Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Latest papers

36 papers2 papers in the last four weeks, down 60% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Oct 16, 2026

Reasoning Models Can Control Their Chains of Thought When They Tell Themselves To

Chain-of-thought (CoT) controllability, the ability of reasoning models to control properties of their CoT, is consequential for both their usefulness and reliable oversight. Recent work evaluates this capability by measuring whether models follow CoT constraints given in the user prompt, and reports very low controllability across models. We argue that this low controllability may not reflect an inherent inability of reasoning models to control their CoT, but instead result from naively specifying constraints in the user prompt. To test this, we introduce Self-Instructed CoT Controllability: a complementary evaluation that places the constraint as a self-instruction inside the model's CoT and measures its ability to follow it. We show that, under self-instruction, models achieve significantly higher controllability than with standard user instructions. Even a generic reminder to follow the user's constraint substantially improves controllability. Moreover, effective self-instructions can be bootstrapped into the reasoning through a simple instruction in the user prompt, enabling improved control even without access to the reasoning channel. Finally, using self-instruction, we demonstrate in a realistic monitoring setup that CoT controllability can be leveraged for monitor evasion, posing a risk to CoT monitorability.

Uriel Dolev, Idan Schwartz, Yoav Goldberg

Bar-Ilan University · Allen Institute for AI

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation LLM Prompting CoT Monitoring LLM Safety Monitoring

Oct 15, 2026

Are Large Reasoning Models Good Everyday Reasoners? A Comparison with Non-Reasoning Models on Logical Reasoning Tasks

Large reasoning models (LRMs) that leverage test-time computation achieve strong performance on mathematical and scientific benchmarks and are increasingly deployed in real-world applications. However, their ability to perform everyday logical reasoning, which often departs from textbook formal logic, remains underexplored. In this work, we systematically evaluate how well reasoning models align with everyday reasoning patterns by introducing a benchmark based on linguistic and pragmatic reasoning phenomena. We also compare reasoning models with non-reasoning models under controlled prompting conditions. We find that, in many cases, (1) reasoning models show degraded performance in everyday reasoning when such reasoning deviates from formal logical rules, (2) some non-reasoning models with chain-of-thought prompting outperform comparable reasoning models in everyday reasoning, and (3) prompting with additional instructions provides limited control over reasoning behavior. These findings suggest that current reasoning models do not reliably capture everyday reasoning and point to limitations in post-training, motivating improved training objectives and evaluation across diverse forms of reasoning.

Kentaro Ozeki, Risako Ando, Takanobu Morishita +3

Keio University

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reasoning Large Reasoning Models Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models

Oct 14, 2026

RCCM: Diagnosing Gains and Harms in Reasoning-Prompt Transfer

A reasoning prompt can improve one deployment and degrade another. RCCM (Reasoning-Control Capability Mismatch) examines these reversals by pairing answers to the same questions with records of how generation ends. Across five open-weight deployments and nine strategies, aggregate accuracy hides substantial question-level gains and harms; a common-budget MATH500 evaluation examines transfer on a separate sample. On 60 additional questions, concise reasoning improves Phi's automatic answer matching at a 2,048-token cap across three collections, but sharply reduces Qwen's. Author-reviewed final-answer commitments give a smaller, statistically unresolved Phi gain. Reserving an answer stage also improves matching, with additional input and call costs. These results show why a prompt benefit must be interpreted alongside its execution and evaluation: matching a reference answer need not mean delivering it, and an apparent compression benefit may admit another explanation. RCCM records this evidence for reproducible transfer comparisons.

Yuqi Zhang, Di Zhang

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reasoning Language Model Generation Evaluation Efficient Language Model Reasoning

Sep 24, 2026

Reasoning Instructions Can Break Answer Decoding in Vision--Language Models

Chain-of-thought (CoT) instructions can distort multiple-choice VLM evaluation when a scorer appends a reasoning cue but reads answer-label logits before the model generates any rationale. We call this CoT-prefix scoring. On ScienceQA, Qwen2.5-VL-7B drops from 80.76% to 45.48%, and across five option-content permutations 93.54% of CoT-prefix predictions select the first slot. Condition-matched linear probes recover 78.94% from the same hidden states, while free generation restores 75.24%, showing that the answer often survives the prefix and the immediate readout fails. Vocabulary and layer diagnostics explain the mismatch: probability mass moves toward continuation tokens, while answer information remains linearly accessible in late layers. The effect recurs with varying severity across datasets and models, though not universally. These results show that CoT-prefix scoring can confound model knowledge with an evaluation-interface mismatch and should be avoided unless the requested and scored output events are aligned.

