Reasoning Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

1 paper in the last four weeks, against 1 the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 35

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

REALHOP: Rethinking Multi-Hop Reasoning Evaluation via Behavioral Auditing

Complex questions often require multi-hop reasoning that connects facts distributed across sources or distant regions of a long context through intermediate steps. Benchmarks commonly evaluate this ability with questions built around predefined reasoning chains, treating a correct answer as evidence that the intended composition was used. Yet answer correctness alone leaves open whether success depends on the evidence associated with each intended step: models may instead rely on memorized associations, shorter paths, or partial evidence. We examine this dependence using the Behavioral Necessity Rate (BNR), which measures how often targeted evidence removal prevents answer recovery on initially correct instances. Across five existing benchmarks, panel-mean BNR ranges from 16.6% to 48.9%, exposing a substantial gap between annotated structure and observed dependence. Guided by this diagnosis, we introduce REALHOP, a diagnose-construct-verify framework that rebinds entities, factorizes selected relations, adds complete competing paths, and places evidence at traceable locations. Structural and semantic checks precede freezing; behavioral interventions follow. On 790 paired MuSiQue questions, REALHOP raises panel-mean BNR from 27.4% to 94.4% while retaining high Full accuracy. It also yields high BNR on REALHOP-FRAMES and REALHOP-LONGBENCH. On 216 long-context questions, the matched multiple-choice spread across 16 models grows from 13.9 to 59.2 points and persists under repeated open-ended evaluation. Together, these results show that a conceptually coherent chain and a correct final answer do not by themselves establish multi-hop reasoning. Verifying that success depends on every intended hop is therefore as fundamental to multi-hop evaluation as measuring answer accuracy itself.

Jiawen Tao, Xiaokun Yuan, Yaoming Li +4

Hunyuan Team, Tencent · Peking University

Multi-Hop QA Reasoning Evaluation Multi-Hop Reasoning

Aug 12, 2026cs.AI

Reasoning Jury: Multi-Model Consensus for Evaluating Reasoning Traces

Improving reasoning LLMs requires the ability to judge the quality of long reasoning traces for effective reasoning data curation, strong training signals during reinforcement learning, and an in-depth understanding of reasoning behaviors during model performance evaluation. Additionally, surfacing reasoning mistakes that the model makes would enable improving the model's performance at runtime through providing feedback. Due to the difficulty of this complex task on long reasoning traces, single-model judges (even frontier models) do not do well at identifying reasoning defects. Additionally, leveraging frontier models during online training of reasoning LLMs is generally prohibited due to guardrails in terms of use. In this work, we introduce Reasoning Jury, a system that replaces the single judge with a jury of LLMs and a moderated consensus mechanism, to improve the fidelity of judgments for identifying reasoning defects. In reasoning jury, defects of a reasoning trace and their severity are surfaced through a deliberation where a moderator conducts a discussion amongst the jury where the jurors critique each other's judgments and get to modify their initial votes. The moderator derives a consensus through deliberation amongst jurors or consolidation of judgements. We show that Reasoning Jury with a jury of open-weight models (e.g., gpt-oss-120b) is able to significantly outperform frontier models (opus-4.6, sonnet-4.6, and gemini-3.1-pro) at correctly identifying reasoning defects. Besides accuracy performance improvements, the aggregated cost of the jury (initial verdicts, deliberations, consolidation, etc.) is a fraction (8 to 15%) of the cost of running frontier models in LLM-as-a-judge setup. We also show how these judgements can be leveraged to understand failure modes of reasoning LLMs on benchmarks, which allows much deeper understanding of a model's performance.

Congchao Wang, Diwakar Singh, Qiaozi Gao +3

Amazon AGI

LLM-as-a-Judge Reasoning Evaluation Multi-Agent Debate Large Reasoning Models

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

Toward Skill-Native LLMs: Skill Entropy for Benchmarking and Training Long-Horizon Reasoning

Long-horizon reasoning in recent LLMs demands that the model switch between distinct skills inside a reasoning chain, such as first doing a math derivation, then using the result to plan a schedule. We call such problems cross-skill long-horizon tasks: multi-step tasks whose steps require different reasoning skills and depend on earlier outputs. Existing benchmarks often evaluate individual skills, lacking a principled way to measure how well a model switches between skills. We address this gap from both the evaluation and training sides. We introduce Skill Entropy, a measure of the difficulty of switching from one skill to another. We then propose Skill^2-Bench, a benchmark of cross-skill long-horizon tasks built over 558 skills across 9 verifiable and open-ended domains. Each task is assigned a task-level skill-entropy score and grouped into three difficulty levels. Evaluating 8 frontier and 4 open-source models on Skill^2-Bench reveals a skill-switching gap: accuracy decreases on higher-entropy tasks. We then turn skill entropy from a benchmark scale into a training signal. We propose Skill-Entropy RL, an RL framework where the model predicts not only the answer at each step but also the skill used to produce it. The reward combines step-level correctness with a skill-entropy reward that measures the alignment between the model-predicted skill sequence and the gold skill sequence. On Qwen3-4B-Instruct and Qwen3-1.7B, Skill-Entropy RL improves the Skill^2-Bench score from 34.4% to 68.4% and from 14.6% to 40.1%, respectively, outperforming competitive baselines. The same pipeline can be applied to off-the-shelf training data such as OpenR1-Math, indicating that skill entropy is a reusable training signal. Code available at: https://github.com/Gen-Verse/Skill-Entropy-RL

