Multiple-Choice Questions

Ontology generation from Competency Questions (CQs) is a central yet labor-intensive phase of Ontology Engineering. While large language models (LLMs) offer promising automation capabilities, current evaluations remain fragmented. Task formulations are heterogeneous, gold standards often lack fine-grained CQ provenance, metrics conflate lexical overlap with structural and logical adequacy, and reference ontologies are not always explicitly designed around the evaluation CQs. Here, we address these limitations with CQ4OE, a benchmark for the systematic and reproducible evaluation of LLM-based ontology generation from CQs. For each ontology in the benchmark, we build a CQ-driven gold OWL ontology with explicit provenance linking each CQ to the classes, properties, and axioms required to answer it. From this resource, we define two complementary evaluation tasks. CQ2Term supports term-level evaluation of CQ-specific class and property prediction over 99 CQs, and CQ2Onto supports ontology-level evaluation over 118 CQs, including hierarchy, property modeling, and axiom-level structure. We demonstrate CQ4OE with experiments using nine LLMs under zero-shot, iterative, and multi-agent generation strategies, showing that LLMs recover explicit vocabulary terms more reliably than creating ontologies, particularly in property modeling, hierarchy construction, and axiom generation.

Financial search is a highly demanding task for LLM agents, requiring not only a correct final answer but also temporally valid information retrieval, authoritative source selection, entity and period alignment, unit and definition consistency, and verifiable evidence for all conclusions. Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate only the final answer, making it difficult to localize errors or assess whether an answer is well-founded. To address this gap, we introduce FinFIRST (Financial Information Retrieval, Sourcing and Traceability), the first financial benchmark to jointly evaluate answers and supporting evidence through atomic rubrics. FinFIRST comprises 123 expert-authored tasks spanning a graduated difficulty spectrum, constructed from aggregate patterns of real-world financial scenarios through an 18-field taxonomy, a six-axis coverage blueprint, a registry of 138 financial sources, contributions from over 50 finance experts, and a six-stage quality-control pipeline. Each task is accompanied by an evidence-grounded reference package decomposed into atomic criteria across three dimensions: raw-information acquisition, source verification, and computation and answer formation. We evaluate 15 model configurations under a unified tool setting. Claude-Opus-5 achieves the highest atomic score of 87.59%, while GPT-5.6-Sol attains the highest strict pass rate of 71.54%. Computation and answer formation consistently lag behind raw-information acquisition across systems. FinFIRST retains final-answer correctness as the primary objective while making the supporting research process measurable, verifiable, and diagnosable.

Correctly answering a question grounded in normative documents often depends on information outside any single passage: whether the retrieved document is the version currently in force; whether it applies to the jurisdiction, subject (such as an institution or applicant), and date at issue; and whether each normative claim can be traced to its supporting source text. Hosted retrieval services have substantially lowered the engineering cost of building an initial system over such corpora, making "upload the documents and ask" a common default. We evaluate this default on approximately 73,000 candidate normative documents supplied to a production deployment. The evaluation uses a stratified sample of 200 questions from our published benchmark, with a gold source document for every question; the released sampling rule reads no system outputs or scores. We compare the hosted service with a governed system that resolves version and scope through explicit rules before generation. The governed system scored 97.7 overall, while the hosted service scored 88.1, a gap of 9.6 points computed from unrounded means. The question set, the answer text evaluated for both systems, the scores, and the scripts used to reproduce the reported benchmark statistics are public. The governed configuration has operated as a commercial product since January 2026 and serves 1,126 registered users; named customer organizations include Zhipu AI and Lecheng Health. By mid-April 2026, it had reached roughly 100,000 calls per workday.

Speech language models enable richer spoken interactions between humans and machines than cascaded systems, allowing access to paralinguistic information and lower latency. However, their accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks has lagged behind those of text models. Reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards has been instrumental in extending text models' capabilities for solving complex problems and limiting hallucinations. In this work, we explore applying RL to the GLM-4-Voice speech model (Zeng et al., 2024) to bridge the gap between textual and spoken mathematical problem solving. We first adapt the model to the domain using supervised fine-tuning on synthesized spoken question-answering data. We then show that, even without extra reasoning tokens, RL improves the accuracy on GSM8K beyond levels previously achieved for speech models only with supplementary reasoning traces. When combined with existing streaming reasoning techniques, we show further gains to 74.8% free-form accuracy. This establishes a new state-of-the-art for mathematical spoken abilities with speech-native models.

Large language models (LLMs) suffer from a long-tail deficit: culturally specific facts, particularly those concerning underrepresented regions such as Latin America, appear too rarely in pretraining corpora to be reliably memorized. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses this by grounding generation in external text, but structured alternatives such as Knowledge Graphs (KGs) offer tighter control over what enters the context, along with potential gains in explainability and updatability. We benchmark Graph-RAG against standard RAG on LatamQA, a culturally grounded multiple-choice dataset spanning eight thematic categories. The graphs are built end-to-end from Wikipedia articles with KGGen, a recent open-domain extractor, without manual curation in our main setting. G-Retriever is competitive with RAG and reduces the error of the base LLM by 72% with a standard KG and 78% with a benchmark-aware variant, the gap to RAG narrowing further as the graph is oriented toward task-relevant content. The trained projection transfers zero-shot to Portuguese without target-language fine-tuning, indicating multilingual reach.

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.

Large language models can produce fluent answers when their factual support is weak. This paper introduces Chain-of-Self-Questioning (CoSQ), a prompt-only framework that makes answer commitment conditional on an explicit assessment of the information required to answer a question. We evaluate three CoSQ variants under seventeen conditions on the 817-item TruthfulQA multiple-choice validation set using eleven open-weight and hosted model families. In the final balanced-option protocol, Grounded-CoSQ at τ=0.90 reduces the mean unconditional wrong-commitment rate from 13.1% under chain-of-thought prompting to 8.9%, a 32.1% relative reduction, while increasing answered accuracy from 86.9% to 89.7% and answering 87.6% of questions. Both improvements hold for all eleven models and at every evaluated threshold. Critical-CoSQ and Adaptive-CoSQ provide neighboring operating points with 88.6% and 86.5% coverage, respectively, while remaining more reliable than the baseline. A secondary Natural Questions Short-Answer evaluation provides convergent open-form evidence. These findings show that self-assessment can support explicit, tunable answer-or-abstain decisions when an unsupported commitment is more costly than referral or review.

Multi-hop question answering requires combining information from multiple documents to answer complex questions. These systems have grown increasingly capable, yet when they fail, the error is typically attributed to not finding the right documents. Whether this holds at the level of individual reasoning steps remains largely unexamined. We investigate this across three standard multi-hop QA benchmarks and find that failures decompose into two distinct modes: retrieval failures, where the needed passage was not retrieved, and extraction failures, where the passage was retrieved but the needed fact could not be extracted - a phenomenon we term the fact-grounding gap. Extraction failures account for nearly half of all per-hop deficiencies and are invisible to standard retrieval metrics. They remain unresolved by every retrieval intervention we test, establishing a ceiling for retrieval-only improvements. The gap's severity varies across benchmarks and question types, but extraction failures appear on every dataset we measure. Our findings reveal that retrieval failures and extraction failures are fundamentally different bottlenecks requiring different solutions - a distinction absent from current evaluation practice.

