Beyond Accuracy: A Multidimensional Evaluation of Statistical Reasoning in Large Language Models

Despite rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), statistical reasoning remains underrepresented in existing LLM benchmarks, which often do not reflect the layered, proof-driven nature of real statistical practice. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{StatEval}, the first large-scale benchmark for statistical reasoning across curricular and research-level settings. StatEval includes over 100,000 curated problems, with 20,000+ foundational questions spanning undergraduate and graduate curricula and 80,000+ research-level proof tasks extracted from leading statistical journals. To construct StatEval, we develop \textbf{TRACE} (Topology and Reasoning-Aware Context Extractor), a multi-agent pipeline with human-in-the-loop validation that converts unstructured academic texts into self-contained theorem-level reasoning tasks. We also propose an Adaptive Process-Based Scoring Pipeline for complex statistical proofs, enabling fine-grained evaluation beyond final-answer matching. Experiments show that while LLMs perform reasonably on foundational tasks, they struggle with rigorous research-level reasoning. Beyond evaluation, StatEval serves as a resource for improving reasoning, as retrieval-augmented generation and domain-specific alignment consistently enhance performance. Together, these results establish StatEval as both a benchmark and an infrastructure for advancing statistical reasoning in LLMs.

Statistical analysis is a broad, complex field requiring both domain knowledge and tool proficiency. While prior work has evaluated large language models (LLMs) in this domain, existing benchmarks remain limited in scope and format. To bridge this gap, we introduce StatABench (Statistical AnalysisBenchmark), a benchmark designed to systematically assess LLMs' statistical analysis capabilities. StatABench comprises two complementary components: Stat-Closed, containing 404 questions across 18 statistical topics in multiple formats (multiple-choice, fill-in-the-blank, decision-making, and practical application), and Stat-Open, featuring 30 complex open-ended modeling tasks adapted from professional competitions. We evaluate diverse LLMs using the LangChain MCP framework and multiple data science agents, and assess Stat-Open solutions via a validated LLM-as-Judge protocol. Experiments show that even GPT-5.1 achieves only 68.6% on Stat-Closed, while the best open-source model reaches 60.6%. On Stat-Open, the top agent framework scores 61.86 on average. These results reveal the gap between current LLMs and reliable statistical analysis, highlighting persistent challenges in tool-grounded reasoning, methodological decision-making, and end-to-end statistical modeling.

Reasoning representations are increasingly used as explanations for large language model outputs. Yet they are typically evaluated with model-centric criteria, such as answer accuracy and faithfulness, leaving it unclear whether they help people evaluate model responses. In this work, we study reasoning representations as human-facing interfaces rather than proxies for model reasoning ability. We conduct a controlled human study of six reasoning formats across tasks of varying complexity, supported by a web-based framework that randomizes task domains, problem instances, and representation order. The study collects fine-grained judgments of structural understanding, error detection and localization, and trust calibration. Our study shows a mismatch between perceived preference and support for human evaluation. Participants prefer planning- and decomposition-based representations, but simpler chain-of-thought traces better support verification, trust, and interpretability. Preferred representations also introduce calibration risks, with more false alarms on correct traces and high trust despite low willingness to verify.