Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23864v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:57:28 GMT
• Title: Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It
• Authors: Seyed Mahed Mousavi, Edoardo Cecchinato, Lucia Hornikova, Giuseppe Riccardi,
• Abstract summary: We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi.<n>We uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology.
• Score: 1.6261897792391753
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

Related papers

• From Rankings to Insights: Evaluation Should Shift Focus from Leaderboard to Feedback [36.68929551237421]
  We introduce bftextFeedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results.<n>Our project homepage and dataset are available at https://liudan193.io/Feedbacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• 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 Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• 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)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)

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.