DeepSeek vs. o3-mini: How Well can Reasoning LLMs Evaluate MT and Summarization?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08120v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:39:18 GMT
• Title: DeepSeek vs. o3-mini: How Well can Reasoning LLMs Evaluate MT and Summarization?
• Authors: Daniil Larionov, Sotaro Takeshita, Ran Zhang, Yanran Chen, Christoph Leiter, Zhipin Wang, Christian Greisinger, Steffen Eger,
• Abstract summary: Reasoning-enabled large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive performance in complex logical and mathematical tasks.<n>This study systematically compares reasoning-based LLMs with their non-reasoning counterparts across machine translation (MT) and text summarization (TS) evaluation tasks.
• Score: 17.97981669263259
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning-enabled large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive performance in complex logical and mathematical tasks, yet their effectiveness in evaluating natural language generation remains unexplored. This study systematically compares reasoning-based LLMs (DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o3) with their non-reasoning counterparts across machine translation (MT) and text summarization (TS) evaluation tasks. We evaluate eight models across three architectural categories, including state-of-the-art reasoning models, their distilled variants (ranging from 8B to 70B parameters), and equivalent conventional, non-reasoning LLMs. Our experiments on WMT23 and SummEval benchmarks reveal that the benefits of reasoning capabilities are highly model and task-dependent: while OpenAI o3-mini models show consistent performance improvements with increased reasoning intensity, DeepSeek-R1 underperforms compared to its non-reasoning variant, with exception to certain aspects of TS evaluation. Correlation analysis demonstrates that increased reasoning token usage positively correlates with evaluation quality in o3-mini models. Furthermore, our results show that distillation of reasoning capabilities maintains reasonable performance in medium-sized models (32B) but degrades substantially in smaller variants (8B). This work provides the first comprehensive assessment of reasoning LLMs for NLG evaluation and offers insights into their practical use.

Related papers

• A comprehensive study of LLM-based argument classification: from LLAMA through GPT-4o to Deepseek-R1 [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enhanced the efficiency of analyzing and extracting argument semantics.<n>This paper presents a study of a selection of LLM's, using diverse datasets such as Args.me and UKP.<n>The results indicate that ChatGPT-4o outperforms the others in the argument classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T14:23:40Z)
• CoThink: Token-Efficient Reasoning via Instruct Models Guiding Reasoning Models [56.40065909544213]
  Large language models (LLMs) benefit from increased test-time compute, a phenomenon known as test-time scaling.<n>However, reasoning-optimized models often overthink even simple problems, producing excessively verbose outputs and leading to low token efficiency.<n>We identify two key causes of this verbosity: (1) reinforcement learning reduces the information density of forward reasoning, and (2) backward chain-of thought training encourages redundant and often unnecessary verification steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:24:45Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step.<n>Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy.<n>We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM)<n>R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• AutoLogi: Automated Generation of Logic Puzzles for Evaluating Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models [86.83875864328984]
  We propose an automated method for synthesizing open-ended logic puzzles, and use it to develop a bilingual benchmark, AutoLogi.<n>Our approach features program-based verification and controllable difficulty levels, enabling more reliable evaluation that better distinguishes models' reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:02:31Z)
• Towards Reasoning Ability of Small Language Models [3.732224317444325]
  We show that small language models (SLMs) can achieve competitive reasoning performance.<n>We systematically survey, benchmark, and analyze 72 SLMs from six model families across 14 reasoning benchmarks.<n>Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T08:59:16Z)
• MME-CoT: Benchmarking Chain-of-Thought in Large Multimodal Models for Reasoning Quality, Robustness, and Efficiency [63.23935582919081]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) We introduce MME-CoT, a specialized benchmark evaluating the CoT reasoning performance of LMMs. We conduct an in-depth analysis of state-of-the-art LMMs, uncovering several key insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T18:59:46Z)
• What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis [81.15503859645149]
  In this paper, we aim to theoretically analyze the impact of in-context demonstrations on large language models' reasoning performance.<n>We propose a straightforward, generalizable, and low-complexity demonstration selection method named LMS3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T11:38:11Z)
• Language Models are Hidden Reasoners: Unlocking Latent Reasoning Capabilities via Self-Rewarding [74.31981011985681]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities, but still struggle with complex reasoning tasks requiring multiple steps. We introduce LaTent Reasoning Optimization (LaTRO), a principled framework that formulates reasoning as sampling from a latent distribution. We validate LaTRO through experiments on GSM8K and ARC-Challenge datasets using multiple model architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T22:02:30Z)
• Enhancing LLM Evaluations: The Garbling Trick [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly powerful, making it challenging to distinguish between models based on their performance. We propose a general method to transform existing LLM evaluations into a series of progressively more difficult tasks. Our results offer insights into the comparative reasoning abilities of these models, particularly highlighting distinctions between OpenAI's o1-preview and Google's gemini-pro-1.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T11:39:50Z)
• A Comparative Study on Reasoning Patterns of OpenAI's o1 Model [69.08287909042421]
  We show that OpenAI's o1 model has achieved the best performance on most datasets. We also provide a detailed analysis on several reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T15:09:03Z)
• Language Model Preference Evaluation with Multiple Weak Evaluators [78.53743237977677]
  GED (Preference Graph Ensemble and Denoise) is a novel approach that leverages multiple model-based evaluators to construct preference graphs.<n>In particular, our method consists of two primary stages: aggregating evaluations into a unified graph and applying a denoising process.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees for our framework, demonstrating its efficacy in recovering the ground truth preference structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T01:57:25Z)
• Fine-Tuning Language Models for Ethical Ambiguity: A Comparative Study of Alignment with Human Responses [1.566834021297545]
  Language models often misinterpret human intentions due to their handling of ambiguity. We show that human and LLM judgments are poorly aligned in morally ambiguous contexts. Our fine-tuning approach, which improves the model's understanding of text distributions in a text-to-text format, effectively enhances performance and alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T11:24:04Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• AQA-Bench: An Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs' Sequential Reasoning Ability [25.96556671801114]
  This paper introduces AQA-Bench, a novel benchmark to assess the sequential reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in algorithmic contexts.<n>We build AQA-Bench with three different algorithms, namely binary search, depth-first search, and breadth-first search, and to evaluate the sequential reasoning ability of 14 different LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T18:59:33Z)
• Using Counterfactual Tasks to Evaluate the Generality of Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models [7.779982757267302]
  We investigate the generality of analogy-making abilities previously claimed for large language models (LLMs) We show that while the performance of humans remains high for all the problems, the GPT models' performance declines sharply on the counterfactual set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T05:52:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.