Zeyan Li, Siyuan Qiu, Jianfeng Xu

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

VLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Multiple-Choice Question Answering CoT Reasoning Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Sep 19, 2026

LLaDA-PRM: A Bidirectional Step-Level Reasoning Evaluator

Step-level reasoning evaluators are commonly based on autoregressive language models, whose causal attention restricts each step representation to the problem, previous steps, and the current step. Yet, when the complete solution is available, the validity of an earlier step may become clearer only through its downstream consequences. We validate this hypothesis through a controlled 54-run comparison of causal and bidirectional LLaDA evaluators at 1B--3B scale, changing only the self-attention mask, and find bidirectional attention yields consistent improvements. Building on this finding, we introduce \prm{}, an 8B bidirectional evaluator that reaches 88.8 step-level F1 on MR-MATH-invalid and 83.8 on the out-of-distribution MR-GSM8K original-question subset, outperforming ReasonEval-Llemma-34B by 11.3 and 10.3 F1 points, respectively. \prm{} also remains effective when evaluating incomplete reasoning traces in online settings, outperforming the strongest baselines on both benchmarks by a large margin. We further show that \prm{} provides an effective training-data selection signal, improving Mistral-7B performance on MATH-500.

Yiming Feng, Naihao Deng, Yulong Chen +1

University of Michigan · University of Aberdeen · University of Cambridge

Reasoning Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Process Reward Models LLM Evaluation Language Modeling Numerical Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 8, 2026

Do Reasoning Representations Help Humans Evaluate LLM Outputs?

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.

Jaewoo Lim, Sungbok Shin, Sanghyun Hong

Oregon State University, Corvallis USA · Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea

LLM Evaluation LLM Interpretability CoT Reasoning Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Explainability Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Aug 31, 2026

Wrong Prediction, Right Answer: Recovering Evidence from Collapsed LLM Sequence Scores

When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.

Qiyao Yan, Chenpeng Wang, Liangming Pan

State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University · School of Computer Science, Peking University · YiXin-AILab, YIXIN, Beijing, China +1

Language Modeling Language Model Calibration Implicit Reasoning in Language Models LLM Evaluation LLM Reasoning Language Model Probing+1

Aug 30, 2026

Detecting Hidden Chain-of-Thought in Large Language Models with Linguistic, Behavioral, and Mechanistic Indicators

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking

+1.87

,

p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}

; Instruct

+1.41

,

p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}

), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within

0.08

(

+1.80

and

+1.45

), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

Armaan Singh, Ryan Trinh Le, Jasmine Kaur +5

1Stanford University · 2York University · 3Facebook

Implicit Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Probing Large Reasoning Models LLM Interpretability LLM Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation+1

Aug 18, 2026

ClosureBench: A Constructive Benchmark for Compositional Graph Reasoning

Large language models fail on multi-step compositional reasoning, but measuring that failure is hard, because new models are trained on the benchmarks used to evaluate them. A fixed test set becomes a memorisation check soon after release. Constructive benchmarks avoid this by generating instances on demand. We introduce ClosureBench, a constructive benchmark for graph-relational logical reasoning. Each task is built from explicit primitives (reachability, degree, set operations, connectivity, aggregation), and its reference answer is computed by executing code that implements that logic exactly. Ground truth is therefore verified, and the supply of fresh instances is unlimited. The benchmark spans 26 task categories at three compositional levels, with three independent difficulty axes: graph size, edge density, and query depth. We evaluate models from 1.5B open weights to frontier systems (o3, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4). Accuracy falls as graph size and query depth increase, and the two axes interact. The difficulty does not lie in the surface form, since it persists when the graph is given as a JSON edge list or an adjacency matrix rather than prose, nor in the reasoning rule, which models state correctly. It lies in carrying that rule out over the graph across many steps. A 4B model fine-tuned to emit verified programs instead of answers stays nearly flat across compositional levels, while every frontier model degrades. o3 falls from 96% on atomic queries to 82% on the most compositional; the 4B model holds at 93% at a fraction of the token cost. The program offloads multi-step execution to a runtime, and the model's remaining errors are almost entirely misread edges. Constructive generation also supports a direct memorisation check, comparing accuracy on seen and fresh instances.