Yinghui He, Ling Yang, Jiarui Liu +6

Princeton University · Carnegie Mellon University · University of Toronto +3

LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation RL for Language Model Reasoning

Aug 4, 2026cs.CL

Benchmarking the Benchmarks: Testing the Predictive Validity of Commonsense Benchmarks

Predicting LLM's capabilities on real-world tasks is essential, yet the extent to which performance on commonsense benchmarks predicts downstream performance remains underspecified. To establish the practical usability of widely adopted commonsense benchmarks, we evaluate 23 models from six families on four established commonsense benchmarks, four reworked variants, three non-commonsense controls, and eight downstream tasks requiring implicit social, pragmatic, temporal, or physical reasoning. We compare model rankings, compute controlled correlations, and use leave-one-family-out cross-validation to assess the criterion validity of commonsense benchmarks. Our results show that revised benchmarks largely preserve original model rankings and do not improve downstream predictive power. Commonsense benchmarks show consistent cross-family predictive validity for only a narrow subset of downstream tasks, with smaller or metric-specific gains elsewhere. Overall, standardized commonsense benchmarks provide task-dependent rather than broad evidence of downstream commonsense competence.

Ine Gevers, Walter Daelemans

CLiPS, University of Antwerp

LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Implicit Reasoning in Language Models Benchmark Validity

Aug 3, 2026cs.AI

Right Answer, Wrong Method: Shortcut Hacking Misleads the Evaluation of LLM Reasoning on Frontier Science Benchmarks

Scientific reasoning benchmarks typically evaluate large language models (LLMs) using final-answer accuracy. However, a correct answer does not necessarily demonstrate the reasoning capability targeted by the problem. We identify Solution Hacking, a failure mode in which an LLM reaches the correct answer through invalid shortcuts, such as numerical search, enumeration, guessing, or answer-first verification, without providing a valid task-targeted derivation. We systematically analyze this phenomenon across difficulty levels, scientific domains, and frontier models. Solution hacking increases sharply with benchmark difficulty, from 2.2% on common problems to 28.3% on Olympiad-level problems and 37.4% on HLE. Moreover, 8.2%-44.1% of answers credited as correct across frontier models are identified as hacked solutions. We further develop expert-inspired anti-hacking strategies, including an automatic judge and a test-time instruction. The results show that suppressing shortcut behavior substantially reduces reported accuracy while having a smaller effect on correct and non-hacked accuracy. These findings reveal that answer-only evaluation can overestimate the scientific reasoning capabilities of frontier LLMs.

Xuan Ren, Weiqi Zhai, Tianle Pu +4

1Alibaba Group · 2Alibaba DAMO Academy

LLM Answer Verification Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reliability

Aug 3, 2026cs.CL

Does Accuracy Equal Evidence? Reasoning Faithfulness under KV Cache Compression

KV cache compression is commonly evaluated by final-answer accuracy, implicitly assuming that preserving the answer also preserves the reasoning that supports it. We test this assumption for large reasoning models and show that it can fail: under compression, correct answers and the validity of their visible supporting rationales can be preserved at different rates. We study this failure with a controlled fixed-trace replay protocol, which holds reasoning content fixed and isolates whether compression preserves usable information from an already available trace. We evaluate ten token-eviction KV compression methods and one quantization method on three models across mathematical reasoning, scientific QA, clinical calculation, and long-context retrieval. We measure final accuracy, answer-chain consistency, and perturbation faithfulness. Across tasks, token-eviction methods can preserve competitive final-answer accuracy while substantially degrading chain support or perturbation faithfulness. We call this the answer-evidence gap. A coverage-preserving quantization control is substantially less affected, suggesting that the failure is tied less to KV memory reduction itself than to losing access to parts of the reasoning trace. Code is available at https://github.com/famous-blue-raincoat/Safe_KV_Compress.

Mengting Ai, Jingrui He, Yue Guo

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

CoT Faithfulness Reasoning Evaluation KV Caching KV-Cache Compression KV-Cache Quantization LLM Reasoning

Jul 28, 2026cs.CR

A Reference-Free Score for Detecting Silent Reasoning Failures in Large Language Models

Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference. This conflates producing a correct conclusion with producing a valid derivation an invalid chain can accidentally reach the right answer, while a valid calculation can be followed by a transcription error. We call this mismatch the reasoning answer consistency gap. This framework paper introduces the Reasoning Answer Faithfulness Score (RAFS), a reference free, instance level diagnostic of whether an emitted mathematical trace is locally credible, supports its answer, and is stable under resampling and targeted counterfactual interventions. RAFS combines step validity, reasoning to answer entailment and counterfactual sensitivity, answer consensus, and conditional reasoning stability. It evaluates transcript level agreement, not a models private computation and not factual correctness outside the tested mathematical setting. We retain a preregistered, results blind confirmatory study on GSM8K and MATH, with hypotheses, admissibility rules, calibration, and tests fixed before confirmatory outcomes are inspected. A separate feasibility pilot is specified to verify end to end execution and estimate interven tion coverage before that freeze numerical pilot claims are re ported only when trace level artifacts are available. We formalize four reasoning answer outcomes, justify the non compensatory aggregator, instantiate semantic trace distance, quantify compute and abstention tradeoffs, and define verifier independence and power analyses. RAFS is intended to complement mathematical answer accuracy with an auditable warning signal for silent reasoning failures and answer extraction errors