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer \emph{semantics} rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0% to 57.5% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number $k$ of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5%) at both $k=0$ and the adapter's training-time $k=1$, 188/200 (94.0%) at the packaged runtime's default $k=3$ --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of $k=3$, selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~\cite{zhao2024ratescore} decrease as $k$ grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant ($p \ge 0.29$); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models. Prior methods either map abstract LLM skills to occupations via task definitions or utilize expert knowledge which is difficult to obtain at scale and expensive. ORQA complements both of these methods by connecting O*NET occupations to trusted occupation-specific websites (such as regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, professional organizations, and government publications) and converting these into source-traceable question-answer pairs. A combination of an automated pipeline and human review produces a set of high quality questions about occupations. The question set created via our method covers 116 occupations from all 21 major groups in the SOC, with 480 questions sourced from 187 different websites. Each question is designed to probe a real-world skill question that is relevant to the occupation in question. We test 15 state-of-the-art frontier and open-weight models via this method. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 all perform the best at approximately 58-62% while smaller open-weight models achieve approximately 33-41% performance. Performance varies significantly across occupations. Healthcare-related occupations achieve the highest performance (78%) while Office and Administrative Support achieve approximately 40%. Performance on individual occupations (e.g. Sheet Metal Workers and Fish and Game Wardens) is essentially zero. We also find that open-ended questions and weighting by wage bill do not significantly affect the ranking of models on this benchmark. We believe that leveraging existing trusted occupation-specific information to test LLM knowledge in professional domains may be a scalable and useful method for evaluating occupation-level AI performance in the future. Results and data are available at orqabench.org.

Factual hallucination in closed-book question answering is often treated as a coverage problem: a model fails because the relevant fact is absent from its internal memory. This view misses a second source of error. Even when a fact has been observed, finite memory may force it to be stored only approximately. We study this effect through a simple coverage--compression model of factual recall. We consider an unstructured question-answering task with $N$ possible queries and $K$ possible answers. A learner observes $M$ training facts, compresses them into at most $B$ bits, and answers uniformly drawn test queries without retrieval. For a uniformly random ground-truth mapping, we prove $\mathcal{E} \geq \frac{M}{N}\delta^\star\!\left(\frac{B}{M}\right) + \left(1-\frac{M}{N}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{K}\right)$, where $\delta^\star(r)$ is the inverse rate-distortion function of a uniform $K$-ary source under zero-one loss. The two terms separate compression distortion on observed facts from missing coverage on unobserved facts. The bound gives a compact way to reason about selective memory, forced compression, structure, retrieval, abstention, and long-context organization. We study the predicted signatures with theory-implied simulations and controlled fact-injection probes in modern language models that vary fact load and effective trainable memory. The result is not a complete theory of hallucination, but an information-theoretic account of a separable failure mode: lossy recall of observed facts under finite memory.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve knowledge-intensive question answering, but the first design choice is easy to overlook: how should the source corpus be partitioned into retrievable units? Fixed-size chunks often return long passages whose relation to the question is only implicit. We introduce EAR, an Entity-Aware Partitioning approach for multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). EAR extracts normalized surface anchors from the question, answer options, and corpus; retrieves local windows around matching corpus anchors; and can attach a larger parent passage through an extractive summary. We evaluate EAR on a cleaned Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU)-style subset of 153 questions selected by an automatic corpus-support heuristic and using decontaminated public textbook text. Across same-protocol top-k = 3 and top-k = 8 sweeps with Mistral, Gemma, and DeepSeek, EAR entity-window reduces retrieved words by 37.5-40.2% relative to chunks. Observed accuracy changes are +5.2, +1.3, and -3.9 points at top-k = 3, and +5.9, -3.3, and -4.6 points at top-k = 8; none of the entity-window differences is statistically significant. The scoped contribution is methodological: EAR provides a compact and inspectable retrieval unit, while its rule-based anchor extractor remains domain-specific and requires separate validation before transfer.

This paper describes our system for Task2 of the second Multilingual Conversational Speech Language Model (MLC-SLM) Challenge. We adapt Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct with a segment-evidence-aware data and post-training pipeline. A language model converts timestamped ASR into coherent event spans, which are expanded by a boundary margin and cropped from the original recording. We then synthesize complementary semantic MCQs with Qwen3.6-27B and acoustic MCQs with Gemini3.1 Flash-Lite, followed by structural, grounding, answer-consistency, and target-model trainability checks, yielding 359,825 verified MCQs across 21 language and accent variants. A text-only probe partitions the data into weak, text-answerable items used for supervised fine-tuning and strong, audio-dependent items used for reinforcement learning with Group Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO), stabilized by debiased advantages, sequence-level importance correction, and dynamic filtering. Our system obtains 90.92% accuracy on the final official evaluation set.

Financial text, textbooks, and question-answer pairs are abundant, but only a small fraction is directly usable for reasoning-focused post-training. Existing QA pairs often lack explicit reasoning, sufficient context, or reliably verifiable answers, while textbooks must first be transformed into synthetic training examples. We present a data-centric pipeline that constructs complementary corpora by mining open-source reasoning traces, distilling financial instruction data, and generating knowledge-graph-guided question-answer pairs from financial educational material. After semantic deduplication, three lightweight sequence classifiers select finance-relevant examples, reject under-specified questions, and identify tasks suitable for reinforcement learning with compact rule-based verifiers. For model adaptation, we study supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, while self-distilled fine-tuning and post-training model merging are used to prevent the loss of financial capabilities already present in the starting model. We evaluate the adapted language models using FINESSE-Bench, reporting aggregate performance and changes relative to their starting checkpoints. Across the selected comparisons, ordinary SFT reduces FINESSE-Bench accuracy by 3.2-4.0 percentage points, whereas self-distilled SFT improves over the corresponding starting models by 1.0-2.8 points. Equal-weight merging recovers 3.0 points over its SFT parent and finishes 0.9 points above the original model; GRPO on hard tasks adds 0.4 points after self-distilled SFT or 3.0 points when applied directly to verifiable tasks. These results show that retention-aware adaptation can improve financial reasoning without the regressions observed after ordinary SFT.