Stefano Goria

AIM Research Lab

LLM Reasoning with Graphs Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Graph Reasoning LLM Reasoning

Aug 18, 2026

Thinking in a Low-Resource Language: What SFT Builds, What RL Fixes, What Accuracy Cannot See

Take three frontier mixture-of-experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA; 3.6-4.0B active parameters each) and fine-tune them to reason in a low-resource language. On accuracy benchmarks almost nothing happens, and the benchmark itself is noise at this scale: changing only the random seed moves the score by 7.7 points, more than every data and recipe effect we measured. That null is our first result. The real changes live where accuracy cannot see. Base models never think in Greek: 0 of 1,000 reasoning traces, even when the question is Greek, so the model answers correctly while reasoning in a form its user cannot read, audit, or correct. After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), every released checkpoint reasons in the language of the question on ~98% of items, one family at 3x fewer tokens, with judged grammaticality improving on all four models and general ability within a few points of each base: nothing was forgotten, and fluency was gained. We propose six behavioural dimensions that make such changes measurable, each gated to reject any metric that correlates with output length, and we report how our own instruments lied: six failures, each caught by a control. What SFT cannot do is fix its own defects: a quarter of answers skip the requested format, answers leak into the reasoning channel, and an explicit "think in English" is obeyed under half the time. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, pre-registered before training, fixes the first two outright (fallback 24% to 2.5%, leak 3.5% to 0.0%, both against a flat random-reward control) and moves the third (+9.1pp), while the Greek reasoning habit survives an accuracy-only gradient untouched. We release five checkpoints. The instruments, the controls and the pre-registration travel to any low-resource language; Greek is the case that let us measure them.

Ayoub Kirouane, Christos Petrocheilos

Sophea AI, KIEFER SA, Athens, Greece

Fine-Tuning Language Models Structured Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Supervised Fine-Tuning Low-Resource Language Processing RL for Language Models

Aug 13, 2026

Beyond Local Accuracy: A Protocol-Level Identifiability Audit for Controlled LLM Reasoning Evaluation

LLM benchmark scores can be precise even when the observation protocol does not identify the behavioral property they are intended to measure. In a controlled, solver-grounded setting, we formalize a protocol-level identifiability audit over a finite behavioral policy class: given policies H, observation support O, and estimand

τ

, we test whether O separates every pair with different

τ

. The audit requires zero model calls and resolves our diagnostic case: base-only observation collapses seven frozen deterministic policies into one equivalence class; full support yields seven classes and no cross-estimand collisions; every leave-one-out support retains a constructive collision witness. Empirically, both constrained-generation variants have pair-validity 1.0, yet base accuracy and selective-response fidelity diverge - 0.620 versus 0.324 across six balanced oracle-transition directions (cluster-bootstrap 95% CI [0.600, 0.642] vs. [0.304, 0.345]) - and the gap recurs on a second deterministic source (0.646 vs. 0.331). The audit also synthesizes a minimum identifying support

O^*

for the frozen policy class: two cells instead of the full 36-cell tensor. This case shows how evaluation-design validity can be checked structurally before model inference and why base correctness does not determine intervention-response fidelity.

Junhao Luo, Ning Huang, Ziqi Sha +2

School of Statistics and Data Science, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing Causal Identifiability Benchmark Validity Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Aug 12, 2026

Who Thinks Best Depends on How Long You Let Them: Budget-Dependent Rankings in LLM Evaluation

Standard evaluation of large language models assumes stable model rankings across inference conditions. We challenge this assumption by varying the token generation budget, i.e., the maximum tokens a model may produce, across seven levels (64--4,096), evaluating four models on three reasoning benchmarks (56,476 inferences). We report four findings: (i) 3--19% of items exhibit non-monotone behavior (accuracy decreasing with more budget), even after controlling for truncation, and this phenomenon is model-specific (cross-model overlap: 6--14%). (ii) Model rankings reverse across budgets on all benchmarks (

p {<} 0.01

, McNemar). (iii) Oracle analysis reveals model complementarity up to

+27.8

pp, most pronounced at constrained budgets. (iv) A budget-aware router captures 14.1% of the oracle gap cross-domain; budget features help within-domain (

+1.6

to

+5.7

pp) but are domain-specific and hurt transfer (

-1.2

pp). These results argue for budget-conditioned evaluation protocols.