Vivek Shukla, Varun Shukla, Atul +2

Allenhouse Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

CoT Faithfulness Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks Reasoning Evaluation LLM Mathematical Reasoning Reasoning Trace Analysis

Jul 25, 2026cs.CL

ADAGE: A Language-Agnostic Pipeline for Analogical Reasoning Evaluation

Multilingual reasoning evaluation overwhelmingly relies on translating English benchmarks, a practice that introduces linguistic artifacts and fails to test culturally-grounded reasoning. We introduce ADAGE (Analogical Difficulty-by-design Assessment for Grounded Evaluation), a language-agnostic pipeline that combines native-speaker curation with LLM-assisted generation to construct challenging, translation-free benchmarks for abstract analogical reasoning. We validate ADAGE by constructing benchmarks for Arabic, Amharic, and Japanese. Evaluating 14 open-weight models, we find a consistent cultural reasoning gap: models that perform well on English proverb reasoning struggle substantially on all three native benchmarks, with accuracy dropping by 12--52 percentage points relative to English. We release the pipeline, all three benchmarks, and the full evaluation suite.

Ahmed Haj Ahmed, Alvin Grissom

Haverford College

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Cross-Lingual Reasoning in Language Models Analogical Reasoning Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation

Jul 22, 2026cs.CL

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

Jul 14, 2026cs.AI

TRACE: An Operational Reasoning Schema for Auditable Agentic Commitments

This paper defines TRACE (Typed Reasoning And Commitment Evidence): a typed, versioned schema for recording reasoning traces, a reference procedure for writing records against it, and one operating discipline, no durable state change without a record. The paper argues in three layers that reasoning is not in the language model: the autoregressive mechanism natively computes association; chain-of-thought and reinforcement learning inherit its limits; and the formal constructs of reasoning theory, from Socratic procedure to Pearl's ladder, are absent as machinery. The schema answers the absence with fields and tests: the TraceRecord and its causal specialization, an eight-stage reference writer, a gate-first measurement regime, the TRACE-Bench protocol, and the consumers, memory admission, plan gating, temporal regret, and verdict reuse, whose more auditable decisions are the measure of the record. A record-consumer contract states what a record guarantees and what a consumer must honor in return, making the schema an operational interface rather than a passive document. Two worked examples run in the main text: a music-lessons argument traced from sentence to typed verdict, separating association, intervention, and prescription; and a flood search-and-rescue vignette in which a predictive world model reports confident plan success that its own support and out-of-distribution scores contradict, so the record defers the commitment, requests a bounded observation, revises append-only, and clears a different branch. The vignette is illustrative, not empirical; closed-loop evaluation is left to future work, so the contribution is the schema and its contract, not a performance claim. Appendices carry the full schema, writer algorithms and cost model, clinical and policy illustrations, the benchmark protocol, convergence metrics, and usage scenarios.

Edward Y. Chang, Emily J. Chang

Stanford University · Quadrivium AI

Data Provenance Reasoning Evaluation Agentic Reasoning Language Model Auditing Reasoning Trace Analysis

Jul 9, 2026cs.CL

Can We Trust LLM's Logic? Quantifying Uncertainty, Coherence, and Robustness via a Graph-Based Framework

Large-Language Models (LLMs) can be prone to flawed and unfaithful reasoning that decoding strategies like Self-Consistency (SC) fail to detect as they evaluate only final-answer agreement while ignoring the logical validity of intermediate steps. This raises three fundamental questions: How can we reliably quantify uncertainty in LLM reasoning? Can semantic, structural, and causal awareness select more faithful reasoning compared to naïve majority voting? and How robust is reasoning topology under adversarial conditions? To address these questions, we introduce GRAPHEVAL, a graph-based reasoning framework that re-frames uncertainty quantification (UQ) as a holistic reasoning fidelity problem. We propose a novel UQ metric, Graph Reasoning Coherence Score (GRCS), that quantifies semantic-structural consensus of the reasoning space and captures pathological mode collapse and confident hallucinations. We find that GRCS is the only metric that is consistently negatively correlated with reasoning faithfulness across both more capable and smaller models. Additionally, we introduce Graph Self-Consistency (GSC), a medoid-based decoding strategy that trades nominal accuracy for reasoning fidelity, exposing the degree to which SC is inflated by unfaithful lucky guesses in smaller models, while preserving or improving accuracy in more capable ones. Finally, through adversarial medoid ablation, we demonstrate that the GSC-selected path acts as a "load-bearing path" and forcing models away from it degrades reasoning faithfulness and, in targeted cases, causes drops in accuracy.