Evaluating video captioning remains a critical challenge for Visual Large Language Models (VLLMs). Existing metrics primarily rely on matching generated text against ground-truth references. This paradigm suffers from the ``one-to-many'' nature of video description, where high-quality captions are often penalized for lexical mismatches or valid shifts in visual focus. Furthermore, such assessments are typically one-dimensional, failing to provide a fine-grained analysis of caption quality. To address this, we redefine caption quality through the lens of information fidelity: A caption must maximize the coverage of salient visual information while ensuring strict factuality. We introduce CapQuiz, a novel reference-free benchmark that assesses captions based on their utility in answering human-verified, fine-grained, multiple-choice questions derived from the video. CapQuiz features a hierarchical taxonomy of 10 question types (spanning Descriptive and Inferential categories) across 24 diverse video domains. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CapQuiz correlates significantly better with human judgments than existing metrics and offers interpretable insights into model performance.

While autonomous agents have made significant strides in "deep research" by iteratively navigating the open web to synthesize information, real-world problem-solving is rarely confined to a single environment. Complex analytical tasks inherently require agents to weave together evidence from both ambiguous unstructured text (e.g., the open web) and highly precise structured data (e.g., relational databases). However, existing benchmarks evaluate these modalities in isolation, failing to capture the critical "handoff" - the ability to preserve constraints when moving evidence between systems. We introduce HybridDeepResearch, to our knowledge the first deep-research benchmark that requires both web search and SQL to form a complete, verifiable answer. The benchmark contains 380 tool-dependent tasks grounded in LiveSQLBench-Base-Lite databases and public web corpora, validated through automated checks and human review, and covering three reasoning patterns: SQL2S, S2SQL, and Parallel. Evaluations across proprietary and open-weight models under various agentic scaffolds reveal that even state-of-the-art models like GLM-5.2, Claude-Sonnet-4.6 and GPT-5 achieve only about 50-54% Pass@8 on the hard subset. Notably, results show that directional reasoning is substantially more difficult than parallel intersection, highlighting that bridging structured and unstructured information spaces without losing constraints remains a major open challenge for agentic systems. Code and datasets are publicly available at GitHub (https://github.com/Snowflake-AI-Research/HybridDeepResearch) and Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/datasets/Snowflake/HybridDeepResearch).

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 \emph{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 present the IGT system for PolyFiQA Task 2 of the FinMMEval Lab at CLEF 2026, a multilingual financial question answering task over English SEC filings and multilingual news articles (English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Greek) for four companies. Our central observation is that the 344 development questions divide into two families requiring fundamentally different approaches: structured numeric types (R&D ratio, cash flow, capital expenditure) are best answered by direct keyword extraction on filing text, while synthesis types (investment strategy, capital allocation, top-three revenue focuses) require rule-based multilingual news passage selection. A dataset analysis reveals that 17-18 of 19 ground-truth reference answers per synthesis type share an exact evidence label prefix, whose unigram tokens contribute directly to ROUGE-1 overlap. The final system achieves development ROUGE-1 approximately 0.395, a 60% relative improvement over a generic RAG baseline (approximately 0.247), and ranks 3rd of 12 teams on the official test set with ROUGE-1 = 0.3071, Precision = 0.2821, and Recall = 0.4044.

Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in input data. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM robustness across multiple dimensions, including word error rate, character repetition and duplication, modifications in choices, and variability in instruction following. To facilitate this evaluation, we construct a synthetic and augmented dataset encompassing a diverse set of LLM benchmarks, specifically targeting multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets and instruction-following tasks. We conduct extensive experiments on LLMs of varying scales-small, medium, and large-as well as across base and instruction-tuned variants. Our analysis quantifies the variability in model responses under perturbed conditions and highlights discrepancies relative to baseline models. The findings provide insights into the stability of LLMs across different evaluation scenarios contributing to the development of more robust and reliable language models as well as robust evaluation methodologies.

The comparative analysis of banks' financial statements poses significant challenges for automated question answering systems due to their complexity, substantial length, technical language, and inhomogeneity of both textual and numerical content across different jurisdictions and institutions. We introduce FinRAG-QA, a novel benchmark dataset for financial question answering, which comprises 999 practitioner-curated questions on 10 standardised indicators, grounded in 209 annual and Pillar 3 reports from 24 major European and U.S. banks spanning 2019-2023. Unlike prior financial QA benchmarks, which centre on U.S. filings and single-institution analysis, FinRAG-QA targets cross-institutional retrieval over documents averaging 198k words, longer than any existing financial QA resource. On this benchmark we evaluate a multi-stage RAG pipeline and isolate the contribution of each component. Contextual chunk enrichment combined with a retrieval-optimised embedding model raises NDCG@10 from 0.322 to 0.710; conditional on the ground truth being retrieved, a reasoning-optimised generator raises answer accuracy from 44.6% to 79.0% (+34.4 percentage points), at roughly 20x the generation latency. We further show that cross-encoder reranking degrades retrieval when the first-stage ranking is already strong, and that a single top-ranked chunk outperforms larger contexts at generation time. Experiments were run in late 2024-early 2025 with the models available at that time.

Idiomatic expressions are an integral part of natural language, reflecting cultural nuances and posing unique challenges for computational models, particularly in low-resource languages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmark dataset of Bangla idioms, complemented by a synthetic multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset for idiom meaning identification. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of recent large language models (LLMs) across three idiom-related tasks: paraphrasing, idiom span detection, and meaning identification, leveraging zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. Our results reveal substantial variability in model performance, with no single LLM consistently outperforming others across all tasks. Notably, Phi-4-mini-instruct excels in paraphrasing, Kimi-K2-32b-instruct in span detection, and Gemini-2.5-flash in meaning identification. We believe that our datasets and analyses will provide valuable resources to guide future research in improving LLM comprehension of idiomatic expressions, particularly in Bangla and other low-resource languages.

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.

Role-playing large language models (LLMs) are expected to adopt a character's style while also respecting that character's knowledge boundaries. Prior evaluations detect character hallucination but rarely distinguish whether errors arise from failure to recognize a boundary or from failure to comply despite recognition. We introduce CHARM, a multicultural benchmark of 40 real and fictional characters drawn from five cultural-linguistic regions, and validated by native reviewers. It probes two boundary types, Temporal (historical vs. modern) and Cross-Universe (entities outside a character's narrative or historical universe), using abstention-enabled multiple-choice questions. We propose a two-stage evaluation that separates Boundary-Awareness (explicit recognition that a query is out of scope) from Boundary-Compliance (abstention when answering concrete questions). Evaluations across six LLMs show that hallucination is driven predominantly by compliance failures. Models frequently acknowledge that a query lies outside the character's knowledge yet still provide factual, out-of-character answers. By re-posing the same questions to the target character, we confirm that a large fraction of these cases are verified parametric overrides; the model stores the relevant fact but fails to suppress it. We also observe systematic cultural variation in these failures, consistent with imbalances in how characters from different regions are represented in model knowledge.