Rodrigo Guedes de Souza, Alison R. Panisson

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) Brazil

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Inference-Time Scaling LLM Routing LLM Reasoning Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Jul 22, 2026

Reference-Free Evaluation of Reasoning in Open-Ended Question Answering

AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer. We propose a reasoning-based, reference-free framework for auditing LLM-generated outputs. The method decomposes a generated reasoning trace into segments, labels local premise-target relations using Natural Language Inference (NLI), and organizes these relations into a hypergraph. A deterministic backward AND-OR search then assigns segment-level audit labels that indicate how each segment is grounded within the generated response. We evaluate the framework in two settings: deductive mathematical reasoning with Hard2Verify, and open-ended medical reasoning with UroReason, a new physician-annotated benchmark of LLM reasoning traces from real clinical cases. Across these settings, our NLI-hypergraph audit provides a more reliable reference-free evaluation signal than direct LLM-as-judge baselines. In the clinical setting, state-of-the-art LLM judges often fail to identify problematic reasoning segments, over-accepting fluent but weakly grounded responses. Our results show that QA evaluation should account for how inferential relations compose across a reasoning trace, rather than relying only on final answers or LLMs as verifiers. UroReason will be made available through an API, and our code will be released as open source.

Guneet Singh Kohli, Yuxiang Zhou, Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull +2

Queen Mary University of London · Temple University

LLM-as-a-Judge Reasoning Evaluation LLM Auditing Clinical Language Model Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Jul 20, 2026

Relay-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Multi-Domain Reasoning Chains

Introducing Relay-Bench, an unsaturated, holistic, text-only benchmark that measures LLMs' ability to complete an assortment of tasks from distinct domains in a single prompt. The leading model, GPT-5.5 (xHigh), scores 43.3%. The test set entirely consists of composite problems: groups of single-domain subproblems that are strung together into challenges that require reasoning across multiple domains in combination. Many of these problems then have layers of complexity added through prompt encoding and deliberate context bloat. Domains tested include visual reasoning, coding, math, information extraction (with a focus on web search), problem-solving, general knowledge, and data analysis. No restrictions are imposed outside of the model harness, and models are explicitly encouraged to leverage code-execution, web searches, and all available tools. All problems are composed of two to thirteen subproblems and do not require multi-modal input or output.

Liam Swayne

LLM Evaluation LLM Reasoning Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Jul 11, 2026

Mirror Horizon: Viable Path Entropy as a Measure of Bounded Reflection

Mirror Theory proposes that an intelligent system should be studied not only by what it represents, but by what coherent continuations it can sustain under repeated reflection. We make this claim operational through viable path entropy (VPE), a finite-budget measure of verified continuation capacity. Given a mirror state, a rollout protocol, a verifier, and a mode map, VPE decomposes bounded capability into two parts: the probability of reaching a viable continuation and the diversity of verified continuation modes reached among successful rollouts. This paper restores the full theoretical scaffold behind the measure: intuition as local underdetermining constraint, taste as invariant-selecting pressure, reflection as taste-guided resolution of underdetermination, and geometry as the learned structure that makes future reflection stable. We then instantiate the theory in language-model reasoning experiments on GSM8K. Across Qwen2.5-Instruct models, 32 sampled rollouts per problem, and two reflection horizons, increasing the token budget from 96 to 160 substantially expands verified reachability, reduces zero-reachability, increases verified-mode entropy, and improves smoothed VPE. At 160 tokens, Qwen2.5-1.5B realizes the strongest mirror horizon among the tested models, even though Qwen2.5-3B has more parameters. This shows that mirror horizon is not parameter count, but accessible verified continuation capacity under a bounded reflection protocol. The result supports Mirror Theory as a measure-level account: capability is the structure of viable continuations made reachable, not merely one-shot accuracy or pass@k.

