Question Difficulty Estimation for Large Language Models via Answer Plausibility Scoring

Estimating question difficulty is a critical component in evaluating and improving large language models (LLMs) for question answering (QA). Existing approaches often rely on readability formulas, retrieval-based signals, or popularity statistics, which may not fully capture the reasoning challenges posed to modern LLMs. In this paper, we introduce Q-DAPS (Question Difficulty based on Answer Plausibility Scores) method, a novel approach that estimates question difficulty by computing the entropy of plausibility scores over candidate answers. We systematically evaluate Q-DAPS across four prominent QA datasets-TriviaQA, NQ, MuSiQue, and QASC-demonstrating that it consistently outperforms baselines. Moreover, Q-DAPS shows strong robustness across hyperparameter variations and question types. Extensive ablation studies further show that Q-DAPS remains robust across different plausibility estimation paradigms, model sizes, and realistic settings. Human evaluations further confirm strong alignment between Q-DAPS's difficulty estimates and human judgments of question difficulty. Overall, Q-DAPS provides an interpretable, scalable, and bias-resilient approach to question difficulty estimation in modern QA systems.

Pretraining Exposure Explains Popularity Judgments in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic preferences for well-known entities, a phenomenon often attributed to popularity bias. However, the extent to which these preferences reflect real-world popularity versus statistical exposure during pretraining remains unclear, largely due to the inaccessibility of most training corpora. We provide the first direct, large-scale analysis of popularity bias grounded in fully observable pretraining data. Leveraging the open OLMo models and their complete pretraining corpus, Dolma, we compute precise entity-level exposure statistics across 7.4 trillion tokens. We analyze 2,000 entities spanning five types (Person, Location, Organization, Art, Product) and compare pretraining exposure against Wikipedia pageviews and two elicited LLM popularity signals: direct scalar estimation and pairwise comparison. Our results show that pretraining exposure strongly correlates with Wikipedia popularity, validating exposure as a meaningful proxy for real-world salience during the training period. More importantly, we find that LLM popularity judgments align more closely with exposure than with Wikipedia, especially when elicited via pairwise comparisons. This alignment is strongest for larger models and persists in the long tail, where Wikipedia popularity becomes unreliable. Overall, our findings demonstrate that popularity priors in LLMs are primarily shaped by pretraining statistics rather than external popularity signals, offering concrete evidence that data exposure plays a central role in driving popularity bias.

Context Convergence Improves Answering Inferential Questions

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in open-domain Question Answering (QA), their ability to handle inferential questions-where answers must be derived rather than directly retrieved-remains still underexplored. This study investigates how the structure and quality of passages influence LLM performance on such questions. We focus on convergence, a measure of how effectively sentences (hints) eliminate incorrect answers, as a criterion for constructing passages. Using subsets of the TriviaHG dataset, we form passages by combining sentences with varying convergence levels and evaluate six LLMs of different sizes and architectures. Our results show that passages built from higher convergence sentences lead to substantially better answer accuracy than those selected by cosine similarity, indicating that convergence captures meaningful relevance for inferential reasoning. Additionally, ordering sentences by descending convergence slightly improves performance, suggesting that LLMs tend to prioritize earlier, information-rich cues. These findings highlight convergence as a practical signal for guiding passage construction and analyzing inferential reasoning behavior in LLMs.

BracketRank: Large Language Model Document Ranking via Reasoning-based Competitive Elimination

