While large language models (LLMs) have made strides in understanding tabular data, current tabular evaluation benchmarks, such as WikiTableQuestions and WikiSQL, are focus on single-table scenarios, which cannot necessarily reflect the complexity of real-world applications. To bridge this gap, we present a \textbf{M}ulti-table and Multi-hop Question Answering (MMQA) dataset to assess LLMs' understanding and reasoning capabilities in handling multi-table tasks. The MMQA dataset demands that models perform multiple inferences by drawing evidence from various tables, which are designed to be connected with each other and require models to identify and utilize relationships such as foreign and primary keys. Then, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework that tailors to assess LLMs' capabilities in several aspects including Multi-Table Retrieval, Text-to-SQL Generation, Multi-Table QA, Primary Key Selection, and Foreign Key Selection. Finally, we propose a novel multi-table retrieval method that achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on the MMQA dataset compared to several strong baselines. Our experiment results reveal that, compared with human performance, both open-source and commercial LLMs leave significant performance room for improvements in multi-table understanding and reasoning tasks. We believe that the MMQA benchmark will enhance and facilitate LLMs' multi-table capabilities in real-world scenarios.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in question-answering (QA) tasks, their real reasoning abilities on multiple evidence retrieval and integration on Multi-hop QA tasks remain less explored. Firstly, LLMs sometimes generate answers that rely on internal memory rather than retrieving evidence and reasoning in the given context, which brings concerns about the evaluation quality of real reasoning abilities. Although previous counterfactual QA benchmarks can separate the internal memory of LLMs, they focus solely on final QA performance, which is insufficient for reporting LLMs' real reasoning abilities. Because LLMs are expected to engage in intricate reasoning processes that involve evidence retrieval and answering a series of sub-questions from given passages. Moreover, current factual Multi-hop QA (MHQA) benchmarks are annotated on open-source corpora such as Wikipedia, although useful for multi-step reasoning evaluation, they show limitations due to the potential data contamination in LLMs' pre-training stage. To address these issues, we introduce the Step-wise and Counterfactual benchmark (CofCA), a novel evaluation benchmark consisting of factual data and counterfactual data that reveals LLMs' real reasoning abilities on multi-step reasoning and reasoning chain evaluation. Our experimental results reveal a significant performance gap of several LLMs between Wikipedia-based factual data and counterfactual data, deeming data contamination issues in existing benchmarks. Moreover, we observe that LLMs usually bypass the correct reasoning chain, showing an inflated multi-step reasoning performance. We believe that our CofCA benchmark will enhance and facilitate the evaluations of trustworthy LLMs.