Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support question answering and decision-making in high-stakes, domain-specific settings such as natural hazard response and infrastructure planning, where effective answers must convey fine-grained, decision-critical details. However, existing evaluation frameworks for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and open-ended question answering primarily rely on surface-level similarity, factual consistency, or semantic relevance, and often fail to assess whether responses provide the specific information required for domain-sensitive decisions. To address this gap, we propose a multi-dimensional, reference-free evaluation framework that assesses LLM outputs along four complementary dimensions: specificity, context utilization, robustness to paraphrasing and semantic perturbations, and answer relevance. We introduce ClimateRiskQA, a curated dataset of 1,412 domain-specific question–answer pairs spanning 40 professional roles and seven natural hazard types, and further evaluate on PubMedQA to examine cross-domain generalization. We also conduct human evaluation to assess inter-annotator agreement and alignment between model outputs and human judgments, which highlights the inherent subjectivity of open-ended, domain-specific evaluation. Our results show that no single metric sufficiently captures answer quality in isolation and demonstrate the need for structured, multi-metric evaluation frameworks when deploying LLMs in high-stakes applications.

This work discusses how to build more rational language and multimodal agents and what criteria define rationality in intelligent systems.Rationality is the quality of being guided by reason, characterized by decision-making that aligns with evidence and logical principles. It plays a crucial role in reliable problem-solving by ensuring well-grounded and consistent solutions. Despite their progress, large language models (LLMs) often fall short of rationality due to their bounded knowledge space and inconsistent outputs. In response, recent efforts have shifted toward developing multimodal and multi-agent systems, as well as integrating modules like external tools, programming codes, symbolic reasoners, utility function, and conformal risk controls rather than relying solely on a single LLM for decision-making. This paper surveys state-of-the-art advancements in language and multimodal agents, assesses their role in enhancing rationality, and outlines open challenges and future research directions. We maintain an open repository at https://github.com/bowen-upenn/Agent_Rationality.

This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities or primarily depend on token bias. We go beyond evaluating LLMs on accuracy; rather, we aim to investigate their token bias in solving logical reasoning tasks. Specifically, we develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems. Our framework outlines a list of hypotheses where token biases are readily identifiable, with all null hypotheses assuming genuine reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The findings in this study suggest, with statistical guarantee, that most LLMs still struggle with logical reasoning. While they may perform well on classic problems, their success largely depends on recognizing superficial patterns with strong token bias, thereby raising concerns about their actual reasoning and generalization abilities.