Reasoning Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Reasoning evaluation asks not only whether an AI gives the right answer, but how it gets there, what evidence it uses, and whether its skills transfer to new settings. Researchers build benchmarks for mathematics, science, medicine, commonsense, and multimodal tasks, including interactive tests and controlled variations that expose specific skill gaps. They assess intermediate steps with process rewards, trace audits, structured rubrics, and interventions that test whether answers depend on intended evidence. A central challenge is that accuracy and fluent explanations can hide shortcuts or invalid reasoning, while scalable, trustworthy evaluation remains difficult across domains and models.

Latest papers

51 papers3 papers in the last four weeks, down 25% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

May 13, 2026

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, 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

May 3, 2026

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, 2026

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 Faithfulness of Language Model Reasoning Multi-Agent Debate LLM Reasoning

Apr 21, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 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

Mar 13, 2026

Beyond Final Answers: CRYSTAL Benchmark for Transparent Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation

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

Wayner Barrios, SouYoung Jin

Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

Reasoning Evaluation MLLM Reasoning Multimodal Model Evaluation Multimodal CoT Reasoning Process Reward Models RL for Language Model Reasoning

Mar 10, 2026

Good Reasoning Makes Good Demonstrations: Implicit Reasoning Quality Supervision via In-Context Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning in large language models but treats all correct solutions equally, potentially reinforcing flawed traces that arrive at correct answers by chance. We observe that better reasoning makes better demonstrations: high-quality solutions serve as more effective in-context examples than low-quality ones. We term this teaching ability Demonstration Utility, and show that the policy model's own in-context learning ability provides an efficient way to measure it, yielding a quality signal termed Evidence Gain. To leverage this signal during training, we introduce In-Context RLVR, which prepends demonstrations before each rollout. Theoretically, we prove that this simple input modification implicitly reweights rewards by a factor approximately proportional to Evidence Gain, assigning higher weights to high-quality traces without requiring costly computation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements in both accuracy and reasoning quality over standard RLVR baselines. Our codes and datasets are available at https://github.com/Mithas-114/IC-DAPO.

Tiehua Mei, Minxuan Lv, Leiyu Pan +5

School of Data Science, Fudan University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University

RL for Language Model Reasoning LLM Reasoning In-Context RL Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Reasoning Evaluation

Mar 10, 2026

Common Sense vs. Morality: The Curious Case of Narrative Focus Bias in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse real-world applications and user communities. As such, it is crucial that these models remain both morally grounded and knowledge-aware. In this work, we uncover a critical limitation of current LLMs -- their tendency to prioritize moral reasoning over commonsense understanding. To investigate this phenomenon, we introduce CoMoral, a novel benchmark dataset containing commonsense contradictions embedded within moral dilemmas. Through extensive evaluation of ten LLMs across different model sizes, we find that existing models consistently struggle to identify such contradictions without prior signal. Furthermore, we observe a pervasive narrative focus bias, wherein LLMs more readily detect commonsense contradictions when they are attributed to a secondary character rather than the primary (narrator) character. Our comprehensive analysis underscores the need for enhanced reasoning-aware training to improve the commonsense robustness of large language models.

Saugata Purkayastha, Pranav Kushare, Pragya Paramita Pal +1

Department of Language Science and Technology, Universität des Saarlandes · TU Darmstadt, Germany.

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Implicit Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 5, 2026

X-RAY: Mapping LLM Reasoning Capability via Formalized and Calibrated Probes

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood. Existing evaluations largely emphasize task-level accuracy, often conflating pattern matching with reasoning capability. We present X-RAY, an explainable reasoning analysis system that maps the LLM reasoning capability using calibrated, formally verified probes. We model reasoning capability as a function of extractable structure, operationalized through formal properties such as constraint interaction, reasoning depth, and solution-space geometry. X-Ray generates probes via formal tools with controlled structural variations, enabling precise isolation of incremental structural information through formal calibration and verification. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs on problems ranging from junior-level to advanced in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Our analysis reveals a systematic asymmetry in LLM reasoning: models are relatively robust to constraint refinement, where additional conditions shrink an existing solution space, but degrade sharply under solution-space restructuring, where modifications alter the underlying structural form of the solution manifold. Moreover, calibrated formal probes differentiate models that appear indistinguishable on standard benchmarks and reveal failure modes that are structurally interpretable rather than opaque. Beyond evaluation, our framework is contamination-free and supports the training and testing of reasoning models.