Riccardo Revalor, Jalees Rehman, Debjit Pal

¶Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering · ‡Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics

CoT Faithfulness LLM Reasoning with Graphs Reasoning Evaluation Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Adversarial Robustness of Language Models LLM Uncertainty Estimation+1

Jun 22, 2026cs.LG

Position: Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism -- When AI Scientists Defend General Claims Their Own Data Contradicts

AI scientist systems are described as tools, coauthors, or founders, but we evaluate them as if only the final answer matters. This position paper argues that outcome-only evaluation is insufficient, and that task outcome, mechanism fidelity, and epistemic honesty must be measured separately. Our evidence comes from 28 episodes of a coding agent attempting to rediscover a known particle identification observable in a Geant4 simulation, including an 8-episode probe across two additional frontier models. In 4/20 primary-model and 3/8 cross-model episodes, agents reach right-looking results through incorrect reasoning that breaks when conditions change, which we call Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism (CAWM). Honesty and mechanism fidelity dissociate within a single agent trajectory. When given a partially misleading prior, all five agents reject the false component on evidence, yet one defends its chosen observable with physics inconsistent with its own data. In the simulation-based discovery setting studied here, coding agents prove reliable tools but unreliable scientific co-authors for open-ended claim-making, where co-author trust requires mechanism-fidelity verification they do not reliably self-apply. The failure is detectable, and we propose a lightweight test. A one-step regime-shift check needs only the agent's claim and flags the over-generalized cases. A companion recomputation flags the remaining cases when the correct observable is known. Together, these checks flag every CAWM case in this study.

Steven Young Eulig

Department of Physics and Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology (LPPC), Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

AI Agent Reliability Reasoning Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Autonomous Scientific Discovery LLM Agent Reliability Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 19, 2026cs.CL

CulMind: Benchmarking Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning in Chinese Cultural Heritage

Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in Chinese Cultural Heritage (CCH) requires fine-grained reasoning over visual, textual, stylistic, and historical clues. However, existing CCH benchmarks mainly emphasize final-answer accuracy, while the accuracy and completeness of reasoning processes remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce CulMind and CulMind-R: a high-quality benchmark for multimodal CCH covering 50 tasks from collections of more than 100 museums, and a 24-task reasoning subset that adaptively defines task-specific dimensions for reasoning process evaluation. To evaluate reasoning quality, we propose ReaScore, a task-adaptive metric that evaluates reasoning by automatically weighting task-relevant dimensions. Experiments on 14 leading MLLMs reveal a substantial gap between answers and reasoning, especially on challenging tasks. Further analysis shows that task-adaptive dimension selection and weighting better align evaluation results with expert judgments. Overall, our benchmark and metric support a more expert-aligned assessment of CCH understanding and offer a transferable reference for broader evaluations of cultural heritage. We publicly release the data, code, and evaluation scripts at https://github.com/ZevTsao/CulMind to facilitate reproducible research.

Zhangwei Cao, Shuhan Fan, Yuting Wei +5

University of International Relations · 2Kedge Business School · 3Peking University +3

Benchmark Construction Reasoning Evaluation Multimodal Reasoning Cultural Knowledge in Language Models Cultural Heritage Multimodal Model Evaluation+1

Jun 18, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Accuracy: Measuring Logical Compliance of Predictive Models

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.

Guillaume Olivier Delplanque, Pierre Genevès, Nabil Layaïda +1

LIG · LIG,TYREX

Reasoning Evaluation

Jun 7, 2026cs.SD

AudioProcessBench: Benchmark for Identifying Process Errors in Audio-Grounded Reasoning

Large audio-language models (LALMs) increasingly use explicit reasoning traces for complex audio understanding, yet the evaluation of reasoning quality remains underexplored. Although process-level benchmarks for process reward models (PRMs) have advanced reasoning evaluation in text and multi-modal domains, comparable evaluation for audio reasoning remains limited. In this paper, we present AudioProcessBench, a comprehensive benchmark for step-level process error identification in audio reasoning. AudioProcessBench contains diverse reasoning traces generated by 6 audio and omni language models. Each trace is segmented into discrete reasoning steps and annotated with binary step correctness and fine-grained error types. Our benchmark evaluates models under three complementary paradigms: (1) step correctness identification, (2) error-type-conditioned detection for diagnosing audio-specific verifier capacities, and (3) chain-level aggregation, where verifiers select or aggregate among multiple reasoning traces for the same question. This design enables a systematic analysis of whether current models can detect process errors, whether their weaknesses differ across audio-specific error types, and whether process verification translates into improved answer selection. AudioProcessBench provides a testbed for future research on audio reasoning verifiers, process reward models, and reliable omni-modal reasoning.

Xiangyu Zhao, Junyu Yan, Yaling Shen +7

Monash University · Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University · Orygen +1

Audio-Language Model Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Audio Reasoning Audio Understanding Audio-Language Models

Jun 1, 2026cs.AI

Thinking Past the Answer: Evaluating Harmful Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined. While recent evidence shows that additional reasoning can lead models to overthink, we ask: "Once a model has reached the correct answer, does further reasoning refine the solution, or deviate from it?" To study the dynamics after correctness, we introduce a prefix-level trajectory evaluation protocol grounded in reasoning sufficiency, defining the minimum reasoning budget required for a model to first generate the correct answer. This allows us to disentangle verbose overthinking, where additional reasoning is redundant but harmless, from harmful overthinking, where continued reasoning destabilizes an already-correct trajectory. Starting from multimodal benchmarks, we find that many instances considered reasoning-intensive require surprisingly little reasoning. Moreover, stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%, revealing that current models are limited not only by their ability to reason, but also by their inability to stop at the right time. Furthermore, while common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking (up to 50%), they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking. Failure analysis reveals that correctness deviations are mainly driven by logical drift and visual reinterpretation. Finally, we show that our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk. Code available at https://simonecaldarella.github.io/thinking-past-the-answer.

