LogicScore: Fine-grained Logic Evaluation of Conciseness, Completeness, and Determinateness in Attributed Question Answering

Current evaluation methods for Attributed Question Answering (AQA) suffer from \textit{attribution myopia}: they emphasize verification of isolated statements and their attributions but overlook the global logical integrity of long-form answers. Consequently, Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce factually grounded yet logically incoherent responses with elusive deductive gaps. To mitigate this limitation, we present \textsc{LogicScore}, a unified evaluation framework that shifts the paradigm from local assessment to global reasoning scrutiny. Grounded in Horn Rules, our approach integrates a backward verification mechanism to systematically evaluate three key reasoning dimensions: \textit{Completeness} (logically sound deduction), \textit{Conciseness} (non-redundancy), and \textit{Determinateness} (consistent answer entailment). Extensive experiments across three multi-hop QA datasets (HotpotQA, MusiQue, and 2WikiMultiHopQA) and over 20 LLMs (including GPT-5, Gemini-3-Pro, LLaMA3, and task-specific tuned models) reveal a critical capability gap: leading models often achieve high attribution scores (e.g., 92.85\% precision for Gemini-3 Pro) but struggle with global reasoning quality (e.g., 35.11\% Conciseness for Gemini-3 Pro). Our work establishes a robust standard for logical evaluation, highlighting the need to prioritize reasoning coherence alongside factual grounding in LLM development. Codes are available at: https://github.com/zhichaoyan11/LogicScore.

\textsc{LogicScore}: Fine-grained Logic Evaluation of Conciseness, Completeness, and Determinateness in Attributed Question Answering

Current evaluation methods for Attributed Question Answering (AQA) suffer from \textit{attribution myopia}: they emphasize verification of isolated statements and their attributions but overlook the global logical integrity of long-form answers. Consequently, Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce factually grounded yet logically incoherent responses with elusive deductive gaps. To mitigate this limitation, we present \textsc{LogicScore}, a unified evaluation framework that shifts the paradigm from local assessment to global reasoning scrutiny. Grounded in Horn Rules, our approach integrates a backward verification mechanism to systematically evaluate three key reasoning dimensions: \textit{Completeness} (logically sound deduction), \textit{Conciseness} (non-redundancy), and \textit{Determinateness} (consistent answer entailment). Extensive experiments across three multi-hop QA datasets (HotpotQA, MusiQue, and 2WikiMultiHopQA) and over 20 LLMs (including GPT-5, Gemini-3-Pro, LLaMA3, and task-specific tuned models) reveal a critical capability gap: leading models often achieve high attribution scores (e.g., 92.85\% precision for Gemini-3 Pro) but struggle with global reasoning quality (e.g., 35.11\% Conciseness for Gemini-3 Pro). Our work establishes a robust standard for logical evaluation, highlighting the need to prioritize reasoning coherence alongside factual grounding in LLM development. Codes are available at: https://github.com/zhichaoyan11/LogicScore.

Explaining Black-box Language Models with Knowledge Probing Systems: A Post-hoc Explanation Perspective

Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) are trained on large amounts of unlabeled data, yet they exhibit remarkable reasoning skills. However, the trustworthiness challenges posed by these black-box models have become increasingly evident in recent years. To alleviate this problem, this paper proposes a novel Knowledge-guided Probing approach called KnowProb in a post-hoc explanation way, which aims to probe whether black-box PLMs understand implicit knowledge beyond the given text, rather than focusing only on the surface level content of the text. We provide six potential explanations derived from the underlying content of the given text, including three knowledge-based understanding and three association-based reasoning. In experiments, we validate that current small-scale (or large-scale) PLMs only learn a single distribution of representation, and still face significant challenges in capturing the hidden knowledge behind a given text. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our proposed approach is effective for identifying the limitations of existing black-box models from multiple probing perspectives, which facilitates researchers to promote the study of detecting black-box models in an explainable way.

The Power of Adaptivity in Experimental Design

Given n experiment subjects with potentially heterogeneous covariates and two possible treatments, namely active treatment and control, this paper addresses the fundamental question of determining the optimal accuracy in estimating the treatment effect. Furthermore, we propose an experimental design that approaches this optimal accuracy, giving a (non-asymptotic) answer to this fundamental yet still open question. The methodological contribution is listed as following. First, we establish an idealized optimal estimator with minimal variance as benchmark, and then demonstrate that adaptive experiment is necessary to achieve near-optimal estimation accuracy. Secondly, by incorporating the concept of doubly robust method into sequential experimental design, we frame the optimal estimation problem as an online bandit learning problem, bridging the two fields of statistical estimation and bandit learning. Using tools and ideas from both bandit algorithm design and adaptive statistical estimation, we propose a general low switching adaptive experiment framework, which could be a generic research paradigm for a wide range of adaptive experimental design. Through information-theoretic lower bound combined with Bayes risk analysis, we demonstrate the optimality of our proposed experiment. Numerical result indicates that the estimation accuracy approaches optimal with as few as two or three policy updates.