning, yet their advancement is limited by the scarcity of high-quality, high-difficulty training data. Existing synthesis methods largely rely on transforming human-written templates, limiting both diversity and scalability. We propose MathSmith, a novel framework for synthesizing challenging mathematical problems to enhance LLM reasoning. Rather than modifying existing problems, MathSmith constructs new ones from scratch by randomly sampling concept-explanation pairs from PlanetMath, ensuring data independence and avoiding contamination. To increase difficulty, we design nine predefined strategies as soft constraints during rationales. We further adopts reinforcement learning to jointly optimize structural validity, reasoning complexity, and answer consistency. The length of the reasoning trace generated under autoregressive prompting is used to reflect cognitive complexity, encouraging the creation of more demanding problems aligned with long-chain-of-thought reasoning. Experiments across five benchmarks, categorized as easy & medium (GSM8K, MATH-500) and hard (AIME2024, AIME2025, OlympiadBench), show that MathSmith consistently outperforms existing baselines under both short and long CoT settings. Additionally, a weakness-focused variant generation module enables targeted improvement on specific concepts. Overall, MathSmith exhibits strong scalability, generalization, and transferability, highlighting the promise of high-difficulty synthetic data in advancing LLM reasoning capabilities.

Researchers have proposed numerous text-to-SQL techniques to streamline data analytics and accelerate the development of data-driven applications. To compare these techniques and select the best one for deployment, the community depends on public benchmarks and their leaderboards. Since these benchmarks heavily rely on human annotations during question construction and answer evaluation, the validity of the annotations is crucial. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study that (i) benchmarks annotation error rates for two widely used text-to-SQL benchmarks, BIRD and Spider 2.0-Snow, and (ii) corrects a subset of the BIRD development (Dev) set to measure the impact of annotation errors on text-to-SQL agent performance and leaderboard rankings. Through expert analysis, we show that BIRD Mini-Dev and Spider 2.0-Snow have error rates of 52.8% and 62.8%, respectively. We re-evaluate all 16 open-source agents from the BIRD leaderboard on both the original and the corrected BIRD Dev subsets. We show that performance changes range from -7% to 31% (in relative terms) and rank changes range from -9 to +9 positions. We further assess whether these impacts generalize to the full BIRD Dev set. We find that the rankings of agents on the uncorrected subset correlate strongly with those on the full Dev set (Spearman's r_s=0.85, p=3.26e-5), whereas they correlate weakly with those on the corrected subset (Spearman's r_s=0.32, p=0.23). These findings show that annotation errors can significantly distort reported performance and rankings, potentially misguiding research directions or deployment choices. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/uiuc-kang-lab/text_to_sql_benchmarks.

Visual tool use has emerged as a fundamental capability for multimodal agents to actively acquire evidence beyond a fixed image encoding. The prevailing recipe learns this capability from teacher-generated trajectories filtered for answer correctness, implicitly assuming that every successful demonstration provides effective supervision. We argue this assumption is flawed: a strong teacher often reaches the correct answer without needing its tool calls, and imitating such trajectories teaches a student that tool calls accompany correct answers, not that tool observations ground them. We present OpenVisTool, an open framework for constructing instructive visual tool-use trajectories that provide effective supervision for tool learning. The key insight is that a trajectory should be retained only if its answer is correct (outcome validity) and its tool observations causally contribute to that answer (causal utility). The framework operates in three stages: difficulty screening to select queries that are not reliably answerable without tools, domain-specific trajectory synthesis to elicit coherent tool-use trajectories, and supervision verification to jointly test both conditions. Rather than encouraging models to imitate tool calls, the resulting supervision teaches when and how visual evidence should be acquired. Using this framework, we construct OpenVisTool-42K, a dataset spanning five visual reasoning domains, together with OpenVisTool-Bench, a benchmark covering the same domains. Across four backbones (4B-27B), fine-tuning on OpenVisTool-42K consistently improves visual tool-use performance and yields gains on two out-of-distribution benchmarks; the larger models approach leading closed-source systems. The evidence suggests that effective visual tool use is learned from causally grounded supervision rather than tool-calling patterns.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely used to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) for multi-hop question answering. Recent work mainly focused on improving answer accuracy via fine-tuning and structured or reinforcement-based optimization. However, reliable reasoning in response generation faces three challenges: 1) Reasoning Collapse. Reasoning in multi-hop QA is inherently complex due to multi-hop composition and is further destabilized by noisy retrieval. 2) Reasoning-answer inconsistency. Due to the intrinsic uncertainty of LLM generation and exposure to evidence--distractor mixtures, models may produce correct answers that are not faithfully supported by their intermediate reasoning or evidence. 3) Loss of format control. Traditional chain-of-thought generation often deviates from required structured output formats, leading to incomplete or malformed structured content. To address these challenges, we propose CRAFT (Calibrated Reasoning with Answer-Faithful Traces), a Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) based reinforcement learning framework that trains models to perform faithful reasoning during response generation. CRAFT employs dual reward mechanisms to optimize multi-hop reasoning: deterministic rewards ensure structural correctness while judge-based rewards verify semantic faithfulness. This optimization framework supports controllable trace variants that enable systematic analysis of how structure and scale affect reasoning performance and faithfulness. Experiments on three multi-hop QA benchmarks show that CRAFT improves both answer accuracy and reasoning faithfulness across model scales, with the CRAFT 7B model achieving competitive performance with closed-source LLMs across multiple reasoning trace settings.