Large language models often answer the same multiple-choice question inconsistently when it is posed under support-oriented and elimination-oriented framings. We investigate whether these discrepancies arise from different internal representations induced by the two framings. We introduce a dual-framing protocol with minimally varied prompts that use either support- or elimination-oriented framing while keeping the evaluation target fixed. To probe the internal computation, we append an untrained special token, [STATE], and treat its residual-stream activation as an intervention interface. Across both models, the two framings induce separable [STATE] activations concentrated in intermediate layers. Swapping these activations between paired prompts systematically changes predictions and improves cross-framing agreement, providing intervention-based evidence that the activations are behaviorally relevant. Beyond instance-level substitution, mean-difference steering directions derived from the dual-framing contrast exhibit more bounded layer-wise responses than matched contrastive activation addition directions under the evaluated protocol.

Customer-service QA in an AI contact center (AICC) runs under deployment constraints that benchmark QA misses: tight voice-hotline latency and a high cost for unsupported or wrong automatic answers. We deploy a system that answers only from a closed set of verified QA units: it returns a retrieved unit verbatim, or routes to clarify, abstain, or handoff. The index is enriched offline by staged linguistic seeding (SLS): a human authors a per-unit world-grounded slot recipe, gpt-4.1-mini renders it into variants, and a light human gate filters them. One methodology is reused across both domains, so inference stays a single retrieval pass with no query-time generation. On held-out query variants from two industrial domains, SLS lifts hybrid R@1 to 0.881/0.930 (+0.27/+0.34), with gains across all five retrievers tested. At the same gpt-4.1-mini generation budget, SLS beats doc2query by +0.20/+0.32, while cross-provenance evaluation provides additional evidence of transfer across generated-query distributions. Verified-unit answering also removes free-form generation's unsupported-content surface (7-13% versus approximately 0%). We report this as an application study, including negative results.

When information extraction fails, a natural instinct is to improve the model doing it: for example, by scaling it up or refining its reasoning. In this paper, we show that another part of the pipeline matters at least as much: the queries used to elicit this information. Across four clinical benchmarks and five LLMs, improving the question design alone raises performance by 18.6 F1-score points, i.e. more than using larger extraction models. To make such question design learnable, we introduce List of Questions (LoQ), which generates document-specific question sets, and FeedQ, a feedback-driven optimization method that iteratively refines questions against extraction outcomes. The resulting optimized questions can be used to train lightweight generators: with fine-tuning, 4B-parameter models match or outperform expert-derived baselines and substantially exceed the performance of much larger untuned models. We release a dataset of 12,820 optimized questions to support a broader shift in information extraction research toward treating question design as a first-class problem.

As Large Language Models rapidly advance, performance on standard multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks is reaching saturation. While the community has responded by developing increasingly difficult datasets, validating question quality and filtering flawed items remains a labor-intensive process. To provide a scalable diagnostic approach, we propose a two-component probabilistic framework for auditing MCQA benchmarks using model output distributions. First, for benchmark-level analysis, we characterize the probability landscape using the top prediction probability ($P_{top1}$) and normalized residual entropy ($H_{norm}$), summarized globally by Mean Pairwise Distance (MPD). Second, for item-level diagnostics, we introduce noise injection to reduce meaningful distractor competition, enabling us to flag candidate items for targeted human review and categorize residual failure patterns. Across four MCQA benchmarks, our landscape analysis reveals benchmark-level differences in model confidence and residual option competition. Concurrently, our noise-injection method flags potentially actionable item-level issues, showing alignment with expert error annotations from MMLU-Redux. These results suggest that our probability-based framework provides a lightweight audit lens for comparing macro-level benchmark structure and prioritizing individual items for targeted human review.

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

Expert-level financial question answering requires both grounded verification to catch numeric hallucinations and audit trails for regulatory compliance, attributes that standard single-pass RAG systems lack. We take a step toward this goal with Self-Improving RAG, a framework that decomposes document QA into three specialized agents (Retrieval, Reasoning, and Judge) coordinated by an orchestrator with feedback-driven self-correction. When the Judge Agent scores an answer below a dynamic threshold, the system triggers retry with escalated strategies: broader retrieval, more careful prompting, and relaxed acceptance criteria. We evaluate on FinanceBench (SEC filing QA), where Self-Improving RAG achieves 86% oracle-guided accuracy (measuring agreement with gold answers) with a 36.4% Lazarus Rate, recovering nearly 4 in 10 initially incorrect answers through targeted retry. A key finding is that a fixed retrieval pipeline with judge-driven retry achieves strong results without dynamic routing, providing full interpretability. Every decision is logged with confidence scores, enabling the audit trails required for regulated financial applications.

Knowledge-intensive multi-hop question answering requires systems to select evidence and compose dependent facts, yet multilingual benchmarks usually translate an entire example into one language. This hides failures at language boundaries inside the reasoning chain. We introduce XHotpotQA, a controlled benchmark for cross-lingual knowledge composition over mixed-language evidence. Each instance is modeled as an evidence-dependency graph whose question, bridge evidence, answer-bearing evidence, and distractors have explicit language assignments. The audited resource contains 15,661 training and 7,405 validation instances, with sentence-level support supervision and supplied distractors. In validation, 99.81% of items cross the question-to-gold-evidence language interface and 95.60% use gold paragraphs in different languages. Across three reader artifacts, full question-evidence mismatch is associated with 10.25 to 15.79 lower Unicode-aware answer F1 than partial alignment, and different-script evidence with deficits of 11.98 to 23.70 points; the corresponding adapted-selector contrasts are 1.71 and 1.78 points. Under this supplied-candidate design, the evaluated readers therefore show substantially larger condition-associated deficits than the selector. XHotpotQA provides role-aware diagnostics, modular evaluation, and an audited test bed for knowledge-based systems that must integrate evidence across languages.

Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text. To close this gap, we present CLAIR-Fin, a nine-agent framework that decomposes each question into atomic claims maintained in a typed Financial Claim Ledger. Each claim is resolved through Asymmetric Evidence Authority, which conditions evidence trust on claim type rather than treating all modalities as equally reliable; Chain-of-Custody Verification, which checks grounding at the hand-off between drafting and adversarial review rather than only at the pipeline's exit; an Adaptive Rebuttal Cycle, which routes contested claims through adversarial debate whose depth scales with what that debate finds; and a terminal entailment audit paired with a continuous Hallucination Risk Index that distinguishes claims that passed scrutiny from claims never contested. We evaluate CLAIR-Fin on BB-FinQA-X, a 500-question cross-modal financial evaluation set built from Bangladesh Bank Annual Report material, stratified by query type, format, and difficulty. Relative to a single-pass retrieval-augmented generation baseline, it raises faithfulness ($0.780 \rightarrow 0.889$) while abstaining on 5.4% of questions when evidence is insufficient rather than forcing an unsupported response, and it exceeds stronger retrieval-strategy baselines such as HyDE and Graph-RAG on faithfulness ($\leq 0.874$).

