Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality

A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.

Despite remarkable progress on reasoning benchmarks, current LLM evaluation practice remains anchored to final-answer correctness, providing limited insight into how models reason, how reliably they behave under contextual variation, or how efficiently they reach conclusions. This paper proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring LLM reasoning quality from a behavioral perspective, operationalizing six theoretically grounded dimensions rooted in cognitive science: Correctness (CQ), Consistency (CS), Robustness (RS), Local Logical Coherence (LS), Efficiency (ES), and Stability (SS). The framework introduces deployment-aware aggregation, enabling context-specific model selection beyond accuracy-based leaderboards. Experiments across multiple LLMs and benchmarks reveal behaviors systematically concealed by single-metric evaluation, including the orthogonality of local logical coherence and correctness, deployment-context-dependent ranking inversions, and non-trivial dimensional profiles in small locally-deployed models. Discriminant validity analysis confirms that the proposed dimensions capture largely non-redundant signals. The resulting pipeline provides a foundation for diagnosing LLM reasoning behavior across deployment contexts, with domain-specific validation as a direction for future work.

Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy? LLMs achieve high accuracy on reasoning benchmarks, but correctness alone does not reveal the quality of the reasoning used to produce it. This highlights a fundamental limitation of outcome-based evaluation: models may arrive at correct answers through flawed reasoning, and models with substantially different reasoning capabilities can nevertheless exhibit similar benchmark accuracy, for example due to memorization or over-optimization. In this paper, we ask: given existing benchmarks, can we move beyond outcome-based evaluation to assess the quality of reasoning itself? We seek metrics that (1) differentiate models with similar accuracy and (2) are robust to variations in input prompts and generation configurations. To this end, we propose a reasoning score that evaluates reasoning traces along dimensions such as faithfulness, coherence, utility, and factuality. A remaining question is how to aggregate this score across multiple sampled traces. Naively averaging them is undesirable, particularly in long-horizon settings, where the number of possible trajectories grows rapidly, and low-confidence correct traces are more likely to be coincidental. To address this, we introduce the Filtered Reasoning Score (FRS), which computes reasoning quality using only the top-K% most confident traces. Evaluating with FRS, models that are indistinguishable under standard accuracy exhibit significant differences in reasoning quality. Moreover, models with higher FRS on one benchmark tend to perform better on other reasoning benchmarks, in both accuracy and reasoning quality. Together, these findings suggest that FRS complements accuracy by capturing a model's transferable reasoning capabilities. We open source our evaluation codebase: https://github.com/HumainLab/filtered_reasoning_score_evaluation.