An abundance of datasets and availability of reliable evaluation metrics have resulted in strong progress in factoid question answering (QA). This progress, however, does not easily transfer to the task of long-form QA, where the goal is to answer questions that require in-depth explanations. The hurdles include (i) a lack of high-quality data, and (ii) the absence of a well-defined notion of the answer's quality. In this work, we address these problems by (i) releasing a novel dataset and a task that we call ASQA (Answer Summaries for Questions which are Ambiguous); and (ii) proposing a reliable metric for measuring performance on ASQA. Our task focuses on factoid questions that are ambiguous, that is, have different correct answers depending on interpretation. Answers to ambiguous questions should synthesize factual information from multiple sources into a long-form summary that resolves the ambiguity. In contrast to existing long-form QA tasks (such as ELI5), ASQA admits a clear notion of correctness: a user faced with a good summary should be able to answer different interpretations of the original ambiguous question. We use this notion of correctness to define an automated metric of performance for ASQA. Our analysis demonstrates an agreement between this metric and human judgments, and reveals a considerable gap between human performance and strong baselines.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer. We study evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering, in which a verifier receives a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence and decides whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient for the answer, answering only when support is established. We present SURE-RAG, an aggregation protocol that treats evidence sufficiency as a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by scoring passages independently. A shared claim-evidence verifier produces a local relation distribution for each (claim, passage) pair, which SURE-RAG aggregates into four interpretable answer-level feature blocks (coverage, relation strength, uncertainty, and retrieval), producing a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, and GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG attains 0.9075 Macro-F1 (raw 0.8951 +/- 0.0069), well above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), and on par with a strong concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) while remaining fully auditable. At 30% coverage, risk falls from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% relative reduction. As a boundary-mapping experiment, we contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs. 0.7389 unsafe-F1), indicating that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Large language models (LLMs) can correctly answer "When was Einstein born?" yet fail to provide the same date when writing about Einstein's life revealing a fundamental inconsistency in how models access factual knowledge across task complexities. While models display impressive accuracy on factual question-answering benchmarks, the reliability gap between simple and complex queries remains poorly understood, eroding their trustworthiness. In this work, we introduce Short-Long Form Alignment for Factual Question Answering (SLAQ), a controlled evaluation framework that compares LLMs' answers to the same factual questions asked (a) in isolation (short) vs. (b) integrated into complex queries (long). Looking at 16 LLMs across 600 queries, we find a systematic misalignment of answers to the corresponding short and long queries. We further uncover position-dependent accuracy loss and momentum effects where consecutive correct or incorrect answers create self-reinforcing patterns. Through mechanistic analysis, we find that aligned facts activate overlapping model internals, and that metrics based on mechanistic similarity can predict short-long answer alignment with up to 78% accuracy. Our work establishes factual consistency over query complexity as an important aspect of LLMs' trustworthiness and challenges current evaluation practices, which implicitly assume that good performance for simple factual queries implies reliability in more complex knowledge-seeking tasks too.

