Paul He

Paul He, Shiva Kasiviswanathan, Dominik Janzing

Evaluating multi-turn dialogue is challenging because quality emerges across turns rather than within individual responses. We focus on a key dimension of information-seeking dialogue: semantic progress, defined as the accumulation of new, question-relevant, and non-redundant information over the course of a conversation. We formalize semantic progress as question-conditioned uncertainty reduction and introduce an information-theoretic metric that approximates it in embedding space. Our main estimator uses a tractable Gaussian formulation with closed-form updates, while a complementary maximum-entropy argument shows why log-determinant structure arises more broadly when only second-order embedding information is retained. This formulation yields desirable theoretical properties, including monotonicity, additive decomposition of total information gain across turns, and diminishing returns for redundant evidence. Unlike LLM-as-a-judge approaches, our metric requires no autoregressive inference at evaluation time and is fully reproducible for a fixed embedding model. Experiments on MT-Bench, Chatbot Arena, and UltraFeedback show that the proposed metric achieves competitive agreement with human judgments despite targeting only semantic progress, with improved alignment on MT-Bench and UltraFeedback compared to several LLM-based judges. Notably, the method remains effective with lightweight embedding models under CPU-only execution, indicating that semantic progress can be captured without reliance on large model capacity.

Paul He, Yinya Huang, Mrinmaya Sachan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being applied to tasks that involve causal reasoning. However, current benchmarks often rely on string matching or surface-level metrics that do not capture whether the output of a model is formally valid under the semantics of causal reasoning. To address this, we propose DoVerifier, a simple symbolic verifier that checks whether LLM-generated causal expressions are derivable from a given causal graph using rules from do-calculus and probability theory. This allows us to recover correct answers to causal queries that would otherwise be marked incorrect due to superficial differences in their causal semantics. Our evaluations on synthetic data and causal QA benchmarks show that DoVerifier more accurately captures semantic correctness of causal reasoning traces, offering a more rigorous and informative way to evaluate LLMs on causal reasoning.

Paul He, Elke Kirschbaum, Shiva Kasiviswanathan

Ensuring that collections of natural-language facts are globally consistent is essential for tasks such as fact-checking, summarization, and knowledge base construction. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can assess the consistency of small subsets of facts, their judgments are noisy, and pairwise checks are insufficient to guarantee global coherence. We formalize this problem and show that verifying global consistency requires exponentially many oracle queries in the worst case. To make the task practical, we propose an adaptive divide-and-conquer algorithm that identifies minimal inconsistent subsets (MUSes) of facts and optionally computes minimal repairs through hitting-sets. Our approach has low-degree polynomial query complexity. Experiments with both synthetic and real LLM oracles show that our method efficiently detects and localizes inconsistencies, offering a scalable framework for linguistic consistency verification with LLM-based evaluators.