Knowledge-base question answering (KBQA) systems rely on effective retrieval and reasoning mechanisms to generate accurate answers from external knowledge sources. However, developing reliable KBQA systems for low-resource languages such as Bangla remains challenging due to limited retrieval-focused research, scarce language resources, and difficulties in grounding generated responses in external knowledge. In this work, we propose HybridRAG-BN, a retrieval-augmented framework for Bangla KBQA that integrates hybrid retrieval using BM25 and BGE-M3, answer generation using the GGUF version of Gemma-4-31B-Instruct, and a LoRA-fine-tuned Gemma-4-31B-Instruct model for answer verification and refinement. To further improve robustness, the framework incorporates a post-processing stage that addresses unresolved cases through fallback answer replacement and DuckDuckGo-assisted retrieval. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework, achieving token-level F1 scores of 0.71654 and 0.72912 on the public and private leaderboards, respectively, securing first place in the competition.

Cultural evaluation of large language models (LLMs) often focuses on high-resource standard languages, leaving regional culture and dialect communities underrepresented. We introduce BavGround, a benchmark for evaluating Bavarian regional cultural grounding and dialect competence across English, German and Bavarian. BavGround contains 206 multiple-choice source questions across eight cultural domains per language, yielding 618 multi-parallel instances, with items covering both broadly accessible cultural knowledge and source-grounded regional knowledge from journalism, historical sources, and specialist literature. We evaluate fifteen 7B-10B open-weight instruction-tuned models and one closed-model reference. Strong multilingual models perform best overall, but performance drops on Bavarian items and source-grounded questions, indicating persistent difficulty with dialectal and localized cultural knowledge. We further show that conclusions depend strongly on evaluation protocol: raw answer-letter scoring, shuffled-letter scoring, option-text likelihood, generated-answer parsing, and semantic matching can produce different absolute scores and rankings, especially for regionally adapted models. Finally, an exploratory analysis of GENBA-10B checkpoints suggests that continued pretraining improves answer-content likelihood unevenly across domains, while dialect competence remains comparatively weak. BavGround supports localized, protocol-aware evaluation of cultural representation in LLMs.

Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based UAV aerial image understanding and reasoning is essential for aerial intelligence yet poses distinct challenges arising from extreme scale variation, arbitrary camera orientations, and high object density. Despite growing interest, existing evaluations remain fragmented across individual datasets and narrow tasks, leaving a critical gap in unified assessment of UAV understanding and reasoning capabilities. To fill this gap, we construct UAVQA-Bench, a benchmark of 1,500 human-annotated QA pairs drawn from 13 public UAV datasets, covering 6 capability dimensions and 16 tasks in both multiple-choice and visual grounding formats. Systematic evaluation of a broad range of open-source and closed-source MLLMs as well as agent-based systems on UAVQA-Bench identifies three key failure modes: domain-toolset mismatch, unchecked error propagation, and static reasoning. Motivated by these findings, we propose UAV-MAS, a training-free multi-agent system for MLLM-based UAV aerial image understanding and reasoning, comprising a Domain-Specific Perception Engine (DSPE) that routes queries to task-appropriate visual tools, a Context-Aware Iterative Refinement module (CAIR) that validates intermediate reasoning to curb error accumulation, and a Difficulty-Aware Adaptive Search mechanism (DAAS) that adjusts search depth to question difficulty. UAV-MAS with a 32B open-source MLLM achieves 77.0% overall accuracy on UAVQA-Bench, surpassing Gemini 3 Pro by 4.0%, while the 8B variant improves 8.7% over its base model.

We present the REAP system for the AKBC Shared Task 2026 on constructing knowledge bases from language models in a closed-book setting, subject to a budget of at most 32B parameters and no model fine-tuning. Our system combines structured chain-of-thought reasoning, relation-specific query strategies, and a reasoning-based empty-set gate to elicit parametric knowledge, followed by direct extraction into valid JSON arrays. On the test set, the system, built on the Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct-2501 model, achieves a macro-F1 score of 0.62, with particularly strong results on countryLandBordersCountry (F1 = 0.95), companyTradesAtStockExchange (F1 = 0.73), and hasArea (F1 = 0.77). Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/yammdd/AKBC-Shared-Task-2026.

Counterfactual video understanding evaluates whether models grasp physical and commonsense regularities. However, existing multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks inadvertently leak target events through their questions and candidate options. This reduces the core challenge from active discovery to text-guided verification. In this paper, we present FADE, an effective training framework for counterfactual discovery and explanation. Our method is built on an evidence-first, two-stage training paradigm. First, evidence-internalized supervised fine-tuning grounds the model's predictions in decisive visual anomalies. Second, we apply a fading-anchor reinforcement learning strategy that progressively removes textual guidance, compelling the model to independently discover and explain evidence. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we also introduce an effective pipeline that converts existing MCQ datasets into aligned MCQ, open-ended question answering (OQA), and captioning tasks without requiring additional data curation. Our simple approach yields strong results. Using Qwen3-VL-8B as the baseline, FADE achieves state-of-the-art strict paired scores across all three tasks on DualityVidQA-test and IPV-Bench, outperforming GPT-5.6. In specific, when transitioning from constrained MCQs to unconstrained OQA and captioning, our model demonstrates remarkable robustness. Its performance retention is 90.4% and 67.4% on DualityVidQA-test-substantially higher than the 48.1% and 30.7% retained by GPT-5.6. We hope this simple framework can serve as a solid baseline for future research in unconstrained counterfactual video understanding.

Enterprise question answering is framed as retrieving internal documents and generating grounded answers. Routine enterprise records, however, are work by-products in which required organizational relations remain implicit across heterogeneous sources. Existing benchmarks provide realistic multi-source evidence, but often materialize a predefined answer path and therefore test the composition of stated facts rather than recovery of a target relation absent from the corpus. We call the latter capability latent organizational reasoning. We introduce ENTLORE, a graph-grounded benchmark construction framework that reconstructs an audited enterprise world from routine documents, authoritative organizational tables, and operational records. Versioned organizational conventions certify derived relations in a truth graph, enabling complete golden answers and proof certificates. The aligned anonymized release exposes only the document corpus while withholding private structure and target relations. ENTLORE contains 2,341 documents from three source types and 907 questions spanning explicit lookup, cross-source composition, and latent organizational reasoning, evaluated across 56 model and access configurations. Structuring the released world as an induced entity graph or navigable knowledge base gives the strongest deployable results. Yet supplying gold documents still leaves 30.4% of latent questions unanswered, versus 12.6% and 6.2% for explicit and compositional questions. Enterprise QA therefore depends not only on document recall, but also on whether implicit organizational relations become usable. The benchmark, data, and code are publicly available at https://github.com/scitix/entlore .

We present results from reconstructing multiple-choice model (MCM) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) model curves using a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3.5. The model is prompted and fine-tuned to replicate choice probabilities across a large training corpus of multiple-choice items containing both image and text stimuli, conditioned on a labeled set of student ability levels. By learning to reproduce the systematic error patterns of students across a discrete range of abilities, the LLM implicitly captures the underlying response probabilities encoded in the 3PL and MCM curves. This allows us to accurately approximate item difficulty on a held-out test set directly from the model's predicted option probabilities.

