Extractive QA tasks are commonly evaluated using Exact Match (EM) and F1-score, but these metrics often fail to reflect true model performance. Recent studies have proposed using large language models (LLMs) as judges (LLM-as-a-judge), yet they often lack comprehensive evaluation across datasets and overlook key factors such as sensitivity to answer types, prompt variations, and self-preference bias.In this work, we conduct a systematic study of LLM-as-a-judge across four extractive QA datasets and various prompt variations, assessing multiple LLM families in both answering and judging roles. Our results show that LLM-as-a-judge judgments correlate much more strongly with human evaluations than EM (0.22) and F1 (0.40), achieving correlations up to 0.85 with open-source models.Further analysis reveals that LLM-as-a-judge performs particularly well on number-related answers but faces challenges with more complex types, such as job titles. Contrary to findings in other NLP tasks, we observe no self-preference bias, even when the same model serves as both QA model and judge. Finally, we find that prompt phrasing has minimal impact, and zero-shot, context-free judging often yields the best evaluation performance.

We design experiments to identify where Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle when answering complex questions.Our focus is on two key stages, mirroring the human QA process: 1) question decomposition, where the model breaks down a complex question into sub-questions and 2) subproblem solving, where it addresses each sub-question to obtain the final response.We preprocess and expand three multi-hop datasets to create experimental datasets featuring explicit and implicit multi-hop questions, crowdsourced and templated questions, and varying numbers of hops.Our results show that larger models (Llama 3.1 70B and o1) excel at decomposing explicit multi-hop questions but struggle with implicit ones, while smaller models (e.g., Llama 3.1 8B) have difficulty with both.In the sub-problem solving stage, all models perform well on simple questions with context.Furthermore, we found no correlation between accuracy in the question decomposition stage and final QA performance (direct response), highlighting a key difference between human and LLM reasoning.

Scientific claim verification against tables typically requires predicting whether a claim is supported or refuted given a table. However, we argue that predicting the final label alone is insufficient: it reveals little about the model’s reasoning and offers limited interpretability. To address this, we reframe table–text alignment as an explanation task, requiring models to identify the table cells essential for claim verification. We build a new dataset by extending the SciTab benchmark with human-annotated cell-level rationales. Annotators verify the claim label and highlight the minimal set of cells needed to support their decision. After the annotation process, we utilize the collected information and propose a taxonomy for handling ambiguous cases. Our experiments show that (i) incorporating table alignment information improves claim verification performance, and (ii) most LLMs, while often predicting correct labels, fail to recover human-aligned rationales, suggesting that their predictions do not stem from faithful reasoning.

To explain the predicted answers and evaluate the reasoning abilities of models, several studies have utilized underlying reasoning (UR) tasks in multi-hop question answering (QA) datasets. However, it remains an open question as to how effective UR tasks are for the QA task when training models on both tasks in an end-to-end manner. In this study, we address this question by analyzing the effectiveness of UR tasks (including both sentence-level and entity-level tasks) in three aspects: (1) QA performance, (2) reasoning shortcuts, and (3) robustness. While the previous models have not been explicitly trained on an entity-level reasoning prediction task, we build a multi-task model that performs three tasks together: sentence-level supporting facts prediction, entity-level reasoning prediction, and answer prediction. Experimental results on 2WikiMultiHopQA and HotpotQA-small datasets reveal that (1) UR tasks can improve QA performance. Using four debiased datasets that are newly created, we demonstrate that (2) UR tasks are helpful in preventing reasoning shortcuts in the multi-hop QA task. However, we find that (3) UR tasks do not contribute to improving the robustness of the model on adversarial questions, such as sub-questions and inverted questions. We encourage future studies to investigate the effectiveness of entity-level reasoning in the form of natural language questions (e.g., sub-question forms).

Several multi-hop reading comprehension datasets have been proposed to resolve the issue of reasoning shortcuts by which questions can be answered without performing multi-hop reasoning. However, the ability of multi-hop models to perform step-by-step reasoning when finding an answer to a comparison question remains unclear. It is also unclear how questions about the internal reasoning process are useful for training and evaluating question-answering (QA) systems. To evaluate the model precisely in a hierarchical manner, we first propose a dataset, HieraDate, with three probing tasks in addition to the main question: extraction, reasoning, and robustness. Our dataset is created by enhancing two previous multi-hop datasets, HotpotQA and 2WikiMultiHopQA, focusing on multi-hop questions on date information that involve both comparison and numerical reasoning. We then evaluate the ability of existing models to understand date information. Our experimental results reveal that the multi-hop models do not have the ability to subtract two dates even when they perform well in date comparison and number subtraction tasks. Other results reveal that our probing questions can help to improve the performance of the models (e.g., by +10.3 F1) on the main QA task and our dataset can be used for data augmentation to improve the robustness of the models.

A multi-hop question answering (QA) dataset aims to test reasoning and inference skills by requiring a model to read multiple paragraphs to answer a given question. However, current datasets do not provide a complete explanation for the reasoning process from the question to the answer. Further, previous studies revealed that many examples in existing multi-hop datasets do not require multi-hop reasoning to answer a question. In this study, we present a new multi-hop QA dataset, called 2WikiMultiHopQA, which uses structured and unstructured data. In our dataset, we introduce the evidence information containing a reasoning path for multi-hop questions. The evidence information has two benefits: (i) providing a comprehensive explanation for predictions and (ii) evaluating the reasoning skills of a model. We carefully design a pipeline and a set of templates when generating a question-answer pair that guarantees the multi-hop steps and the quality of the questions. We also exploit the structured format in Wikidata and use logical rules to create questions that are natural but still require multi-hop reasoning. Through experiments, we demonstrate that our dataset is challenging for multi-hop models and it ensures that multi-hop reasoning is required.