PRISM-BENCH: Diagnosing Grounded and Faithful Multimodal Reasoning Beyond Final-Answer Accuracy

We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning through verifiable intermediate steps. We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which further penalizes disordered reasoning chains. References are constructed through a Delphi-inspired pipeline in which four independent MLLMs generate trajectories, which are then aggregated via semantic clustering and validated through human quality gates. Evaluation of 20 MLLMs, including commercial frontier systems not used during benchmark construction, reveals systematic failures that are invisible to answer accuracy: universal cherry-picking (precision far exceeds recall), non-monotonic scaling trade-offs, and disordered reasoning in which no competitive model preserves more than 60% of matched steps in the correct order. Beyond evaluation, we propose the Causal Process Reward (CPR), a multiplicative reward that couples answer correctness with step-level alignment, and CPR-Curriculum, which progressively increases reasoning difficulty during training. CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive scores on standard benchmarks yet routinely fail questions that any human would answer correctly in seconds. We introduce BrainBench, a benchmark of 100 brainteaser questions spanning 20 carefully designed categories, each targeting a specific commonsense reasoning failure mode in LLMs. Categories range from implicit physical constraints ("Should I walk or drive my rental car to the return lot?") to semantic scope tricks and default assumption hijacks. We evaluate eight frontier models -- four from the Claude family and four from the GPT family -- using a zero-shot protocol with 10 independent runs per question. The best model, Claude Opus 4.6 with extended thinking, achieves only 80.3% accuracy; the worst, GPT-4o, scores 39.7%. Even top-performing models exhibit a 6-16 percentage-point gap between accuracy and consistency, revealing stochastic reasoning. Cross-lingual evaluation in Chinese shows most models degrade by 2-8 percentage points, confirming that these failures reflect reasoning deficits rather than language-specific artifacts. BrainBench provides a fine-grained diagnostic tool for identifying where and why LLMs substitute surface heuristics for genuine commonsense reasoning.