Reasoning-intensive retrieval requires deep semantic inference beyond surface-level keyword matching, posing a challenge for current LLM-based rerankers limited by context constraints and order sensitivity. We propose \textbf{\BracketRank}, a framework that treats document reranking as a reasoning-driven competitive tournament. Our approach introduces three key innovations: (1) adaptive grouping based on model context limits, (2) reasoning-enhanced prompts that mandate step-by-step relevance explanations, and (3) a bracket-style elimination structure with winner and loser tracks. This design ensures robust document advancement while enabling parallel processing across competition stages. Evaluation on the BRIGHT reasoning benchmark shows that \BracketRank achieves \textbf{26.56 nDCG@10}, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art baselines including RankGPT-4 (17.0) and Rank-R1-14B (20.5). On TREC datasets, BracketRank achieves 77.90 nDCG@5 on DL 19 and 75.85 nDCG@5 on DL 20, exceeding all baselines, establishing that explicit reasoning within competitive elimination is a powerful paradigm for complex, multi-step retrieval tasks. https://github.com/DataScienceUIBK/BracketRank

Are LLM-Based Retrievers Worth Their Cost? An Empirical Study of Efficiency, Robustness, and Reasoning Overhead

Large language model retrievers improve performance on complex queries, but their practical value depends on efficiency, robustness, and reliable confidence signals in addition to accuracy. We reproduce a reasoning-intensive retrieval benchmark (BRIGHT) across 12 tasks and 14 retrievers, and extend evaluation with cold-start indexing cost, query latency distributions and throughput, corpus scaling, robustness to controlled query perturbations, and confidence use (AUROC) for predicting query success. We also quantify \emph{reasoning overhead} by comparing standard queries to five provided reasoning-augmented variants, measuring accuracy gains relative to added latency. We find that some reasoning-specialized retrievers achieve strong effectiveness while remaining competitive in throughput, whereas several large LLM-based bi-encoders incur substantial latency for modest gains. Reasoning augmentation incurs minimal latency for sub-1B encoders but exhibits diminishing returns for top retrievers and may reduce performance on formal math/code domains. Confidence calibration is consistently weak across model families, indicating that raw retrieval scores are unreliable for downstream routing without additional calibration. We release all code and artifacts for reproducibility.

Event-Centric Human Value Understanding in News-Domain Texts: An Actor-Conditioned, Multi-Granularity Benchmark

Existing human value datasets do not directly support value understanding in factual news: many are actor-agnostic, rely on isolated utterances or synthetic scenarios, and lack explicit event structure or value direction. We present \textbf{NEVU} (\textbf{N}ews \textbf{E}vent-centric \textbf{V}alue \textbf{U}nderstanding), a benchmark for \emph{actor-conditioned}, \emph{event-centric}, and \emph{direction-aware} human value recognition in factual news. NEVU evaluates whether models can identify value cues, attribute them to the correct actor, and determine value direction from grounded evidence. Built from 2{,}865 English news articles, NEVU organizes annotations at four semantic unit levels (\textbf{Subevent}, \textbf{behavior-based composite event}, \textbf{story-based composite event}, and \textbf{Article}) and labels \mbox{(unit, actor)} pairs for fine-grained evaluation across local and composite contexts. The annotations are produced through an LLM-assisted pipeline with staged verification and targeted human auditing. Using a hierarchical value space with \textbf{54} fine-grained values and \textbf{20} coarse-grained categories, NEVU covers 45{,}793 unit--actor pairs and 168{,}061 directed value instances. We provide unified baselines for proprietary and open-source LLMs, and find that lightweight adaptation (LoRA) consistently improves open-source models, showing that although NEVU is designed primarily as a benchmark, it also supports supervised adaptation beyond prompting-only evaluation. Data availability is described in Appendix~\ref{app:data_code_availability}.

How often do Answers Change? Estimating Recency Requirements in Question Answering

Large language models (LLMs) often rely on outdated knowledge when answering time-sensitive questions, leading to confident yet incorrect responses. Without explicit signals indicating whether up-to-date information is required, models struggle to decide when to retrieve external evidence, how to reason about stale facts, and how to rank answers by their validity. Existing benchmarks either periodically refresh answers or rely on fixed templates, but they do not reflect on how frequently answers change or whether a question inherently requires up-to-date information. To address this gap, we introduce a recency-stationarity taxonomy that categorizes questions by how often their answers change and whether this change frequency is time-invariant or context-dependent. Building on this taxonomy, we present RecencyQA, a dataset of 4,031 open-domain questions annotated with recency and stationarity labels. Through human evaluation and empirical analysis, we show that non-stationary questions, i.e., those where context changes the recency requirement, are significantly more challenging for LLMs, with difficulty increasing as update frequency rises. By explicitly modeling recency and context dependence, RecencyQA enables fine-grained benchmarking and analysis of temporal reasoning beyond binary notions of freshness, and provides a foundation for developing recency-aware and context-sensitive question answering systems.