Simone Caldarella, Davide Talon, Rahaf Aljundi +2

University of Trento · 3Fondazione Bruno Kessler · 2Toyota Motor Europe

LLM Evaluation Overthinking in Language Models Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reliability Large Reasoning Models Reasoning Trace Analysis

May 31, 2026cs.AI

An Enigma of Artificial Reason: Investigating the Production-Evaluation Gap in Large Reasoning Models

Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch. In contrast, large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems. How then do LRMs perform at evaluating reasons? We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning (VAIR) dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers, designed to isolate reasoning evaluation from the confound of reasoning production. Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs: frontier models score as low as 48% when evaluating VAIR solutions, despite near-perfect solution production. Why this enigma? Through chain-of-thought (CoT) analysis, we find evidence of an answer confirmation bias: LRMs often produce then check for the correct answer instead of carefully verifying each step, fabricating rationalizations even when noticing anomalous reasoning. Linear probes corroborate this, showing that while LRM activations encode some representation of valid reasoning, they fail to robustly represent VAIR solutions as invalid. Causal patching of the final answer's representations causes LRM verdicts and activations to flip, demonstrating that answer validity is responsible for models' confirmation biases. These findings indicate an outstanding limitation in dominant approaches to reasoning training, which incentivize LRMs to produce and confirm reasoning towards correct answers, but not to robustly evaluate the underlying reasons.

Mingzhong Sun, Teresa Yeo, Armando Solar-Lezama +1

1NUS Department of Computer Science · 4Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) · 2MIT EECS +1

Reasoning Evaluation LLM Interpretability Large Reasoning Models Reasoning Verification

May 27, 2026cs.AI

The Chain Holds, the Answer Folds: Trace-Answer Dissociation in Reasoning Models Under Adversarial Pressure

Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a

2\times 2

latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rate metrics and single-turn faithfulness probes both miss. Across three datasets (MT-Consistency, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K), the latent-correct rate at the behavioral flip clusters near 50% in think mode and collapses to 11-15% under no_think -- paired, within-model causal evidence that reasoning creates the gap. Across models the effect tracks the reasoning channel (high in Qwen3-32B and GPT-OSS-20B, low in inline-CoT Gemma-4-31B-it). An independent GPT-4o judge corroborates

86\%

of UC labels; a token-level probe shows the answer-slot argmax is correct in

84\%

of UC cells; and a naive trace-anchored defense backfires. We release all trajectories, traces, and judge labels.

Yubo Li, Ramayya Krishnan, Rema Padman

Carnegie Mellon University

CoT Faithfulness Reasoning Evaluation CoT Evaluation Adversarial Robustness of Language Models Latent CoT Reasoning Reasoning Trace Analysis

May 27, 2026cs.AI

ProvMind: Provenance-grounded reasoning for materials synthesis

Materials process optimization requires reasoning over routes, conditions, tools and causal dependencies, yet most computational formulations flatten synthesis procedures into text or ordered steps. We introduce MatProcBench, a provenance-grounded benchmark constructed from literature-mined MatPROV graphs, to evaluate seven process-reasoning tasks spanning route continuity, step-level variable inference and global causal consistency under both same-split and shift-aware evaluation, including a strict dual-OOD split that combines temporal and material-class shift. We further introduce ProvMind, a process-memory reasoning framework that retrieves analogous training processes, converts them into provenance-aware option-level compatibility scores, and uses a language model for constrained final decision making. ProvMind achieves 52.84% accuracy on the dual-OOD split, outperforming prompting, retrieval-augmented and supervised fine-tuning baselines.

Yiming Zhang, Ryo Tamura, Koji Tsuda

Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan. · Center for Basic Research on Materials, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. · RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project, Tokyo, Japan.

Reasoning Evaluation Materials Science Structured Reasoning LLM Reasoning

May 27, 2026cs.AI

The Shape of Overthinking: Backtracking Bursts in Long Reasoning Traces

Reasoning models often generate long traces in which useful self-correction and unproductive revision are hard to distinguish. We study this distinction through backtracking dynamics: local reconsideration, retraction, or re-derivation inside long-form reasoning traces. On 6{,}000 Qwen3-8B AIME traces, we annotate segment-level backtrack severity and analyze event timing, normalized depth, and local burst structure. We find that early isolated repair is often compatible with correct reasoning, whereas incorrect traces more often show moderate-to-severe backtracks that persist and cluster late. Cross-corpus checks show the same qualitative asymmetry across additional model/domain pairs. Filtering analyses instantiate the signal as a prefix-causal selective early-exit policy: at shallow and intermediate depths, burst-aware filtering outperforms fixed length-based filtering while using only prefix-available features. Moderate length cutoffs remain strong completed-trace baselines, but burst-aware control provides a deployable mechanism for separating recoverable repair from likely instability.

