CRiT-QA: Evaluating Multi-hop Reasoning with Counterfactual Chains and Distractor Traps

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10562v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 04:40:02 GMT
• Title: CRiT-QA: Evaluating Multi-hop Reasoning with Counterfactual Chains and Distractor Traps
• Abstract summary: We introduce CRiT-QA (Counterfactual Reasoning with Traps), a dataset explicitly designed to address both limitations.<n>To neutralize reliance on memorized knowledge and enforce strict context dependency, CRiT-QA transforms factual reasoning chains with counterfactual entities.<n>Our experiments show that LLMs exhibit substantial performance degradation on CRiT-QA compared to standard datasets.
• Score: 19.949184312340556
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of large language models remains a significant challenge. Although current models achieve strong results on existing multi-hop question answering datasets, such performance often masks two critical vulnerabilities: (1) reliance on internal parametric knowledge rather than adherence to the provided context, and (2) exploitation of dataset shortcuts, such as single-document cues or type-matching, that diminish the need for genuine evidence aggregation across multiple documents. We introduce CRiT-QA (Counterfactual Reasoning with Traps), a dataset explicitly designed to address both limitations. To neutralize reliance on memorized knowledge and enforce strict context dependency, CRiT-QA transforms factual reasoning chains with counterfactual entities. Furthermore, it injects multi-anchor distractor chains, plausible but incorrect reasoning paths that diverge at different hops. These traps require models to follow the entire reasoning process rather than exploiting shallow heuristics. Our experiments show that LLMs exhibit substantial performance degradation on CRiT-QA compared to standard datasets, exposing their vulnerability to counterfactual conditions and distractor traps. CRiT-QA thus serves as a rigorous diagnostic tool for evaluating genuine multi-hop reasoning and provides a foundation for developing more reliable, evidence-grounded LLMs.

Related papers

• RepoReasoner: Evaluating Repository-Level Code Reasoning Ability of Long-Context Language Models [54.53236295237077]
  We introduce RepoReasoner, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level code reasoning.<n> Output Prediction measures fine-grained, stateful execution reasoning across files.<n>Call Chain Prediction evaluates high-level architectural dependency understanding under noisy context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:12:41Z)
• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• CRAFT: Calibrated Reasoning with Answer-Faithful Traces via Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Hop Question Answering [19.391824811629125]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely used to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) for multi-hop question answering.<n> Reasoning in multi-hop QA is inherently complex due to multi-hop composition and is further destabilized by noisy retrieval.<n>We propose CRAFT, a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to perform faithful reasoning during response generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T17:33:39Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• BMGQ: A Bottom-up Method for Generating Complex Multi-hop Reasoning Questions from Semi-structured Data [8.52473384574856]
  We present an automated framework for generating high-difficulty, training-ready multi-hop questions from semi-structured knowledge sources.<n>The system grows diverse, logically labeled evidence clusters through Natural Language Inference (NLI)-based relation typing and diversity-aware expansion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T07:43:15Z)
• DTKG: Dual-Track Knowledge Graph-Verified Reasoning Framework for Multi-Hop QA [8.598540768292809]
  Multi-hop reasoning for question answering plays a critical role in retrieval-augmented generation.<n>We propose a novel dual-track KG verification and reasoning framework DTKG.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T02:19:11Z)
• Demystifying deep search: a holistic evaluation with hint-free multi-hop questions and factorised metrics [89.1999907891494]
  We present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox.<n>Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures.<n>We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:59:03Z)
• Truth in the Few: High-Value Data Selection for Efficient Multi-Modal Reasoning [71.3533541927459]
  We propose a novel data selection paradigm termed Activation Reasoning Potential (RAP)<n>RAP identifies cognitive samples by estimating each sample's potential to stimulate genuine multi-modal reasoning.<n>Our RAP method consistently achieves superior performance using only 9.3% of the training data, while reducing computational costs by over 43%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T08:40:24Z)
• Unveiling Reasoning Thresholds in Language Models: Scaling, Fine-Tuning, and Interpretability through Attention Maps [3.8936716676293917]
  This study investigates the in-context learning capabilities of various decoder-only transformer-based language models with different model sizes and training data.<n>We identify a critical parameter threshold (1.6 billion), beyond which reasoning performance improves significantly in tasks such as commonsense reasoning in multiple-choice question answering and deductive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T00:48:32Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• Counterfactual Variable Control for Robust and Interpretable Question Answering [57.25261576239862]
  Deep neural network based question answering (QA) models are neither robust nor explainable in many cases. In this paper, we inspect such spurious "capability" of QA models using causal inference. We propose a novel approach called Counterfactual Variable Control (CVC) that explicitly mitigates any shortcut correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T10:09:05Z)

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.