For a long-horizon LLM agent, the memory question is not what was once recorded but what currently holds. Most designs answer it only indirectly: every interaction is stored, and the present is reconstructed at query time by retrieving and reconciling records, so stale values re-enter and the same conflicts are re-litigated. Committing the current value at write time avoids this, but existing write-time (CRUD) memories overwrite, so a wrong update is unrecoverable and prior state is lost. We take the missing combination---commit on arrival while retaining what is displaced---and formalize it as Memory of Memory (MoM): memory tracks not only content but the provenance, status, and history of its own entries. We instantiate MoM as Provenant Memory (P-Mem), a typed provenance graph whose active frontier exposes one current value per resolved key while displaced values are retained as provenance; typed operations decide whether a new observation supports, supersedes, contests, rejects, revokes, or resolves an existing value. P-Mem's decisive gain is validity rather than accuracy: its turn-level read matches the strongest retrieval memory in accuracy at sim4times fewer read tokens---a retrieval-granularity effect---while graph-guided turn pruning cuts the knowledge-update stale-answer rate (19.4\%rightarrow10.9\%); on revision chains it stays at 100\% where query-time reading collapses to 25\%, and, because displaced values are retained rather than overwritten, it recovers committed errors a CRUD memory cannot (100\% vs.\ 0\%).

We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid scoring. Consider this example query: "what were last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth. Our central contribution, ground-truth-as-code, encodes each expected answer as an executable reference function that recomputes the answer directly from live data at evaluation time, ensuring the reference remains consistent with the system it describes. We combine this with a factoid-level, format-agnostic judge that decomposes both the agent's response and the computed ground truth into atomic claims and scores precision, recall, and accuracy over them, irrespective of the response format (prose, list, table, HTML, etc.). The approach is applicable to agents whose expected outputs can be expressed as executable data computations. We validate the framework through a human--LLM agreement study on an internally developed machine learning skill deployed in production, using a synthetic database constructed to reproduce production schemas and entity relationships. Relative to a natural-language ground-truth baseline, our method achieves a 29% improvement in the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)---a class-balanced measure of agreement between expert annotators and LLM-as-a-judge predictions---and a 16% reduction in token consumption per test case, while a self-directed baseline lacking explicit ground truth is anti-correlated with human judgment. Agents that perform multi-source data integration and computation over non-stationary data are routinely deployed in industry; we propose ground-truth-as-code as a practical methodology for their evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) now give reasoning before answering, excelling in tasks like multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Yet, a concern is that LLMs do not solve MCQs as intended, as work finds LLMs sans reasoning succeed in MCQA without using the question, i.e., choices-only. Such partial-input success is often linked to trivial shortcuts, but reasoning traces could reveal if choices-only strategies are truly shallow. To examine these strategies, we have reasoning LLMs solve MCQs in full and choices-only inputs; test-time reasoning often boosts accuracy in full and in choices-only, half the time. While possibly due to shallow shortcuts, choices-only success is barely affected by the length of reasoning traces, and after finding traces pass faithfulness tests, we show they use less problematic strategies like inferring missing questions. In all, we challenge claims that partial-input success is always a flaw, so we propose how reasoning traces could separate problematic data from less problematic reasoning.

Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.

Although contemporary large language models (LMs) demonstrate impressive question-answering capabilities, their answers are typically the product of a single call to the model. This entails an unwelcome degree of opacity and compromises performance, especially on problems that are inherently multi-step. To address these limitations, we show how LMs can be made to perform faithful multi-step reasoning via a process whose causal structure mirrors the underlying logical structure of the problem. Our approach works by chaining together reasoning steps, where each step results from calls to two fine-tuned LMs, one for selection and one for inference, to produce a valid reasoning trace. Our method carries out a beam search through the space of reasoning traces to improve reasoning quality. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on multi-step logical deduction and scientific question-answering, showing that it outperforms baselines on final answer accuracy, and generates humanly interpretable reasoning traces whose validity can be checked by the user.

