Understanding which parts of the retrieved context contribute to a large language model’s generated answer is essential for building interpretable and trustworthy retrieval-augmented generation. We propose a novel framework that formulates context attribution as a combinatorial multi-armed bandit problem. We utilize Linear Thompson Sampling to efficiently identify the most influential context segments while minimizing the number of model queries. Our reward function leverages token log-probabilities to measure how well a subset of segments supports the original response, making it applicable to both open-source and black-box API-based models. Unlike SHAP and other perturbation-based methods that sample subsets uniformly, our approach adaptively prioritizes informative subsets based on posterior estimates of segment relevance, reducing computational costs. Experiments on multiple QA benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves up to 30% reduction in model queries while matching or exceeding the attribution quality of existing approaches.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) requires selecting benchmarks that fit the intended use case. However, the rapid growth of benchmarks has made discovery and comparison difficult, because practitioners must assemble information across papers, repositories, and dataset cards with heterogeneous metadata, inconsistent terminology, and uneven documentation. Prior work improves individual benchmark documentation and quality assessment, but does not provide a uniform way to compare benchmarks during discovery. We survey practitioners, analyze multi-source benchmark metadata, and identify the fields needed for effective benchmark discovery. We introduce BenchNavigator, a prototype that organizes heterogeneous metadata into a coherent, provenance-preserving interface aligned with practitioner priorities. Our results show that benchmark metadata can be presented in a comparable form without imposing new reporting burdens on benchmark producers. We frame this contribution as discovery infrastructure, not as a method for scoring benchmark quality or replacing contextual evaluation.

Diet plays a critical role in human health, yet tailoring dietary reasoning to individual health conditions remains a major challenge. Nutrition Question Answering (QA) has emerged as a popular method for addressing this problem. However, current research faces two critical limitations. On one hand, the absence of datasets involving user-specific medical information severely limits personalization. This challenge is further compounded by the wide variability in individual health needs. On the other hand, while large language models (LLMs), a popular solution for this task, demonstrate strong reasoning abilities, they struggle with the domain-specific complexities of personalized healthy dietary reasoning, and existing benchmarks fail to capture these challenges. To address these gaps, we introduce the Nutritional Graph Question Answering (NGQA) benchmark, the first graph question answering dataset designed for personalized nutritional health reasoning. NGQA leverages data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) to evaluate whether a food is healthy for a specific user, supported by explanations of the key contributing nutrients. The benchmark incorporates three question complexity settings and evaluates reasoning across three downstream tasks. Extensive experiments with LLM backbones and baseline models demonstrate that the NGQA benchmark effectively challenges existing models. In sum, NGQA addresses a critical real-world problem while advancing GraphQA research with a novel domain-specific benchmark. Our codebase and dataset are available here.