Machine learning models are predominantly evaluated through predictive performance metrics such as ranking quality, prediction error, or classification accuracy. While these metrics effectively quantify how closely predictions match the ground truth, they do not assess whether model outputs respect predefined logical or domain-specific constraints. In high-stakes applications, including healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems, logical consistency can be as critical as predictive accuracy, yet no standard metric captures this dimension. We introduce the Rule Violation Score (RVS), a complementary evaluation metric that quantifies the extent to which a predictive model respects a given set of logical rules, independently of predictive accuracy. RVS treats hard rules (strict constraints) and soft rules (statistical regularities) differently, can be evaluated on any dataset and on any predictive model expressed over a relational vocabulary, and can be computed using SQL queries that are automatically generated for Horn rules. Beyond evaluating models, RVS can also evaluate the logical consistency of training datasets and help identify poorly defined rules. We evaluate RVS on three benchmarks covering knowledge graph link prediction and relational regression, including rule-based, embedding-based, and neuro-symbolic predictive models. Our results demonstrate that two models achieving comparable predictive accuracy can exhibit substantially different levels of logical compliance, revealing differences in model behavior that standard metrics fail to capture.
Dominant accuracy evaluation might reward unwarranted guessing of Large Language Models, and it might not be applicable to novel tasks for model validation without ground-truth (gt) annotation. Based on basic logic principle, we propose a novel framework to evaluate the vision-language logical consistency of MLLMs on both sufficient and necessary cause-effect relations. We define Vision-Language Logical Consistency Metric (VL-LCM) on traditional MC-VQA tests, and recent NaturalBench tests without the need for gt annotation. Through systematic experiments on representative VL benchmark MMMU and recent VL challenges like NaturalBench, we evaluated 11 recent open-source MLLMs from 4 frontier families. Our findings reveal that, despite significant progress of recent MLLMs on accuracy, logical consistency lags behind significantly. Extensive evaluations on the correlations of VL-LCM with metrics on gt, the reliability of LCM, and the relation of VL-LCM with response distribution justify the validity and applicability of VL-LCM even without gt annotation. Our findings suggest that, beyond accuracy, logical consistency could be employed for both accuracy and reliability. VL-LCM can also be employed for MLLM selection, validation, and reliable answer justification in novel tasks without gt annotation.
Evidence-based medicine demands strict logical consistency, yet current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) prioritize superficial label matching over genuine reasoning. We introduce LogiMed-RoB, a benchmark grounded in Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 expert logic, comprising 860 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14,820 queries. It evaluates models under the Hierarchical Logical Consistency (HLC) framework across four dimensions: Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness. Experiments on 10 state-of-the-art LLMs reveal a catastrophic Error Compounding Effect: despite the top model reaching 98.88% Atomic Consistency, its end-to-end consistency collapses to 45.13%, with several open-weight architectures plummeting to nearly 0%. We further uncover a systematic evidence-reasoning gap: even when models retrieve high-quality evidence, they fail to deduce correct outcomes in 18.63-40.05% of cases, while Blind Guess Rates reach 48.28%. LogiMed-RoB demonstrates that high outcome accuracy can conceal critical reasoning flaws, underscoring the necessity of white-box logical verification for clinical deployment.
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/Manas2006/benchmark_reproducibility.