GEAR: A General Evaluation Framework for Abductive Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24096v1
• Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 22:22:28 GMT
• Title: GEAR: A General Evaluation Framework for Abductive Reasoning
• Abstract summary: GEAR (General Evaluation for Abductive Reasoning) is a general-purpose, fully automated, transparent, and label-free evaluation paradigm.<n>GEAR scores hypothesis sets by three metrics: consistency (each hypothesis explains the observations), generalizability (consistent hypotheses make meaningful predictions on unseen inputs), and diversity (the set covers distinct predictions and patterns).
• Score: 21.08814504507274
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Since the advent of large language models (LLMs), research has focused on instruction following and deductive reasoning. A central question remains: can these models discover new knowledge, and how can we evaluate this ability? We address this by studying abductive reasoning-the generation of plausible hypotheses to explain observations-and introduce GEAR (General Evaluation for Abductive Reasoning), a general-purpose, fully automated, transparent, and label-free evaluation paradigm. GEAR scores hypothesis sets by three metrics: consistency (each hypothesis explains the observations), generalizability (consistent hypotheses make meaningful predictions on unseen inputs), and diversity (the set covers distinct predictions and patterns). Built this way, GEAR is scalable (no human gold answers), reliable (deterministic scoring aligned with classical abduction), and open-ended (scores improve only when models produce new plausible hypotheses, unlike static benchmarks that saturate once accuracy is high). Using GEAR, we conduct a fine-grained study of nine LLMs on four abduction benchmarks with 1,500 problems, generating over 50,000 candidate hypotheses and revealing model differences obscured by gold-answer or purely human evaluations. We further propose a momentum-based curriculum that adjusts GEAR-derived training data by learning velocity: it starts with what the model learns quickly and shifts toward harder objectives such as generating diverse hypotheses once the model is confident on foundational objectives. Without gold-label supervision, this strategy improves all GEAR objectives and these gains transfer to established abductive reasoning benchmarks. Taken together, GEAR provides a principled framework that evaluates abduction and supplies label-free, scalable training signals that help LLMs produce more diverse and reliable hypotheses.

Related papers

• AgentIdeaBench: Benchmarking Scientific Ideation in the Agent Era [55.37558486468993]
  We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration.<n>We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines.<n>Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T15:19:13Z)
• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• FALSIFYBENCH: Evaluating Inductive Reasoning in LLMs with Rule Discovery Games [2.959715295394151]
  We introduce FALSIFYBENCH, an evaluation framework for hypothesis-driven reasoning inspired by the classic Wason 2-4-6 task.<n>This task captures key elements of scientific reasoning: hypothesis generation, evidence gathering, and belief revision in response to both confirming and disconfirming evidence.<n>Our evaluation of 12 LLMs across model families and scales shows that reasoning models are generally stronger scientific reasoners than instruction-tuned models, although no model comes close to optimal performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T11:33:17Z)
• SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones? [51.154921661608675]
  We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions.<n>SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T17:57:37Z)
• EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs [9.412828452977553]
  Existing approaches reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost.<n>This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment.<n>We proposeEpiCaR as a training objective that jointly optimize reasoning performance and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T06:21:13Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Behaviorally Calibrated Reinforcement Learning [32.32593439144886]
  Behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification.<n>Our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T22:51:48Z)
• What Does Your Benchmark Really Measure? A Framework for Robust Inference of AI Capabilities [0.773472615056109]
  Evaluations of generative models on benchmark data are now ubiquitous.<n>Yet growing skepticism surrounds their reliability.<n>How can we know that a reported accuracy genuinely reflects a model's true performance?<n>We make this step explicit by proposing a principled framework for evaluation as inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T21:29:04Z)
• The NazoNazo Benchmark: A Cost-Effective and Extensible Test of Insight-Based Reasoning in LLMs [3.9977256267361754]
  We present Nazonazo, a cost-effective benchmark built from Japanese children's riddles to test insight-based reasoning.<n>No model except for GPT-5 is comparable to human performance, which achieves a 52.9% mean accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T07:50:04Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• Controllable Logical Hypothesis Generation for Abductive Reasoning in Knowledge Graphs [54.596180382762036]
  Abductive reasoning in knowledge graphs aims to generate plausible logical hypotheses from observed entities.<n>Due to a lack of controllability, a single observation may yield numerous plausible but redundant or irrelevant hypotheses.<n>We introduce the task of controllable hypothesis generation to improve the practical utility of abductive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T09:36:47Z)
• On the Role of Model Prior in Real-World Inductive Reasoning [7.962140902232628]
  In real-world applications, Large Language Models' hypothesis generation is shaped by task-specific model priors.<n> removing demonstrations results in minimal loss of hypothesis quality and downstream usage.<n>These insights advance our understanding of the dynamics of hypothesis generation in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T09:22:08Z)
• Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning [88.68573198200698]
  We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data.<n>Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios.<n>Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T21:29:00Z)
• Selective Learning: Towards Robust Calibration with Dynamic Regularization [79.92633587914659]
  Miscalibration in deep learning refers to there is a discrepancy between the predicted confidence and performance. We introduce Dynamic Regularization (DReg) which aims to learn what should be learned during training thereby circumventing the confidence adjusting trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T11:25:20Z)
• Source-Free Unsupervised Domain Adaptation with Hypothesis Consolidation of Prediction Rationale [53.152460508207184]
  Source-Free Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (SFUDA) is a challenging task where a model needs to be adapted to a new domain without access to target domain labels or source domain data. This paper proposes a novel approach that considers multiple prediction hypotheses for each sample and investigates the rationale behind each hypothesis. To achieve the optimal performance, we propose a three-step adaptation process: model pre-adaptation, hypothesis consolidation, and semi-supervised learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T05:53:22Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)

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.