Jeongsoo Lee

Hyeonje Choi, Jeongsoo Lee, Hyojun Lee et al.

We introduce \ToolMATH, a math-grounded benchmark that evaluates tool-augmented language models in realistic multi-tool environments where the output depends on calling schema-specified tools and sustaining multi-step execution. It turns math problems into a controlled, correctness-checkable benchmark with tool sets, enabling systematic evaluation of model reliability under (1) large, overlapping tool catalogs and (2) the absence of the intended capability. \ToolMATH provides actionable diagnostic evidence of failure modes in tool-augmented agents, helping identify the control mechanisms required for robustness. \ToolMATH roughly contains 8k questions and 12k tools; we provide an additional hard-set \ToolMATHHard with questions and tools. Our evaluation reveals that the key failure factor is due to the inability to reason, leading to the accumulation of intermediate results' errors and constrain later decisions. Tool-list redundancy do not simply add noise, but amplify small early deviations into irreversible execution drift. The benchmark highlights that when the intended capability is missing, distractor tools can sometimes serve as partial substitutes in solution paths, yet they can also mislead models into ungrounded tool trajectories. Finally, comparisons between tool-use protocols emphasize that improvements come less from local action selection and more from long-range plan coherence and disciplined use of observations.

Jeongsoo Lee, Daeyong Kwon, Kyohoon Jin et al.

Existing RAG benchmarks often overlook query difficulty, leading to inflated performance on simpler questions and unreliable evaluations. A robust benchmark dataset must satisfy three key criteria: quality, diversity, and difficulty, which capturing the complexity of reasoning based on hops and the distribution of supporting evidence. In this paper, we propose MHTS (Multi-Hop Tree Structure), a novel dataset synthesis framework that systematically controls multi-hop reasoning complexity by leveraging a multi-hop tree structure to generate logically connected, multi-chunk queries. Our fine-grained difficulty estimation formula exhibits a strong correlation with the overall performance metrics of a RAG system, validating its effectiveness in assessing both retrieval and answer generation capabilities. By ensuring high-quality, diverse, and difficulty-controlled queries, our approach enhances RAG evaluation and benchmarking capabilities.

Jeongsoo Lee, Daeyong Kwon, Kyohoon Jin

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely adopted in knowledge-intensive NLP tasks, but current evaluations often overlook the structural complexity and multi-step reasoning required in real-world scenarios. These benchmarks overlook key factors such as the interaction between retrieval difficulty and reasoning depth. To address this gap, we propose \textsc{GRADE}, a novel evaluation framework that models task difficulty along two orthogonal dimensions: (1) reasoning depth, defined by the number of inference steps (hops), and (2) semantic distance between the query and its supporting evidence. We construct a synthetic multi-hop QA dataset from factual news articles by extracting knowledge graphs and augmenting them through semantic clustering to recover missing links, allowing us to generate diverse and difficulty-controlled queries. Central to our framework is a 2D difficulty matrix that combines generator-side and retriever-side difficulty. Experiments across multiple domains and models show that error rates strongly correlate with our difficulty measures, validating their diagnostic utility. \textsc{GRADE} enables fine-grained analysis of RAG performance and provides a scalable foundation for evaluating and improving multi-hop reasoning in real-world applications.