← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.11965 · v1
ChainCheck: Near-Perfect Evidence-Sufficiency Scores Can Conceal Sensitivity to Construction Artifacts -- Paired Conditional Contrasts that Expose an Evaluation Confound
首次提交 2026-11-09 14:41
版本更新 2026-11-09 14:41
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
摘要
Evidence-sufficiency benchmarks ask whether a model can tell a complete passage set from one whose reasoning chain is broken. When broken sets are made by editing text, near-perfect sufficiency scores--and even positive crossed-control scores--need not demonstrate multi-hop reasoning. We present ChainCheck, an evaluation-validity audit that pairs validator-certified counterfactual cells with artifact-only baselines. In an exploratory crossed control on 2,214 HotpotQA pairs, a language-model scorer that never reads the chain reaches a nominal AUC of 0.997, and a one-string match reaches the maximum of the crossed chain-sensitivity statistic CS4 (0.500), while the 11 evaluated systems score from 0.308 to 0.484; the two statistics are different metrics. We therefore read positive CS4 as operational bridge-consistency sensitivity, not as semantic multi-hop reasoning. Every system is also sensitive to one extra edit, and the edits are detectable according to model-based naturalness ratings. On an independent HotpotQA set of 2,276 pairs, patterns pre-specified on MuSiQue and 2WikiMultiHopQA did not replicate: 5 of 6 trained readouts were edit-dominated, and the reference judge's selectivity interval [-0.007, +0.042] includes zero. Judge scores also depended on batch layout. The MuSiQue and 2Wiki records are public; the HotpotQA records and the fine-tuned checkpoints are not, so external reproduction is partial.
作者备注：30 pages, 11 tables, 6 figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-09 14:41 · 最新观测版本
ChainCheck: Near-Perfect Evidence-Sufficiency Scores Can Conceal Sensitivity to Construction Artifacts -- Paired Conditional Contrasts that Expose an Evaluation Confound
Evidence-sufficiency benchmarks ask whether a model can tell a complete passage set from one whose reasoning chain is broken. When broken sets are made by editing text, near-perfect sufficiency scores--and even positive crossed-control scores--need not demonstrate multi-hop reasoning. We present ChainCheck, an evaluation-validity audit that pairs validator-certified counterfactual cells with artifact-only baselines. In an exploratory crossed control on 2,214 HotpotQA pairs, a language-model scorer that never reads the chain reaches a nominal AUC of 0.997, and a one-string match reaches the maximum of the crossed chain-sensitivity statistic CS4 (0.500), while the 11 evaluated systems score from 0.308 to 0.484; the two statistics are different metrics. We therefore read positive CS4 as operational bridge-consistency sensitivity, not as semantic multi-hop reasoning. Every system is also sensitive to one extra edit, and the edits are detectable according to model-based naturalness ratings. On an independent HotpotQA set of 2,276 pairs, patterns pre-specified on MuSiQue and 2WikiMultiHopQA did not replicate: 5 of 6 trained readouts were edit-dominated, and the reference judge's selectivity interval [-0.007, +0.042] includes zero. Judge scores also depended on batch layout. The MuSiQue and 2Wiki records are public; the HotpotQA records and the fine-tuned checkpoints are not, so external reproduction is partial.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