Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on reasoning benchmarks but often fail when inputs alter slightly, raising concerns about the extent to which their success relies on memorization. This issue is especially acute in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, where spurious memorized patterns can trigger intermediate errors that cascade into incorrect final answers. We introduce STIM, a novel framework for Source-aware Token-level Identification of Memorization, which attributes each token in a reasoning chain to one of multiple memorization sources – local, mid-range, or long-range – based on their statistical co-occurrence with the token in the pretraining corpus. Our token-level analysis across tasks and distributional settings reveals that models rely more on memorization in complex or long-tail cases, and that local memorization is often the dominant driver of errors, leading to up to 67% of wrong tokens. We also show that memorization scores from STIM can be effective in predicting the wrong tokens in the wrong reasoning step. STIM offers a powerful tool for diagnosing and improving model reasoning and can generalize to other structured step-wise generation tasks.

To effectively use large language models (LLMs) for real-world queries, it is imperative that they generalize to the long-tail distribution, i.e. rare examples where models exhibit low confidence. In this work, we take the first step towards evaluating LLMs in the long-tail distribution of inferential knowledge. We exemplify long-tail evaluation on the Natural Language Inference task. First, we introduce Logic-Induced-Knowledge-Search (LINK), a systematic long-tail data generation framework, to obtain factually-correct yet long-tail inferential statements. LINK uses variable-wise prompting grounded on symbolic rules to seek low-confidence statements while ensuring factual correctness. We then use LINK to curate Logic-Induced-Long-Tail (LINT), a large-scale long-tail inferential knowledge dataset that contains 108K statements spanning four domains. We evaluate popular LLMs on LINT; we find that state-of-the-art LLMs show significant performance drop (21% relative drop for GPT4) on long-tail data as compared to on head distribution data, and smaller models show even more generalization weakness. These results further underscore the necessity of long-tail evaluation in developing generalizable LLMs.

Conversational question answering aims to provide natural-language answers to users in information-seeking conversations. Existing conversational QA benchmarks compare models with pre-collected human-human conversations, using ground-truth answers provided in conversational history. It remains unclear whether we can rely on this static evaluation for model development and whether current systems can well generalize to real-world human-machine conversations. In this work, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of state-of-the-art conversational QA systems, where human evaluators converse with models and judge the correctness of their answers. We find that the distribution of human machine conversations differs drastically from that of human-human conversations, and there is a disagreement between human and gold-history evaluation in terms of model ranking. We further investigate how to improve automatic evaluations, and propose a question rewriting mechanism based on predicted history, which better correlates with human judgments. Finally, we analyze the impact of various modeling strategies and discuss future directions towards building better conversational question answering systems.