This paper provides a systematic analysis of the opportunities, challenges, and potential solutions of harnessing Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 to dig out vulnerabilities within smart contracts based on our ongoing research. For the task of smart contract vulnerability detection, achieving practical usability hinges on identifying as many true vulnerabilities as possible while minimizing the number of false positives. Nonetheless, our empirical study reveals contradictory yet interesting findings: generating more answers with higher randomness largely boosts the likelihood of producing a correct answer but inevitably leads to a higher number of false positives. To mitigate this tension, we propose an adversarial framework dubbed GPTLens that breaks the conventional one-stage detection into two synergistic stages - generation and discrimination, for progressive detection and refinement, wherein the LLM plays dual roles, i.e., auditor and critic, respectively. The goal of auditor is to yield a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities with the hope of encompassing the correct answer, whereas the goal of critic that evaluates the validity of identified vulnerabilities is to minimize the number of false positives. Experimental results and illustrative examples demonstrate that auditor and critic work together harmoniously to yield pronounced improvements over the conventional one-stage detection. GPTLens is intuitive, strategic, and entirely LLM-driven without relying on specialist expertise in smart contracts, showcasing its methodical generality and potential to detect a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities. Our code is available at: https://github.com/git-disl/GPTLens.

Recent advances in large vision-language models have led to impressive performance in visual question answering and multimodal reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether these models genuinely perform grounded visual reasoning or rely on superficial patterns and dataset biases. In this work, we introduce MagiC, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate grounded multimodal cognition, assessing not only answer accuracy but also the quality of step-by-step reasoning and its alignment with relevant visual evidence. Our benchmark includes approximately 5,500 weakly supervised QA examples generated from strong model outputs and 900 human-curated examples with fine-grained annotations, including answers, rationales, and bounding box groundings. We evaluate 15 vision-language models ranging from 7B to 70B parameters across four dimensions: final answer correctness, reasoning validity, grounding fidelity, and self-correction ability. MagiC further includes diagnostic settings to probe model robustness under adversarial visual cues and assess their capacity for introspective error correction. We introduce new metrics such as MagiScore and StepSense, and provide comprehensive analyses that reveal key limitations and opportunities in current approaches to grounded visual reasoning.

Counterfactual reasoning requires models to reason beyond the observed world and explain how altered conditions propagate through downstream consequences. Existing benchmarks largely target bounded settings with fixed variables or single gold outcomes, overlooking open-domain scenarios requiring causal-process evaluation. To this end, we present WhatIfBench, a diagnostic benchmark for open-domain, open-form, long-horizon counterfactual causal reasoning, containing 220 what-if questions across STEM, HSS, and Hybrid scenarios. To evaluate free-form responses, we further propose PRISM, which first converts each natural-language explanation into a Response-Derived Semantic Causal Graph of events, states, and mechanisms. On top of this graph, PRISM then jointly applies a Process Metric assessing graph-level causal validity and a Rubric Metric assessing answer-level explanatory adequacy. Evaluating six frontier LLMs with this framework, we find that WhatIfBench remains far from saturated: even the strongest model reaches only a 64.62% final score. Further analysis reveals persistent causal gaps, premise drift, and topology fragmentation, suggesting that fluent counterfactual narratives often mask fragile causal processes. The benchmark, code, and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/zju-gt/WhatIfBench{WhatIfBench}.

