We present SportReason, a benchmark for retrieval-augmented reasoning on numerical sports questions. Unlike existing benchmarks limited to one or two evidence units, SportReason requires combining and reasoning across free-text, structured tables, and semi-structured infoboxes. We provide 3,000 human-verified QA pairs by repurposing existing QA and table generation datasets, and by prompting large language models (LLMs). Each pair is grounded in multiple evidence from a multi-modal Wikipedia corpus containing 200K knowledge contexts. We evaluate existing retrievers and rerankers, along with agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. The experimental results show that multi-evidence retrieval remains a challenge. Agentic RAG systems (e.g., Search-o1), despite iterative retrieval and reasoning capabilities, fail to improve performance due to imprecise queries, simple training, and distracting information.

Multi-answer question answering (QA), where questions can have many valid answers, presents a significant challenge for existing retrieval-augmented generation-based QA systems, as these systems struggle to retrieve and then synthesize a large number of evidence passages. To tackle these challenges, we propose a new multi-answer QA framework – Retrieval-augmented Independent Reading with Inter-passage Verification (RI²VER). Our framework retrieves a large set of passages and processes each passage individually to generate an initial high-recall but noisy answer set. Then we propose a new inter-passage verification pipeline that validates every candidate answer through (1) Verification Question Generation, (2) Gathering Additional Evidence, and (3) Verification with inter-passage synthesis. Evaluations on the QAMPARI and RoMQA datasets demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing baselines across various model sizes, achieving an average F1 score improvement of 11.17%. Further analysis validates that our inter-passage verification pipeline enables our framework to be particularly beneficial for questions requiring multi-evidence synthesis.

Instructing large language models (LLMs) to solve elementary school math problems has shown great success using Chain of Thought (CoT). However, the CoT approach relies on an LLM to generate a sequence of arithmetic calculations which can be prone to cascaded calculation errors. We hypothesize that an LLM should focus on extracting predicates and generating symbolic formulas from the math problem description so that the underlying calculation can be done via an external code interpreter. We investigate using LLM to generate Prolog programs to solve mathematical questions. Experimental results show that our Prolog-based arithmetic problem-solving outperforms CoT generation in the GSM8K benchmark across three distinct LLMs. In addition, given the insensitive ordering of predicates and symbolic formulas in Prolog, we propose to permute the ground truth predicates for more robust LLM training via data augmentation.