SAFE: An LLM-as-Verifier Framework for Evidence-Grounded Multi-Hop Reasoning

Evaluating the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) solely from final answers can obscure failures in intermediate steps, especially in multi-hop QA benchmarks without step-level annotations. To address this gap, we introduce Omanic, an open-domain 4-hop QA benchmark designed not only to measure final-answer accuracy but also to diagnose where reasoning breaks down. Omanic contains 10,296 machine-generated training examples (OmanicSynth) and 967 expert-reviewed human-annotated evaluation examples (OmanicBench), with each evaluation question decomposed into single-hop sub-questions, intermediate answers, and structured graph topologies. Experiments with proprietary and open-source LLMs show that Omanic is challenging, while step-wise analysis reveals a later-hop bottleneck, factual knowledge floor, and error propagation along reasoning chains. Fine-tuning on OmanicSynth transfers to six reasoning and mathematics benchmarks, yielding a 7.41-point average gain and validating its effectiveness as supervision for reasoning-capability transfer. We release the data at https://huggingface.co/datasets/li-lab/Omanic and the code at https://github.com/XiaojieGu/Omanic.

AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer. We propose a reasoning-based, reference-free framework for auditing LLM-generated outputs. The method decomposes a generated reasoning trace into segments, labels local premise-target relations using Natural Language Inference (NLI), and organizes these relations into a hypergraph. A deterministic backward AND-OR search then assigns segment-level audit labels that indicate how each segment is grounded within the generated response. We evaluate the framework in two settings: deductive mathematical reasoning with Hard2Verify, and open-ended medical reasoning with UroReason, a new physician-annotated benchmark of LLM reasoning traces from real clinical cases. Across these settings, our NLI-hypergraph audit provides a more reliable reference-free evaluation signal than direct LLM-as-judge baselines. In the clinical setting, state-of-the-art LLM judges often fail to identify problematic reasoning segments, over-accepting fluent but weakly grounded responses. Our results show that QA evaluation should account for how inferential relations compose across a reasoning trace, rather than relying only on final answers or LLMs as verifiers. UroReason will be made available through an API, and our code will be released as open source.

We present StepGap, a hybrid NLI-LLM decision tree that detects step-level evidence gaps in multi-hop QA and emits one of three typed labels: Contradicted Claim (CC), Irrelevant Evidence (IE), or Missing Bridge (MB), each tied to a concrete repair action. On 82 multi-hop questions (181 annotated steps, $κ{=}0.704$), StepGap reaches sF1$=$72.0, within the bootstrap confidence interval of an LLM-only baseline (70.1) but with a more decomposable structure: every StepGap stage hurts F1 when removed, while three of four LLM-only removals improve F1 -- a sign of competing-error cancellation, where internal stages mask each other's errors. We further expose a Q-F1 trap: question-level F1 is mechanically inflated by checkers that flag every step, making step-level F1 the necessary diagnostic. Used as a typed GRPO process reward, StepGap improves Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Exact Match from $32.1{\pm}0.3$ to $35.4{\pm}0.9$ across three seeds, with the single-run comparison showing a $+5.6$ Avg EM gain over the matched Search-R1 GRPO reproduction.