Tiantian Zhang

Crystal · Department of Computer Science, Columbia University

LLM Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Jul 11, 2026

Cost of Reasoning in non-English Languages: A Case Study on Japanese

Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) achieve their strongest performance when they reason in English, the language for which reasoning-oriented training data is most abundant. However, reasoning trace is a clue for model interpretability and safety, and useful in practice for both the model users and for model developers. Thus, it is desirable to be able to develop a model that reasons in a language of the user's choice, while still maintaining strong reasoning performance. To this end, we study the feasibility of training a model that reasons in Japanese. We develop a Japanese-reasoning variant of Qwen-3-Swallow-8B, which is a Japanese LLM continually pretrained from Qwen-3-8B, with GRPO and evaluate it across coding, math, and science benchmarks. The study shows that reasoning-language control is feasible by training a Japanese continually pretrained model with GRPO. However, its performance is at best on par with strong English-reasoning baselines on several benchmarks. We also evaluate the trained model on Japanese cultural benchmarks and observe that the model's performance is worse than the baseline models, suggesting that the reasoning in Japanese does not immediately improve performance on culturally relevant tasks for free.

Yuu Jinnai

CyberAgent / Tokyo, Japan

Cross-Lingual Reasoning in Language Models Multilingual Language Model Evaluation RL for Language Model Reasoning Large Reasoning Models Multilingual Language Models Structured Reasoning in Language Models+1

Jun 8, 2026

SEF-CLGC at SemEval-2026 Task 11: Logical Notation Impact on Language Model Performance

This paper revisits our pipeline called Syllogistic Evaluation Framework-Common Logic Grammar Construction (SEF-CLGC). We combine formal logical notations with Small Language Models (SLMs) to evaluate reasoning performance on the SemEval-2026 Task 11 Subtask 1: Disentangling Content and Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models. Our experiments show that by relying solely on SLMs, trained on a combination of natural and symbolic languages, our best model achieves a content score of 27.80% on the task while significantly lowering the content bias in reasoning.

Hanna Abi Akl, Fabien Gandon, Catherine Faron +1

Université Côte d’Azur, Inria, CNRS, I3S, Sophia Antipolis, France · Data ScienceTech Institute, Paris, France

Logical Reasoning Symbolic Reasoning Language Model Bias Evaluation LLM Reasoning Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Symbolic Reasoning in Language Models

May 28, 2026

TRACE: Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements for LLM CoT Evaluation

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

Yundong Kim, Heyoung Yang

Applied Agent Research Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI), Republic of Korea · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Structured Reasoning Language Model Generation Evaluation CoT Evaluation LLM Evaluation Reasoning Trace Analysis LLM Reasoning+1

May 28, 2026

ReasonOps: Operator Segmentation for LLM Reasoning Traces

Chain-of-thought traces from large reasoning models can span tens of thousands of tokens, yet we lack a vocabulary for describing their internal structure. Previous methods developed to analyze chain-of-thought traces are either too rigid or not expressive enough, failing to capture features across domains and models. To remedy this, we develop ReasonOps, an unsupervised, expressive method for annotating chain-of-thought traces, providing succinct universal operators. Using ReasonOps, we analyze 44,662 traces from 12 thinking LLMs spanning 6 families across 8 reasoning benchmarks and discover that they share a common compositional structure: 7 recurring reasoning operators -- discourse-level moves such as backtracking, inferring, and hypothesizing -- that emerge from unsupervised clustering of sentence-initial 3-token pivots. These operators appear across every model family and benchmark domain, confirmed by three independent LLM judges who classify held-out samples at 70 -76% accuracy. We analyze the structure of operators on easy vs. hard problems, revealing that reflective operators are more helpful on hard problems and harm performance on easy problems. Operator sequences are highly model-identifying: a classifier trained on operator distributions alone recovers the source model with macro-AUC, revealing that each model family has a distinctive reasoning fingerprint. Structural operator features predict within-problem answer correctness well above baselines. Classifiers built on these operators reach WP-AUC and on AIME specifically. ReasonOps further enables early quality estimation well before the trace completes: we predict at WP-AUC for only 50% of the trace. The ReasonOps pipeline is unsupervised and annotation-free, enabling deep insights into LLM reasoning traces as well as strong downstream results on model identification and correctness prediction.