Navid Rezazadeh, Arash Gholami Davoodi

University of California, Irvine · Carnegie Mellon University

Reasoning Evaluation Efficient Language Model Inference LLM Reasoning Large Reasoning Models Reasoning Trace Analysis

May 26, 2026cs.AI

Composition Collapse: Stable Factual Knowledge Does Not Imply Compositional Reasoning

Post-training is routinely evaluated through aggregate benchmark scores that treat multi-hop reasoning as a single capability -- as if a model that answers more questions correctly must be better at assembling facts. We show that this assumption can be misleading: recipes with statistically indistinguishable atomic knowledge produce composition behaviour separated by over 40 percentage points, a phenomenon we call composition collapse: the systematic failure to assemble stably-known facts into chains, invisible to aggregate metrics. We introduce a double-gate protocol that changes the estimand from an aggregate compositionality gap to residual composition failure conditioned on stable atomic access, decomposing post-training gains into three independent channels: atomic stability, residual composition, and critical depth. On a benchmark of temporal factual chains spanning depths 2--11 across four post-training recipes, this decomposition reveals that post-training objectives shift composition capability in directions that aggregate metrics mask, and suggests that claims about multi-hop reasoning improvement should be accompanied by atomic-gate-controlled composition metrics. Diagnostic probes further show that a substantial share of measured composition failure reflects generation-time computation constraints rather than permanent inability to compose.

Zhe Yu, Wenpeng Xing, Yunzhao Wei +4

Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University · Zhejiang University · Hong Kong Baptist University +2

Compositional Reasoning Reasoning Evaluation Factual Knowledge in Language Models LLM Post-Training Multi-Hop Reasoning

May 20, 2026cs.LG

Reasoning-Trace Collapse: Evaluating the Loss of Explicit Reasoning During Fine-Tuning

Explicit reasoning models are trained to produce intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, but downstream fine-tuning is often performed on ordinary instruction--response data that contains no such traces. We show that this mismatch can induce reasoning-trace collapse: a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces that made it a reasoning model in the first place. We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity, measuring valid, empty, missing, and truncated reasoning alongside reasoning-conditioned task performance. Using this framework, we study four open-weight reasoning models and find that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply. We further show that simple loss-masking strategies can substantially mitigate collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces. These results suggest that evaluations of fine-tuned reasoning models should report structural reasoning reliability metrics in addition to final-answer performance, especially when adaptation data does not contain explicit reasoning traces.

Lukas Twist, Helen Yannakoudakis, Jie M. Zhang

King’s College London London, UK

Supervised Fine-Tuning Reasoning Evaluation Structured Reasoning Large Reasoning Models Reasoning Trace Analysis

May 13, 2026cs.AI

Strikingness-Aware Evaluation for Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning

Temporal Knowledge Graph Reasoning (TKGR) aims at inferring missing (especially future) events from historical data. Current evaluation in TKGR uniformly weights all events, ignoring that most are trivial repetitions, which overestimate the true reasoning ability. Therefore, the rare outstanding events, whose prediction demands deeper reasoning, should be distinguished and emphasized. To this end, we propose a strikingness-aware evaluation framework, which introduces a rule-based strikingness measuring framework (RSMF) to quantify event strikingness by comparing its expected occurrence with peer events derived from temporal rules. Strikingness is then integrated as a weighting factor into metrics like weighted MRR and Hits@k. Experiments on four TKG benchmarks reveal: 1) All representative models perform worse as event strikingness increases, 2) Path-based methods excel on low-strikingness events and representation-based ones on high-strikingness events, 3) We design an ensemble method whose gains stem from fitting trivial events rather than reasoning improvement. Our framework provides a more rigorous evaluation, refocusing the field on predicting outstanding events.

Rikui Huang, Shengzhe Zhang, Wei Wei

School of Computer Science & Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Huazhong University of Science and Technology · School of Artificial Intelligence & Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Reasoning Evaluation Temporal Link Prediction Temporal KGs

May 4, 2026cs.AI

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

May 3, 2026cs.LG

ISAAC: Auditing Causal Reasoning in Deep Models for Drug-Target Interaction

Deep learning models for drug--target interaction (DTI) prediction often achieve strong benchmark performance without necessarily relying on mechanistically meaningful molecular features, a limitation that standard accuracy-based evaluation cannot detect. We introduce ISAAC (Intervention-based Structural Auditing Approach for Causal Reasoning), a post-hoc framework that evaluates prior-relative structural sensitivity by probing frozen models through matched mechanistic and spurious input-level interventions, independently of predictive accuracy. Applied to three sequence-based DTI architectures on the Davis benchmark, ISAAC reveals approximately 25% relative differences in reasoning scores across models with comparable AUROC (within around 3%), stable across training and intervention seeds and two distinct perturbation operators. These discrepancies, undetectable under conventional accuracy metrics, motivate the use of post-hoc structural auditing as a complement to standard performance evaluation in scientific machine learning for molecular modeling.

Barbara Tarantino, Sun Kim, Yijingxiu Lu +1

Department of Economics and Management, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu 08826, Korea.

Reasoning Evaluation Causal Interpretability Black-Box Model Auditing

May 3, 2026cs.CL

The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound on Closed-System Multi-Step LLM Reasoning

When copies of the same language model are prompted to debate, they produce diverse phrasings of one perspective rather than diverse perspectives. Multi-agent debate (MAD), and more broadly closed-system reasoning where agents iteratively transform each other's outputs, tends to preserve answer accuracy while degrading the reasoning behind those answers. We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap, offering a programmatic theory of evidence-grounded reasoning failure.The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence (decomposer-invariant rankings: Spearman rho=1.0); (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry; (iii) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): under standard MAD, the chain E -> O^0 -> O^1 -> ... is Markov, and the Data Processing Inequality implies E[I(E;O^{t+1})] <= E[I(E;O^t)]. Three companion results -- open-system recovery (Theorem 2), EGSR accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote-aggregation floor (Proposition 1) -- partition multi-step LLM reasoning by its information-theoretic relationship to E. Across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims), DebateCV (C13) preserves 88% of baseline accuracy while SFS drops 43%; majority-vote MAD (C15) reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p < 10^{-6}, d = -0.96); EGSR recovers 98%. An R6 cohort study (Korean n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact) finds inter-rater Fleiss kappa <= +0.018 with 0.8-1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts across language and domain -- the human agreement that faithfulness metrics have been calibrated against is not itself stable. We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.

