Exploring the Meta-level Reasoning of Large Language Models via a Tool-based Multi-hop Tabular Question Answering Task

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07696v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 16:29:21 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Meta-level Reasoning of Large Language Models via a Tool-based Multi-hop Tabular Question Answering Task
• Authors: Nick Ferguson, Alan Bundy, Kwabena Nuamah,
• Abstract summary: We take a more structured approach, distinguishing meta-level reasoning from object-level reasoning.<n>We design a novel question answering task based around the values of geopolitical indicators for various countries over various years.<n>We find that LLMs demonstrate good meta-level reasoning on our task, yet are flawed in some aspects of task understanding.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly focused on "reasoning" ability, a concept with many overlapping definitions in the LLM discourse. We take a more structured approach, distinguishing meta-level reasoning (denoting the process of reasoning about intermediate steps required to solve a task) from object-level reasoning (which concerns the low-level execution of the aforementioned steps.) We design a novel question answering task, which is based around the values of geopolitical indicators for various countries over various years. Questions require breaking down into intermediate steps, retrieval of data, and mathematical operations over that data. The meta-level reasoning ability of LLMs is analysed by examining the selection of appropriate tools for answering questions. To bring greater depth to the analysis of LLMs beyond final answer accuracy, our task contains 'essential actions' against which we can compare the tool call output of LLMs to infer the strength of reasoning ability. We find that LLMs demonstrate good meta-level reasoning on our task, yet are flawed in some aspects of task understanding. We find that n-shot prompting has little effect on accuracy; error messages encountered do not often deteriorate performance; and provide additional evidence for the poor numeracy of LLMs. Finally, we discuss the generalisation and limitation of our findings to other task domains.

Related papers

• Do Reasoning Models Ask Better Questions? A Formal Information-Theoretic Analysis on Multi-Turn LLM Games [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks but struggle with a critical ability for resolving ambiguity in user requests.<n>We propose a multi-turn dialogue framework that quantitatively measures how effectively LLMs gather information through yes/no questions.<n>Our experiments demonstrate that, among the evaluated models, the ones with explicit reasoning capabilities achieve higher IG per turn and reach solutions in fewer steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-25T06:38:15Z)
• DAGR: Decomposition Augmented Graph Retrieval with LLMs [1.034893617526558]
  DAGR is a retrieval method that leverages both complex questions and their decomposition in subquestions to extract relevant, linked subgraphs.<n>The resulting Graph-RAG pipeline is suited to handle complex multi-hop questions and effectively reason over graph-structured data.<n>We evaluate DAGR on standard multi-hop QA benchmarks and show that it achieves comparable or superior performance to competitive existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T11:44:28Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• Disambiguation in Conversational Question Answering in the Era of LLMs and Agents: A Survey [54.90240495777929]
  Ambiguity remains a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), addressing ambiguity has become even more critical due to their expanded capabilities and applications.<n>This paper explores the definition, forms, and implications of ambiguity for language driven systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T20:53:41Z)
• Evaluating the Meta- and Object-Level Reasoning of Large Language Models for Question Answering [1.9285000127136378]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in natural language tasks but face challenges in Question Answering (QA) tasks requiring complex, multi-step reasoning.<n>We outline the types of reasoning required in some of these tasks, and reframe them in terms of meta-level reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T17:55:43Z)
• Investigating the Shortcomings of LLMs in Step-by-Step Legal Reasoning [34.427730009102966]
  We develop an automated evaluation framework to identify reasoning errors and evaluate the performance of LLMs.<n>Our work will also serve as an evaluation framework that can be used in detailed error analysis of reasoning chains for logic-intensive complex tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T19:49:32Z)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• When does In-context Learning Fall Short and Why? A Study on Specification-Heavy Tasks [54.71034943526973]
  In-context learning (ICL) has become the default method for using large language models (LLMs) We find that ICL falls short of handling specification-heavy tasks, which are tasks with complicated and extensive task specifications. We identify three primary reasons: inability to specifically understand context, misalignment in task schema comprehension with humans, and inadequate long-text understanding ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:26:30Z)
• Improving Large Language Models in Event Relation Logical Prediction [33.88499005859982]
  Event relation extraction is a challenging task that demands thorough semantic understanding and rigorous logical reasoning. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth investigation to systematically explore the capability of LLMs in understanding and applying event relation logic. Our study reveals that LLMs are not logically consistent reasoners, which results in their suboptimal performance on tasks that need rigorous reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T14:53:06Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.