Daniel Lee, Owen Queen, James Zou

Stanford University

LLM Reasoning Reasoning Trace Analysis CoT Evaluation CoT Reasoning Structured Reasoning Large Reasoning Models+4

May 10, 2026

Absurd World: A Simple Yet Powerful Method to Absurdify the Real-world for Probing LLM Reasoning Capabilities

While extremely powerful and versatile at various tasks, the thinking capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are often put under scrutiny as they sometimes fail to solve problems that humans can systematically solve. However, recent literature focuses on breaking LLM reasoning with increasingly complex problems, and whether an LLM is robust in simple logical reasoning remains underexplored. This paper proposes Absurd World, a benchmarking framework, to test LLMs against altered realism, where scenarios are logically coherent, and humans can easily solve the tasks. Absurd World breaks a real-world model into symbols, actions, sequences, and events, which are automatically altered to create absurd worlds where the logic to solve the tasks remains the same. It evaluates a large collection of models with simple and advanced prompting techniques, and proves that it is an effective tool to determine LLMs' ability to think logically, ignoring the patterns learned from the real world. One can use this framework to extensively test an LLM against a real-world problem to verify whether the LLM's reasoning capability is robust against variations of the task.

Ryan Albright, Golam Md Muktadir, Zarif Ikram +3

The Nueva School, San Mateo, USA · University of Southern California · Notre Dame College, Dhaka, Bangladesh +2

LLM Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Language Model Robustness LLM Reasoning

May 4, 2026

Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Millions of users turn to AI models for their information needs. It is conceivable that a large number of user queries contain assumptions that may be factually inaccurate. Prior work notes that large language models (LLMs) often fail to challenge such erroneous assumptions, and can reinforce users' misinformed opinions. However, given the recent advances, especially in model's reasoning capabilities, we revisit whether large reasoning models (LRMs) can reason about the underlying assumptions and respond to user queries appropriately. We construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge, and use it to evaluate several widely-deployed models When compared to non-reasoning models, we find that reasoning models achieve a slightly higher accuracy (2-11%), but they still fail to challenge a large fraction (26-42%) of false presuppositions. Further, reasoning models remain susceptible to how strongly the presupposition is expressed.

Rose Sathyanathan, Kinshuk Vasisht, Danish Pruthi

Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru, KA, India

LLM Evaluation Language Model Robustness Large Reasoning Models Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

May 4, 2026

Measuring AI Reasoning: A Guide for Researchers

In this paper, we offer a guide for researchers on evaluating reasoning in language models, building the case that reasoning should be assessed through evidence of adaptive, multi-step search rather than final-answer accuracy alone. Under an evaluation-oriented definition, reasoning requires selecting intermediate steps and halting according to input-dependent conditions, which we formalize as a search-like procedure. We show that single forward passes in scalable architectures are structurally limited in their ability to realize such variable-depth computation, motivating intermediate decoding and externalized reasoning traces as appropriate evaluation interfaces. Central to our argument is that final-answer accuracy alone is an insufficient measure of reasoning, because it provides little ability to diagnose or debug the underlying processes that produce individual solutions in frontier models. We therefore argue for a shift toward process-based evaluation, in which reasoning is assessed through the faithfulness and validity of intermediate reasoning traces as first-class evaluation targets.

Munachiso Samuel Nwadike, Zangir Iklassov, Kareem Ali +2

MBZUAI, Department of Natural Language Processing · MBZUAI, Department of Machine Learning

Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reasoning Adaptive Computation Reasoning Trace Analysis Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Apr 27, 2026

Analyzing LLM Reasoning to Uncover Mental Health Stigma

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for mental health applications, recent studies reveal that they can exhibit stigma toward individuals with psychological conditions. Existing evaluations of this stigma primarily rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), which fail to capture the biases embedded within the models' underlying logic. In this paper, we analyze the intermediate reasoning steps of LLMs to uncover hidden stigmatizing language and the internal rationales driving it. We leverage clinical expertise to categorize common patterns of stigmatizing language directed at individuals with psychological conditions and use this framework to identify and tag problematic statements in LLM reasoning. Furthermore, we rate the severity of these statements, distinguishing between overt prejudice and more subtle, less immediately harmful biases. To broaden the reasoning domain and capture a wider array of patterns, we also extend an existing mental health stigma benchmark by incorporating additional psychological conditions. Our findings demonstrate that evaluating model reasoning not only exposes substantially more stigma than traditional MCQ-based methods but also helps identify the flaws in the LLMs' logic and their understanding of mental health conditions.