Industrial-safety understanding requires more than detecting workers, equipment, and personal protective equipment. Models must also assess compliance, identify hazardous interactions, explain potential accident mechanisms, and recommend preventive actions. Existing safety datasets primarily focus on visual perception or isolated violation recognition and provide limited supervision for evidence-grounded reasoning. We introduce SafeSceneReason, a multimodal industrial-safety reasoning benchmark and companion training corpus that connects workplace scenes with knowledge from occupational accident investigations. SafeSceneReason combines two complementary data-construction pipelines. The scene-centric pipeline converts annotated workplace images into executable safety scene graphs and generates deterministic answers through program execution over objects, relations, and safety rules. The report-centric pipeline extracts figures and contextual evidence from accident reports and constructs multimodal questions using evidence graphs, explicit information boundaries, multi-step reasoning paths, and iterative verification. The resulting resource contains 110,581 verified scene-centric question--answer pairs and 13,114 refined report-centric question--answer pairs, covering perception, spatial and quantitative reasoning, compliance assessment, evidence synthesis, causal analysis, and mitigation-oriented decision making. Evaluation of representative proprietary and open-source vision--language models reveals substantial performance differences and persistent weaknesses in comparative, technical, and multi-evidence reasoning, demonstrating that strong general visual understanding does not yet guarantee reliable industrial-safety reasoning.

Financial question answering is typically evaluated by answer correctness, yet in SEC filings a plausible and even numerically correct answer can be grounded in the wrong evidence. Similar facts and disclosures recur across sections of a filing, across reporting periods of the same firm, and across comparable firms. FinRank targets this provenance-sensitive retrieval problem by requiring systems to identify evidence for the intended entity, reporting period, and disclosure context. The benchmark contains 1185 manually authored question-answer records over the 10-K and 10-Q filings of 22 companies. Each record includes a reference answer, gold supporting passages, and hand-curated hard negatives drawn from confusable passages within filings, across reporting periods, and across comparable firms. FinRank evaluates passage retrieval, reranking, and hard-negative discrimination as separately measured tasks. Baseline results demonstrate the difficulty of this setting: among the evaluated systems, even a 7B instruction-tuned embedder reaches only 44.8% Recall@10 on the pooled evidence corpus; sub-billion-parameter encoders gain at most 3.5 points over BM25, a finance-adapted embedder trails BM25 by 9.7 points, and pairwise accuracy falls by 13.0-20.5 percentage points when random negatives are replaced with the curated hard negatives. FinRank provides an evidence-first benchmark for developing financial question answering systems that are not only accurate but also grounded in the correct disclosure.

Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.

We present a web demo for exploring a large-scale disambiguated knowledge base (KB) materialized from a large language model (LLM). GPTKB 2.0 contains 38.4M triples over 1.6M canonical entities, together with 207.6K consolidated relations and 66K consolidated classes. Unlike prior LLM-derived knowledge bases that largely identify entities by surface strings, GPTKB 2.0 performs context-guided disambiguation during recursive KB construction, separating homonyms and merging synonymous mentions as facts are elicited. The demo makes this process inspectable: users can browse entities, follow links across the KB, and audit the provenance of individual facts, including surface forms, candidate matches, source triples, and disambiguation decisions. The interface further supports structured SPARQL queries, natural-language questions translated to SPARQL, and entity linking from user-provided text to canonical GPTKB 2.0 entries. GPTKB 2.0 is available at https://gptkb.org/, with the full KB downloadable for offline use.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves question answering by grounding large language models (LLMs) in external knowledge such as text corpora. However, its reasoning process remains largely opaque: intermediate reasoning steps are difficult to verify and cannot be reliably attributed to specific evidence. Moreover, missing user-specific context is rarely detected systematically, often leading to incomplete or incorrect output. We propose NeSy-RAG, a modular neuro-symbolic RAG framework that synthesizes attributable Prolog modules from retrieved text chunks. For each chunk, the system generates semantically meaningful predicates that encode Boolean claims, which may depend on user facts. Using joint natural language-code embeddings, predicates are retrieved and composed into Prolog queries. To address incomplete user context, we introduce a symbolic knowledge-gap detection mechanism that identifies missing user facts whose truth values affect the query outcome and automatically triggers follow-up interactions. Executing the resulting Prolog queries yields deterministic answers together with transparent execution traces that link each reasoning step to its originating source. On the ShARC benchmark, without domain-specific training, NeSy-RAG achieves 61.1% accuracy, outperforming a same-model RAG baseline that achieves 42.8% accuracy.

In Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), post-retrieval conflict resolution arbitrates among noisy or contradictory retrieved passages. However, the robustness of this safeguard against knowledge poisoning has not been adequately studied. Existing black-box poisoning methods all assert the target answer in frontal contradiction with what the resolver treats as settled, the very signal these methods are built to detect. We propose PURPOSE, a strict black-box poisoning attack that reframes the injection as an update that minimizes conflict, rather than as a counter-claim. PURPOSE extracts query-related facts approximating the resolver's possible reference, then grounds a pivot event in them to keep the injection consistent with what the resolver might verify while steering the generator toward the target answer. Across three QA benchmarks, five generators, and three conflict-resolution methods, PURPOSE attains the highest attack success rate (ASR) in 35 of 45 settings and exceeds the strongest prior attack with +9.7 mean ASR points. These results show that our poisoning method is effective against conflict resolution in RAG and identify non-contradicting injection as a practical mode to enhance poisoning attack.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed computational linguistics and achieved remarkable performance across numerous natural language processing tasks, yet significant gaps persist in understanding how these systems process culturally embedded linguistic expressions. This paper introduces ProverbIT, a novel Italian benchmark comprising 100 multiple-choice questions designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to complete Italian proverbs. We assess 13 frontier models, including Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and traditional LLMs, across three tasks: proverb completion, multiple-choice selection with correct answers, and multiple-choice selection without correct answers. Our evaluation reveals surprising results: while nearly all models demonstrate knowledge of the proverbs through successful completion tasks, performance drops dramatically when transitioning to multiple-choice formats without correct answers, with even state-of-the-art reasoning models showing substantial degradation. Through detailed Chain-of-Thought analysis of two LRMs, we uncover that models exhibit a strong bias toward selecting literal synonyms and frequently mention correct proverb endings during reasoning without successfully identifying their absence from the given options. These findings suggest that current LLMs rely heavily on memorized patterns rather than deeper semantic understanding of culturally grounded expressions, highlighting important limitations in their reasoning capabilities for figurative language comprehension.