Tianxi Gao, Yufan Cai, Yusi Yuan +1

National University of Singapore, Singapore

Structured Reasoning in Language Models Reasoning Evaluation LLM Reasoning Implicit Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 5, 2026

Interactive Benchmarks

Existing reasoning evaluation paradigms suffer from different limitations: fixed benchmarks are increasingly saturated and vulnerable to contamination, while preference-based evaluations rely on subjective judgments. We argue that a core aspect of intelligence is the ability to decide what information to acquire and how to use it effectively. We propose Interactive Benchmarks, a unified evaluation paradigm that assesses a model's reasoning ability through budgeted multi-turn interaction. We evaluate models under this framework in two settings: Interactive Proofs, where models interact with a judge to solve Logic, UI2Html, and Mathematics tasks under objective feedback; and Interactive Games, where models reason strategically to maximize long-horizon utilities. Our results show that interactive benchmarks provide a more robust assessment of this dimension of model intelligence, revealing substantial room for improvement in interactive scenarios.

Baoqing Yue, Zihan Zhu, Yutong Han +6

InteractiveBench · Princeton University

Reasoning Evaluation

Mar 3, 2026

Chart Deep Research in LVLMs via Parallel Relative Policy Optimization

With the rapid advancement of data science, charts have evolved from simple numerical presentation tools to essential instruments for insight discovery and decision-making support. However, current chart data intelligence exhibits significant limitations in deep research capabilities, with existing methods predominantly addressing shallow tasks such as visual recognition or factual question-answering, rather than the complex reasoning and high-level data analysis that deep research requires. This limitation stems from two primary technical bottlenecks: at the training level, existing post-training techniques exhibit deficiencies in handling multi-dimensional reward signal interference and heterogeneous data gradient conflicts, preventing models from achieving balanced development across multiple capability dimensions; at the evaluation level, current methods remain limited to factual retrieval and basic computation, failing to assess end-to-end analytic reasoning and other deep research capabilities. To address the training challenge, we propose PRPO, which performs parallel optimization across reward dimensions and capability partitioning across data types, effectively disentangling conflicts between heterogeneous data and multi-dimensional reward signals while ensuring optimization stability. For the evaluation challenge, we construct MCDR-Bench based on the ``error uniqueness principle," transforming subjective generation assessment into objective error identification through controllable error injection, enabling quantifiable evaluation of deep research capabilities. Experimental validation confirms that the proposed PRPO and MCDR-Bench jointly establish a unified framework that systematically advances chart deep research through enhanced collaborative training and objective evaluation.

Jiajin Tang, Gaoyang, Wenjie Wang +2

ByteDance · ShanghaiTech University · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University

Chart Understanding Large Vision-Language Models LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation RL for Language Model Reasoning

Feb 23, 2026

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 23, 2026

Watson & Holmes: A Naturalistic Benchmark for Comparing Human and LLM Reasoning

Existing benchmarks for AI reasoning provide limited insight into how closely these capabilities resemble human reasoning in naturalistic contexts. We present an adaptation of the Watson & Holmes detective tabletop game as a new benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning performance using incrementally presented narrative evidence, open-ended questions and unconstrained language responses. An automated grading system was developed and validated against human assessors to enable scalable and replicable performance evaluation. Results show a clear improvement in AI model performance over time. Over nine months of 2025, model performance rose from the lower quartile of the human comparison group to approximately the top 5%. Around half of this improvement reflects steady advancement across successive model releases, while the remainder corresponds to a marked step change associated with reasoning-oriented model architectures. Systematic differences in the performance of AI models compared to humans, dependent on features of the specific detection puzzle, were mostly absent with the exception of a fall in performance for models when solving longer cases (case lengths being in the range of 1900-4000 words), and an advantage at inductive reasoning for reasoning models at early stages of case solving when evidence was scant.

Thatchawin Leelawat, Lewis D Griffin

Computer Science, University College London, UK

Inductive Reasoning in Language Models Reasoning Evaluation LLM Evaluation Large Reasoning Models

Feb 23, 2026

Classroom Final Exam: An Instructor-Tested Reasoning Benchmark

We introduce CFE-Bench (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. CFE-Bench is curated from repeatedly used, authentic university homework and exam problems, paired with reference solutions provided by course instructors. CFE-Bench remains challenging for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves 59.69% overall accuracy, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46%, leaving substantial room for improvement. Beyond aggregate scores, we conduct a diagnostic analysis by decomposing instructor reference solutions into structured reasoning flows. We find that while frontier models often answer intermediate sub-questions correctly, they struggle to reliably derive and maintain correct intermediate states throughout multi-step solutions. We further observe that model-generated solutions typically contain more reasoning steps than instructor solutions, indicating lower step efficiency and a higher risk of error accumulation. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/CFE_Bench.

Chongyang Gao, Diji Yang, Shuyan Zhou +4

Northwestern University · UC Santa Cruz · Duke University +3

MLLM Reasoning LLM Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Multimodal Reasoning Efficient Language Model Reasoning

Feb 10, 2026

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, 2026

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 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, 2025

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 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 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, 2025

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

Commonsense Reasoning Benchmark Auditing Reasoning Evaluation Benchmark Design Benchmark Validity