Sreehari Sankar, Aliakbar Nafar, Mona Barman +8

BetterHelp

LLM Evaluation Social Bias in Language Models Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Apr 14, 2026

Beyond Output Correctness: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Language Model Reasoning in Coding Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on explicit reasoning to solve coding tasks, yet evaluating the quality of this reasoning remains challenging. Existing reasoning evaluators are not designed for coding, and current benchmarks focus primarily on code generation, leaving other coding tasks largely unexplored. We introduce CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning quality across three coding task categories: generation, summarization, and classification. Using this benchmark, we analyze 1,069 mismatch cases from existing evaluators, identify five recurring limitations, and derive four design insights for reasoning evaluation in coding tasks. Guided by these insights, we propose VERA, a two-stage evaluator that combines evidence-grounded verification with ambiguity-aware score correction. Experiments on CodeRQ-Bench show that VERA consistently outperforms strong baselines across four datasets, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21. We release CodeRQ-Bench at https://github.com/MrLYG/CodeRQ-Bench, supporting future investigations.

Yuangang Li, Justin Tian Jin Chen, Ethan Yu +2

University of California, Irvine

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation LLM Evaluation LLM Reasoning Code Generation Evaluation Code Generation Benchmarks

Apr 13, 2026

Filtered Reasoning Score: Evaluating Reasoning Quality on a Model's Most-Confident Traces

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.

Manas Pathak, Xingyao Chen, Shuozhe Li +2

University of Texas at Austin

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Reasoning Trace Analysis Language Model Reasoning Evaluation

Apr 8, 2026

Unified Deployment-Aware Evaluation of Open Reasoning Language Models

Open reasoning language models are often compared under mixed sample sizes, partially standardized prompts, and accuracy-centered summaries, which makes practical model selection difficult to interpret. We present a unified evaluation of seven open reasoning language model configurations across four benchmarks: ARC-Challenge, GSM8K, MATH levels 1 to 3, and TruthfulQA MC1. We test zero-shot, chain-of-thought (CoT), and few-shot CoT prompting on the same 238-example subset for every model--dataset--strategy condition, yielding a complete 7 x 4 x 3 design with 84 conditions and 19,992 evaluated examples. Beyond accuracy, we report Wilson confidence intervals, latency, peak video random access memory (VRAM), weighted aggregate performance, Pareto-efficient operating points, prompt-sensitivity metrics, and compatibility diagnostics. Gemma-4-26B-A4B with zero-shot prompting achieves the highest weighted score at 0.794. Gemma-4-E4B remains close to the top across prompting settings while using substantially lower latency and memory, making it a strong practical operating point. Bootstrap and paired-permutation analyses show that the leading configurations are close enough that deployment tradeoffs remain important. We also find that prompting strategy changes model rankings rather than shifting all models uniformly. Benchmark-specific complementarity creates routing headroom, with an oracle task-aware selector reaching a weighted score of 0.825. Compatibility diagnostics show that some apparent failures, especially Phi-4-Reasoning on GSM8K, reflect robustness and interface-adherence problems under the shared evaluation pipeline. These results support a central claim: open-model evaluation should be framed as a deployment-aware, multi-objective operating-point problem rather than as a single-score leaderboard exercise.