PARSE: An Open-Domain Reasoning Question Answering Benchmark for Persian

Reasoning-focused Question Answering (QA) has advanced rapidly with Large Language Models (LLMs), yet high-quality benchmarks for low-resource languages remain scarce. Persian, spoken by roughly 130 million people, lacks a comprehensive open-domain resource for evaluating reasoning-capable QA systems. We introduce PARSE, the first open-domain Persian reasoning QA benchmark, containing 10,800 questions across Boolean, multiple-choice, and factoid formats, with diverse reasoning types, difficulty levels, and answer structures. The benchmark is built via a controlled LLM-based generation pipeline and validated through human evaluation. We also ensure linguistic and factual quality through multi-stage filtering, annotation, and consistency checks. We benchmark multilingual and Persian LLMs under multiple prompting strategies and show that Persian prompts and structured prompting (CoT for Boolean/multiple-choice; few-shot for factoid) improve performance. Fine-tuning further boosts results, especially for Persian-specialized models. These findings highlight how PARSE supports both fair comparison and practical model adaptation. PARSE fills a critical gap in Persian QA research and provides a strong foundation for developing and evaluating reasoning-capable LLMs in low-resource settings.

Inferential Question Answering

Despite extensive research on a wide range of question answering (QA) systems, most existing work focuses on answer containment-i.e., assuming that answers can be directly extracted and/or generated from documents in the corpus. However, some questions require inference, i.e., deriving answers that are not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the available information. We introduce Inferential QA -- a new task that challenges models to infer answers from answer-supporting passages which provide only clues. To study this problem, we construct QUIT (QUestions requiring Inference from Texts) dataset, comprising 7,401 questions and 2.4M passages built from high-convergence human- and machine-authored hints, labeled across three relevance levels using LLM-based answerability and human verification. Through comprehensive evaluation of retrievers, rerankers, and LLM-based readers, we show that methods effective on traditional QA tasks struggle in inferential QA: retrievers underperform, rerankers offer limited gains, and fine-tuning provides inconsistent improvements. Even reasoning-oriented LLMs fail to outperform smaller general-purpose models. These findings reveal that current QA pipelines are not yet ready for inference-based reasoning. Inferential QA thus establishes a new class of QA tasks that move towards understanding and reasoning from indirect textual evidence.

MM-BRIGHT: A Multi-Task Multimodal Benchmark for Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval

Existing retrieval benchmarks primarily consist of text-based queries where keyword or semantic matching is usually sufficient. Many real-world queries contain multimodal elements, particularly, images such as diagrams, charts, and screenshots that require intensive reasoning to identify relevant documents. To address this gap, we introduce MM-BRIGHT, the first multimodal benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval. Our dataset consists of 2,803 real-world queries spanning 29 diverse technical domains, with four tasks of increasing complexity: text-to-text, multimodal-to-text, multimodal-to-image, and multimodal-to-multimodal retrieval. Extensive evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art models struggle across all tasks: BM25 achieves only 8.5 nDCG@10 on text-only retrieval, while the best multimodal model Nomic-Vision reaches just 27.6 nDCG@10 on multimodal-to-text retrieval actually underperforming the best text-only model (DiVeR: 32.2). These results highlight substantial headroom and position MM-BRIGHT as a testbed for next-generation retrieval models that better integrate visual reasoning. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/mm-bright/MM-BRIGHT. See also our official website: https://mm-bright.github.io/.