Kwan Soo Shin

PolymathMinds AI Lab

Reasoning Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Multi-Agent Debate LLM Reasoning

Apr 21, 2026cs.CV

Unveiling Fine-Grained Visual Traces: Evaluating Multimodal Interleaved Reasoning Chains in Multimodal STEM Tasks

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promising reasoning abilities, yet evaluating their performance in specialized domains remains challenging. STEM reasoning is a particularly valuable testbed because it provides highly verifiable feedback, but existing benchmarks often permit unimodal shortcuts due to modality redundancy and focus mainly on final-answer accuracy, overlooking the reasoning process itself. To address this challenge, we introduce StepSTEM: a graduate-level benchmark of 283 problems across mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering for fine-grained evaluation of cross-modal reasoning in MLLMs. StepSTEM is constructed through a rigorous curation pipeline that enforces strict complementarity between textual and visual inputs. We further propose a general step-level evaluation framework for both text-only chain-of-thought and interleaved image-text reasoning, using dynamic programming to align predicted reasoning steps with multiple reference solutions. Experiments across a wide range of models show that current MLLMs still rely heavily on textual reasoning, with even Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 achieving only 38.29% accuracy. These results highlight substantial headroom for genuine cross-modal STEM reasoning and position StepSTEM as a benchmark for fine-grained evaluation of multimodal reasoning. Source code is available at https://github.com/lll-hhh/STEPSTEM.

Jing Jin, Hao Liu, Yan Bai +9

1Tsinghua University · 3Central South University · 2Meituan Inc +3

Reasoning Evaluation Multimodal Reasoning Multimodal CoT Reasoning Multimodal Model Evaluation Multimodal Understanding

Apr 20, 2026cs.AI

From Natural Language to Executable Narsese: A Neuro-Symbolic Benchmark and Pipeline for Reasoning with NARS

Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable at language generation, but they remain unreliable when reasoning requires explicit symbolic structure, multi-step inference, and interpretable uncertainty. This paper presents a neuro-symbolic framework for translating natural-language reasoning problems into executable formal representations using first-order logic (FOL) and Narsese, the language of the Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS). To support this direction, we introduce NARS-Reasoning-v0.1, a benchmark of natural-language reasoning problems paired with FOL forms, executable Narsese programs, and three gold labels: True, False, and Uncertain. We develop a deterministic compilation pipeline from FOL to executable Narsese and validate retained examples through runtime execution in OpenNARS for Applications (ONA), ensuring that the symbolic targets are not only syntactically well formed but also behaviorally aligned with the intended answer. We further present Language-Structured Perception (LSP), a formulation in which an LLM is trained to produce reasoning-relevant symbolic structure rather than only a final verbal response. As an initial proof of concept, we also train and release a Phi-2 LoRA adapter on NARS-Reasoning-v0.1 for three-label reasoning classification, showing that the benchmark can support supervised adaptation in addition to executable evaluation. Overall, the paper positions executable symbolic generation and execution-based validation as a practical path toward more reliable neuro-symbolic reasoning systems.

Mina Gabriel, Pei Wang

Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

Logical Reasoning Reasoning Evaluation Symbolic Reasoning Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning

Apr 20, 2026cs.CL

STaD: Scaffolded Task Design for Identifying Compositional Skill Gaps in LLMs

Benchmarks are often used as a standard to understand LLM capabilities in different domains. However, aggregate benchmark scores provide limited insight into compositional skill gaps of LLMs and how to improve them. To make these weaknesses visible, we propose Scaffolded Task Design (STaD) framework. STaD generates controlled variations of benchmark tasks based on the concept of scaffolding, which introduces structured, incremental support in a step-by-step manner. Rather than inspecting failures individually, this approach enables systematic and scalable probing of model behavior by identifying the specific reasoning skill compositions they lack. Treating the LLM as a black box, our experiments on six models of varying sizes reveal multiple failure points in three reasoning benchmarks and highlight each model's unique and distinct skill gaps.

Sungeun An, Swanand Ravindra Kadhe, Shailja Thakur +2

IBM Research

LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Language Model Probing

Apr 13, 2026cs.CL

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/Manas2006/benchmark_reproducibility.