Md Motaleb Hossen Manik, Ge Wang

Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute · Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

LLM Evaluation Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Large Reasoning Models

Mar 24, 2026

Measuring and curing reasoning rigidity: from decorative chain-of-thought to genuine faithfulness

Language models increasingly show their work by writing step-by-step reasoning before answering. But are these steps genuinely used, or is the answer rigid - fixed before reasoning begins? We introduce the Step-Level Reasoning Capacity (SLRC) metric and prove it is a consistent causal estimator (Theorem 1). We propose LC-CoSR, a training method with Lyapunov stability guarantees that directly reduces rigidity. Evaluating 16 frontier models (o4-mini, GPT-5.4, Claude Opus, Grok-4, DeepSeek-R1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and others) across six domains at N=133-500, we find reasoning falls into three modes. OpenAI's o4-mini shows 74-88% step necessity on five of six tasks (73.8-88.3%) - the highest SLRC in our study. The critical differentiator is RL-based reasoning training, not thinking tokens: Grok-4's reasoning mode shows lower faithfulness than its non-reasoning mode (1.4% vs 7.2% necessity). We discover a faithfulness paradox - high-SLRC models are more susceptible to sycophancy - and propose the Reasoning Integrity Score (RIS = SLRC x (1-Sycophancy)), which significantly predicts error detection (rho=0.66, p=0.026). LC-CoSR achieves 2.6x less negative reward than FARL and CSR baselines without external model dependencies.

Abhinaba Basu, Pavan Chakraborty

Indian Institute of Information Technology Allahabad (IIITA) · National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT)

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Structured Reasoning in Language Models CoT Faithfulness Faithfulness of Language Model Reasoning Faithfulness of Language Model Explanations RL for Language Model Reasoning+1

Mar 21, 2026

RLVR Training of LLMs Does Not Improve Thinking Ability for General QA: Evaluation Method and a Simple Solution

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) stimulates the thinking processes of large language models (LLMs), substantially enhancing their reasoning abilities on verifiable tasks. It is often assumed that similar gains should transfer to general question answering (GQA), but this assumption has not been thoroughly validated. To assess whether RLVR automatically improves LLM performance on GQA, we propose a Cross-Generation evaluation framework that measures the quality of intermediate reasoning by feeding the generated thinking context into LLMs of varying capabilities. Our evaluation leads to a discouraging finding: the efficacy of the thinking process on GQA tasks is markedly lower than on verifiable tasks, suggesting that explicit training on GQA remains necessary in addition to training on verifiable tasks. We further observe that direct RL training on GQA is less effective than RLVR. Our hypothesis is that, whereas verifiable tasks demand robust logical chains to obtain high rewards, GQA tasks often admit shortcuts to high rewards without cultivating high-quality thinking. To avoid possible shortcuts, we introduce a simple method, Separated Thinking And Response Training (START), which first trains only the thinking process, using rewards defined on the final answer. We show that START improves both the quality of thinking and the final answer across several GQA benchmarks and RL algorithms.

Kaiyuan Li, Jing-Cheng Pang, Yang Yu

National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology & School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China · Polixir.ai, China · Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., China

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation RL for Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Question Answering LLM Evaluation

Mar 16, 2026

BrainBench: Exposing the Commonsense Reasoning Gap in Large Language Models

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.

Yuzhe Tang

Georgia Institute of Technology

Language Model Reasoning Evaluation LLM Evaluation Implicit Reasoning in Language Models Reasoning Consistency in Language Models

Mar 5, 2026

Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-Thought

We provide evidence of performative chain-of-thought (CoT) in reasoning models, where a model becomes strongly confident in its final answer, but continues generating tokens without revealing its internal belief. Our analysis compares activation probing, early forced answering, and a CoT monitor across two large models (DeepSeek-R1 671B & GPT-OSS 120B) and find task difficulty-specific differences: The model's final answer is decodable from activations far earlier in CoT than a monitor is able to say, especially for easy recall-based MMLU questions. We contrast this with genuine reasoning in difficult multihop GPQA-Diamond questions. Despite this, inflection points (e.g., backtracking, 'aha' moments) occur almost exclusively in responses where probes show large belief shifts, suggesting these behaviors track genuine uncertainty rather than learned "reasoning theater." Finally, probe-guided early exit reduces tokens by up to 80% on MMLU and 30% on GPQA-Diamond with similar accuracy, positioning attention probing as an efficient tool for detecting performative reasoning and enabling adaptive computation.

Siddharth Boppana, Annabel Ma, Max Loeffler +5

Goodfire AI · Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Faithfulness of Language Model Reasoning Language Model Reasoning Evaluation Faithfulness of Language Model Explanations Language Model Probing Efficient Language Model Inference