Knowing domain rules does not guarantee applying them to a case. We study this distinction in traditional Chinese Bazi through 3,000 Chinese multiple-choice questions spanning 14 Theory and 11 Case categories. Six endpoint systems are evaluated, with primary results reported on a 2,492-item model-informed refinement. Theory accuracy exceeds Case accuracy for every system, and gaps of 16.60-29.56 percentage points remain when invalid responses are excluded. The contrast is more specific than a general case-reasoning deficit. Across six systems, Twelve Stages and Nayin reach mean accuracies of 89.10% and 88.62%, while Shensha Basics reaches 75.96%. Within Case, Luck Pillars averages 84.62%, but Career and Family Relations average only 36.98% and 38.19%. Overall rankings also conceal different category strengths. On the original 3,000 items, paired DeepSeek native/disabled comparisons associate native configurations with Theory gains of 6.53 and 12.20 points for Flash and Pro, respectively; Case changes are -3.67 and +1.27 points. These are provider-configuration associations, not isolated causal effects of reasoning. The results motivate task-specific evaluation of cultural-domain applications rather than reliance on aggregate knowledge scores. The benchmark measures agreement with a model-generated, model-verified answer key, not real-world predictive validity. Final-set results are post-selection descriptions, and incomplete provenance and expert validation constrain their interpretation.

While models for Visual Question Answering (VQA) have steadily improved over the years, interacting with one quickly reveals that these models lack consistency. For instance, if a model answers "red" to "What color is the balloon?", it might answer "no" if asked, "Is the balloon red?". These responses violate simple notions of entailment and raise questions about how effectively VQA models ground language. In this work, we introduce a dataset, ConVQA, and metrics that enable quantitative evaluation of consistency in VQA. For a given observable fact in an image (e.g. the balloon's color), we generate a set of logically consistent question-answer (QA) pairs (e.g. Is the balloon red?) and also collect a human-annotated set of common-sense based consistent QA pairs (e.g. Is the balloon the same color as tomato sauce?). Further, we propose a consistency-improving data augmentation module, a Consistency Teacher Module (CTM). CTM automatically generates entailed (or similar-intent) questions for a source QA pair and fine-tunes the VQA model if the VQA's answer to the entailed question is consistent with the source QA pair. We demonstrate that our CTM-based training improves the consistency of VQA models on the ConVQA datasets and is a strong baseline for further research.

Despite rising global usage of large language models (LLMs), their ability to generate long-form answers to culturally specific questions remains unexplored in many languages. To fill this gap, we perform the first study of textual multilingual long-form QA by creating CaLMQA, a dataset of 51.7K culturally specific questions across 23 different languages. We define culturally specific questions as those that refer to concepts unique to one or a few cultures, or have different answers depending on the cultural or regional context. We obtain these questions by crawling naturally-occurring questions from community web forums in high-resource languages, and by hiring native speakers to write questions in under-resourced, rarely-studied languages such as Fijian and Kirundi. Our data collection methodologies are translation-free, enabling the collection of culturally unique questions like "Kuber iki umwami wa mbere w'uburundi yitwa Ntare?" (Kirundi; English translation: "Why was the first king of Burundi called Ntare (Lion)?"). We evaluate factuality, relevance and surface-level quality of LLM-generated long-form answers, finding that (1) for many languages, even the best models make critical surface-level errors (e.g., answering in the wrong language, repetition), especially for low-resource languages; and (2) answers to culturally specific questions contain more factual errors than answers to culturally agnostic questions -- questions that have consistent meaning and answer across many cultures. We release CaLMQA to facilitate future research in cultural and multilingual long-form QA.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

Despite extensive research on a wide range of question answering (QA) systems, most existing work focuses on answer containment-i.e., assuming that answers can be directly extracted and/or generated from documents in the corpus. However, some questions require inference, i.e., deriving answers that are not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the available information. We introduce Inferential QA -- a new task that challenges models to infer answers from answer-supporting passages which provide only clues. To study this problem, we construct QUIT (QUestions requiring Inference from Texts) dataset, comprising 7,401 questions and 2.4M passages built from high-convergence human- and machine-authored hints, labeled across three relevance levels using LLM-based answerability and human verification. Through comprehensive evaluation of retrievers, rerankers, and LLM-based readers, we show that methods effective on traditional QA tasks struggle in inferential QA: retrievers underperform, rerankers offer limited gains, and fine-tuning provides inconsistent improvements. Even reasoning-oriented LLMs fail to outperform smaller general-purpose models. These findings reveal that current QA pipelines are not yet ready for inference-based reasoning. Inferential QA thus establishes a new class of QA tasks that move towards understanding and reasoning from indirect textual evidence.