Manas Pathak, Xingyao Chen, Shuozhe Li +2

University of Texas at Austin

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Reasoning Trace Analysis

Feb 23, 2026cs.CV

A Very Big Video Reasoning Suite

Rapid progress in video models has largely focused on visual quality, leaving their reasoning capabilities underexplored. Video reasoning grounds intelligence in spatiotemporally consistent visual environments that go beyond what text can naturally capture, enabling intuitive reasoning over spatiotemporal structure such as continuity, interaction, and causality. However, systematically studying video reasoning and its scaling behavior is hindered by the lack of large-scale training data. To address this gap, we introduce the Very Big Video Reasoning (VBVR) Dataset, an unprecedentedly large-scale resource spanning 200 curated reasoning tasks following a principled taxonomy and over one million video clips, approximately three orders of magnitude larger than existing datasets. We further present VBVR-Bench, a verifiable evaluation framework that moves beyond model-based judging by incorporating rule-based, human-aligned scorers, enabling reproducible and interpretable diagnosis of video reasoning capabilities. Leveraging the VBVR suite, we conduct one of the first large-scale scaling studies of video reasoning and observe early signs of emergent generalization to unseen reasoning tasks. Together, VBVR lays a foundation for the next stage of research in generalizable video reasoning. The data, benchmark toolkit, and models are publicly available at https://video-reason.com/?v=vbvr .

Maijunxian Wang, Ruisi Wang, Juyi Lin +53

Reasoning Evaluation Video Reasoning Visually Grounded Reasoning Scaling Laws

Feb 10, 2026cs.LG

Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning is a key mechanism for improvement, but its effectiveness is fundamentally governed by reward design. Despite its importance, the relationship between reward modeling and core LLM challenges--such as evaluation bias, hallucination, distribution shift, and efficient learning--remains poorly understood. This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment, shaping what models learn, how they generalize, and whether their outputs can be trusted. We introduce Reasoning-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a reasoning-centric taxonomic perspective that organizes diverse reward paradigms for multi-step reasoning. Within this perspective, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges ranging from inference-time scaling to hallucination mitigation. We further critically evaluate existing benchmarks, highlighting vulnerabilities such as data contamination and reward misalignment, and outline directions for more robust evaluation. By integrating fragmented research threads and clarifying the interplay between reward design and fundamental reasoning capabilities, this work provides a foundational roadmap for building reasoning models that are robust, verifiable, and trustworthy.

Pei-Chi Pan, Yingbin Liang, Sen Lin

Department of Computer Science University of Houston · The Ohio State University · University of Houston

Reward Modeling Reward Hacking Process Reward Models Reasoning Evaluation RL for Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

Jan 20, 2026cs.CV

AMVICC: A Novel Benchmark for Cross-Modal Failure Mode Profiling for VLMs and IGMs

We investigate visual reasoning limitations of both multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and image generation models (IGMs) by creating a novel benchmark to systematically compare failure modes across image-to-text and text-to-image tasks, enabling cross-modal evaluation of visual understanding. Despite rapid growth in machine learning, vision language models (VLMs) still fail to understand basic visual concepts such as object orientation, quantity, and spatial relationships, which highlights gaps in elementary visual reasoning. By adapting MMVP benchmark questions into explicit and implicit prompts, we create \textit{AMVICC}, a novel benchmark for profiling failure modes across various modalities. After testing 11 MLLMs and 3 IGMs in 9 categories of visual reasoning, our results show that failure modes are often shared between models and modalities. However, certain failures are model-specific and modality-specific, and this can potentially be attributed to various factors. IGMs consistently struggle to manipulate specific visual components in response to prompts, especially in explicit prompts, suggesting poor control over fine-grained visual attributes. Our findings apply most directly to the evaluation of existing state-of-the-art models on structured visual reasoning tasks. This work lays the foundation for future cross-modal alignment studies, offering a framework to probe whether image generation and visual interpretation failures stem from shared limitations. These insights can guide future improvements in unified vision-language modeling.

Aahana Basappa, Pranay Goel, Anusri Karra +3

Centennial High School, Frisco, Texas, USA · Algoverse AI Research, Palo Alto, Cali- fornia, USA · Lebanon Trail High School, Frisco, Texas, USA +1

Reasoning Evaluation Multimodal Large Language Models VLM Reasoning Multimodal Model Evaluation T2I Generation Evaluation

Oct 10, 2025cs.CL

StatEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Models in Statistics

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.

Yuchen Lu, Run Yang, Yichen Zhang +6

1Shanghai University of Finance and Economics

LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Mathematical Reasoning

Apr 10, 2025cs.CL

Who Benchmarks the Benchmarks? Towards Comprehensive Evaluation of Commonsense Reasoning Benchmarks

Commonsense reasoning is a key language model capability, as it is purportedly a prerequisite for many basic tasks, unlike specific factual knowledge. It is often measured with multiple-choice questions (MCQ) benchmarks, e.g. HellaSwag and PIQA. Some of these benchmarks, however, are outdated and contain numerous validity issues. We illustrate some typical validity issues with a case study on HellaSwag, one of the most popular and problematic benchmarks for commonsense reasoning. The issues we find range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. We show that if we remove question prompts or replace them with "Lorem ipsum dolor...", about 68% of model predictions do not change. We argue that this occurs due to inner flaws in the benchmark, not mere contamination that might be present in some models. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these issues can have severe consequences. Based on our findings, we propose BenCheck, a package for benchmark validity analysis that encapsulates the main checks performed in our case study and can be used to audit commonsense reasoning benchmarks. We apply these checks to PIQA, Global PIQA, and Winogrande.

Pavel Chizhov, Anton Changalidis, Vishnu Prasad Vijaya Kumar +4

1CAIRO, Technical University of Applied Sciences Würzburg-Schweinfurt · 2PleIAs, Paris, France

Benchmark Auditing Reasoning Evaluation Benchmark Design Benchmark Validity