MMLongBench-Doc is a long-document QA benchmark of 1,082 questions over 135 PDFs. Two properties of it push measured scores away from the quantity they are meant to capture: the reference metric compares extracted answers, so 1,358,000 loses to 1358000; and a non-trivial share of ground-truth annotations are wrong, ambiguous, or incomplete --- concentrated, because of how they were found, in exactly the questions capable systems answer correctly. MMLongBench-Doc-V2 corrects 106 annotations, each published with the page and arithmetic that settle it, and replaces the string metric with a pinned LLM judge asked whether a response means the reference. Ten questions whose document ships under the wrong filename are removed rather than counted wrong, along with one duplicated question, leaving 1,071 questions over 134 documents. The most reusable contribution is a decision procedure for when an empty set key may be widened and when widening would destroy a deliberate negative sample; applied to all 208 rows, it widened 14. V2 scores are not comparable with published V1 numbers. The corrected corpus, the per-entry correction record and the evaluation harness are available at https://github.com/VectifyAI/MMLongBench-Doc-V2.

Most multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) only by whether they select the correct answers. This binary scoring treats all incorrect responses alike, even though an LLM's preferences among incorrect options may contain systematic and useful information about its behavior and ability. We introduce the LLM Nominal Response Model (LLM-NRM), an option-aware psychometric framework that models the full distribution over answer choices to jointly estimate LLM ability and option-level item characteristics, while separating model-specific response calibration sharpness, positional preference, and difficulty-dependent fallback behavior. Across 189 LLMs and 31,554 items from 14 benchmarks, LLM-NRM predicts held-out LLM-item interactions more accurately than binary Item Response models and conventional nominal-response baselines, and its ability estimates achieve the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.920 with the external human-preference Arena.ai Elo leaderboard. Distractor identity contributes +101% additional Fisher Information per item beyond correctness, and incorrect responses alone recover full-information ability estimates with Spearman 0.943. The learned item parameters also enable efficient benchmarking, where 41 selected items preserve the full-bank ranking with Kendall's correlation 0.85, corresponding to a 770 times reduction. In conclusion, we show that incorrect answers carry distinct and useful measurement information rather than representing equivalent mistakes.

Retrieval-augmented search agents answer multi-hop questions by repeatedly issuing search queries and accumulating evidence. This creates a stopping problem: after the necessary evidence has appeared, further retrieval often adds cost, latency, and distracting context rather than useful information. We frame stopping as evidence coverage rather than generator confidence, and introduce HALT, a lightweight verification-aware policy that leaves the search agent unchanged. Given expected hop claims, HALT stops only when cumulative evidence supports each required claim. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks, HALT reduces redundant search while largely preserving exact match. We separate a deployable setting, where hop claims are generated from the question, from a diagnostic upper bound that uses gold supporting-fact annotations: generated claims give smaller but still exact-match-preserving savings, while gold claims show the larger savings available when hop targets are clean. Baseline comparisons and ablations show that this behavior is driven by claim-evidence alignment rather than generic sufficiency, fixed stop positions, or lexical overlap. Open-corpus pilots further suggest that HALT abstains when coverage cannot be reliably verified. Overall, evidence coverage provides a practical runtime control signal for improving retrieval-augmented agents without retraining or modifying the host agent.

We convert 21 of 28 full-attention layers of Qwen3-0.6B-Base into KDA (Kimi Delta Attention) linear-attention layers on a single consumer-grade GPU budget, and ask a simple question: what exactly does the conversion break? After surgery, hidden-state alignment and end-to-end KL distillation drive the student close to its teacher in perplexity, yet multiple-choice accuracy stays near random chance (25-29% vs. the teacher's 50.6% on C-Eval). Using a four-permutation diagnostic that rotates answer options while holding content fixed, we show the model sticks to option labels (predicting "A" 81% of the time; 106/161 questions keep the same label under all four rotations) rather than following answer content -- an interface injury that standard distillation metrics cannot see. A 1,000-step format-targeted completion-only KL stage repairs the interface (+12.48 points on C-Eval, label-stickiness roughly halved), after which persona SFT and one round of on-policy DPO preserve benchmark scores within noise. We release code, weights, recipes, and the full audit trail, and distill the engineering lessons -- including an FP32-master failure mode in which bf16 optimizer updates are silently swallowed -- that made convergence possible at this budget.

Answering complex questions over large document collections requires assembling complementary evidence across sections and documents. GraphRAG offers structured retrieval but typically uses fixed traversal, while agentic RAG operates over weakly structured interfaces. Our key insight is that agents should navigate document structure within and across documents rather than repeatedly search from scratch. We introduce DocNavRAG, which organizes document hierarchies and cross-region relations into a navigable graph, exposes graph operations for locating, navigating, expanding, and fetching, and maintains an evolving evidence state to guide retrieval until sufficient evidence is collected. Across four long- and multi-document QA benchmarks, DocNavRAG improves answer quality and context sufficiency over the strongest baseline by 7.8% and 17.7% on average.

Construction standards are critical for building safety and sustainability. Existing standard application workflows rely on keyword-based document retrieval and manual cross-clause interpretation, which cannot reliably support multi-clause reasoning, multimodal knowledge utilization, or traceable clause-level evidence linkage. To address these limitations, this study develops a multimodal knowledge-driven framework that supports question answering on standard knowledge named BEST-KAG (Knowledge-Augmented Generation for Building Engineering STandards). The framework introduces 1) a multimodal knowledge graph (MKG) for unified representation of document hierarchy and heterogeneous standard knowledge with various connections, 2) a rule-LLM hybrid knowledge construction pipeline for scalable multimodal knowledge extraction, creating a large MAG with 251 building engineering standards, 171,652 nodes and 310,914 edges, and 3) a graph-retrieval-based knowledge-augmented generation architecture for clause-grounded and traceable question answering. Experiments demonstrate that BEST-KAG consistently outperforms multiple mainstream LLMs in terms of Expert evaluation, and metrics including BLEU, and ROUGE, with the best improvement up to 74.01% compared to the baselines.

We investigate the geometry of decision-making in Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) through the lens of isotropy. Analyzing five open-weight models across diverse datasets, we identify decision-critical transition layers characterized by a shift in isotropy, coinciding with a major representational change and the emergence of task-relevant clusters. We demonstrate that this synchronized geometric behavior is strongly correlated with downstream accuracy ($r\approx0.84$), displaying its relevance for successful decision-making. Furthermore, we show that this transition is robust to prompt variations, suggesting that it reflects a general mechanism of model behavior.

Multi hop question generation (MQG) aims to generate questions from multiple given documents and target answers, whereas question answering (QA) focuses on deriving answers from documents given specific questions. Although MQG and QA are inherently dual tasks, most existing MQG studies largely overlook this intrinsic duality. To address this limitation, we propose QQ, a novel framework that exploits the duality between Question and answer for multi hop Question generation. Specifically, QQ employs a unified architecture functioning simultaneously as both an MQG and a QA model to fully leverage their interdependence. Our framework is driven by two key mechanisms: (i) enforcing bidirectional alignment constraints to ensure strict mutual correspondence between the questions generated by the MQG model and the answers produced by the QA model; and (ii) applying contrastive learning to pull paired question answer representations closer while pushing unpaired ones apart, thereby reinforcing this correspondence. Extensive automatic and human evaluations on the HotpotQA and MuSiQue datasets demonstrate that the QQ framework significantly improves the quality of generated multi hop questions.

Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution. We present Backtrader-Bench, a framework with two complementary pipelines. A deterministic multiple-choice question (MCQ) pipeline generates questions from backtest configurations across five trading strategies, 33 templates, and three difficulty tiers, with an independent checker that re-derives every answer. A generator-solver filtering pipeline autonomously mines harder questions: a generator writes questions verified by executable code, converts them to MCQs, and discards any that a no-tool solver can answer without code execution. We evaluate 11 models without tools (10 runs each) and four with-tools configurations on a 30-question curated set. Tool-augmented agents reach 90.0% accuracy in a single pass (GPT-5.5 and Opus 4.7), outperforming the best no-tools baselines (73.0%, averaged over 10 runs) by 17 percentage points. On 38 separately mined questions, no-tools accuracy drops further, with half the models falling to roughly random-chance level (25%). Beyond evaluation, the scalable MCQ infrastructure is designed to produce a training corpus for reinforcement learning, with the ultimate goal of building a specialized agent for quantitative trading workflows.

Reflection, the ability to revisit and revise prior reasoning, is central to how humans improve their answers. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly prompted to "reflect," yet whether this resembles human revision remains unclear. We introduce the Human-LLM Reflection Framework (HRF), a controlled two-pass protocol comparing human and LLM revision under identical conditions across self-, peer-, and cross-agent settings. Using an information-theoretic analysis based on per-iteration cross-entropy reduction, we find two failure modes of LLM reflection. On objective tasks with finite answer spaces, reflection yields near-zero information gain (Delta I approx 0), behaving as neutral re-generation indistinguishable from re-sampling. On subjective tasks, it yields significant negative gain (Delta I < 0), moving predictions away from the target. Human revision, by contrast, yields positive gain in both settings. Cross-agent experiments localize the failure to the revision step, not input quality: LLMs degrade even high-quality human responses. Diagnostic analyses (revision conditioned on first-pass correctness, and oracle-guided revision against a random-reshuffle baseline) show that which sub-step dominates varies by task and by model rather than reducing to a single mechanism: self-error detection is present on objective multiple-choice tasks but weak on subjective ones, and recovery under an oracle error signal exceeds the baseline for some models and falls below it for others. The unifying account is structural: without external information, self-conditioned revision cannot reduce uncertainty about the target, so LLM reflection is better understood as conditioned re-generation than as genuine error-driven revision.

The same diagnostic result can support or challenge one causal claim yet fail to address another when the claims concern different populations, outcomes, estimands, pathways, or identifying assumptions. When the evidence and target vary together, a correct answer may reflect favorable or adverse wording, lexical overlap, or a familiar diagnostic pattern rather than matching the evidence to the causal question. We introduce paired prompts that repeat the same diagnostic evidence verbatim while changing the causal target. Each prompt is labeled Favors, Challenges, Unresolved, or Wrong Target according to how the evidence bears on the causal question. A pair is recovered only when both prompts are classified correctly. Using linear readouts trained on a separate development set, we analyze the final-token hidden state from the penultimate transformer block of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Qwen3-8B, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. On the 49-pair primary benchmark spanning nine diagnostic families, balanced accuracy ranges from 0.654 to 0.659 and 18-21 pairs are recovered. Two independent human reviewers assigned the same label to 95 of the 98 prompts (96.9%). Across checkpoints, balanced accuracy and complete-pair recovery exceed permutation nulls that preserve development scenario groups. In Qwen2.5, full-prompt balanced accuracy exceeds both restricted inputs, with paired-bootstrap intervals for both differences above zero. Readouts trained without development examples from the evaluated diagnostic family recover 21 pairs, including at least one in each of the nine families. The hidden-state readout exceeds a linear classifier on answer-option logits and text baselines in balanced accuracy and recovered pairs. These results show that the hidden state contains linearly decodable information about whether diagnostic evidence favors, challenges, or fails to address the causal target.

Wikipedia and Wikidata are widely used for information access, LLM pre-training, and retrieval-augmented generation. Their knowledge is deeply connected but scattered across text, tables, and knowledge graphs. This raises a practical question: when these modalities disagree, how can we detect and explain the conflict? We study this problem as modality-level inconsistency detection. We first introduce a taxonomy of cross-modal knowledge inconsistencies, covering information granularity differences, direct conflicts, temporal changes, and KG incompleteness. We then present Kontrast, an automatic framework that uses Text-to-SPARQL and LLM reasoning to compare table-based answers with KG evidence and categorize the resulting inconsistencies. Experiments on various Table-QA datasets show that cross-modal inconsistencies are common and informative. They reveal not only true knowledge conflicts, but also missing KG structure and temporal mismatches while being limited by Text-to-SPARQL errors and noise. Our analysis shows that text, tables, and KGs can complement and correct one another through systematic comparison. Kontrast provides a practical tool for large-scale knowledge auditing and establishes a benchmark for future work on cross-modal knowledge consistency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ECLADATTA/KONTRAST.

Reinforcement learning enables Agentic RAG systems to learn multi-turn search from verifiable outcome rewards, but all- zero rollout groups provide no comparative signal and may hide useful search behavior. We present EviBack, an evidence- constrained Teacher backoff that supplies auxiliary super- vision to such groups while preserving verifiable Actor re- wards. It separates evidence assessment from answer refine- ment, preventing reference answers from overriding evidence- insufficiency judgments. A fully automated, end-to-end GPT- 5.5-assisted APE pipeline starts from a manually authored single-prompt dual-task Teacher, automatically partitions and labels rollout data, and performs ablation, task decomposition, evaluation, and selection to produce a gated two-stage Teacher. Compared with the manual design, the resulting Teacher im- proves downstream F1 and valid-answer rate while reduc- ing search, duplicate queries, and forced termination. Across seven open-domain QA benchmarks and three Qwen3 scales, EviBack improves F1 over Search-R1 and raises both single- and multi-hop macro F1. We guarantee that the code will be made publicly available at a later stage.

Multi-hop question answering requires coordinating relational and textual evidence across reasoning steps, a combination neither a text corpus nor a knowledge graph can supply alone. Prior work often emphasizes only part of this loop: graph-augmented RAG retrieves from a pre-built or query-updated graph, KGQA systems search within topic-centered subgraphs, and memory-augmented agents maintain evolving memories without continuously reconciling graph memory with textual context. We propose Co-E, a training-free system built around synchronized bidirectional graph-text working memory. A synchronization cycle consolidates textual memory, extracts relational triples into graph memory, and injects graph facts back into the generation context. Because both memories are maintained, they shape subsequent retrieval and generation. Evaluated on six multi-hop QA benchmarks, Co-E improves over comparable training-free open-backbone baselines and is competitive with larger or trained systems.