Markovian ODE-guided scoring can assess the quality of offline reasoning traces in language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01580v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:09:33 GMT
• Title: Markovian ODE-guided scoring can assess the quality of offline reasoning traces in language models
• Authors: Arghodeep Nandi, Ojasva Saxena, Tanmoy Chakraborty,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MarODE, an offline evaluation framework that assigns quality scores to reasoning traces.<n>Its effectiveness is assessed using human-centric perturbations and human judgments.<n>In a large-scale evaluation, MarODE outperforms existing baselines by over 250%.
• Score: 16.178449605148995
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning traces produced by generative language models are increasingly used for tasks ranging from mathematical problem solving to automated fact checking. However, existing evaluation methods remain largely mechanical and fail to capture human-centric notions of reasoning quality in a way that generalizes across varied and progressively degraded reasoning. We introduce MarODE, an offline evaluation framework that assigns quality scores to reasoning traces. Its effectiveness is assessed using human-centric perturbations and human judgments, which jointly evaluate the fundamental dimensions of an evaluation metric - goodness and soundness. The approach is grounded in a Markovian formulation of reasoning progression and an ordinary differential equation based characterization of trace dynamics, enabling efficient evaluation of reasoning quality. In a large-scale evaluation, MarODE outperforms existing baselines by over 250% under Somers' D correlation. Our results emphasize the value of theory-driven evaluation frameworks as reasoning traces become central to language model-based systems.

Related papers

• Correcting Human Labels for Rater Effects in AI Evaluation: An Item Response Theory Approach [0.0]
  This paper integrates psychometric rater models into the AI pipeline to improve the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn from human judgments.<n>We show how adjusting for rater severity produces corrected estimates of summary quality.<n>This perspective highlights a path toward more robust, interpretable, and construct-aligned practices for AI development and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T03:35:36Z)
• Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It [1.6261897792391753]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:57:28Z)
• Poor-Supervised Evaluation for SuperLLM via Mutual Consistency [20.138831477848615]
  We propose the PoEM framework to conduct evaluation without accurate labels. We first prove that the capability of a model can be equivalently assessed by the consistency between it and certain reference model. To alleviate the insufficiencies of the conditions in reality, we introduce an algorithm that treats humans (when available) and the models under evaluation as reference models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T06:49:03Z)
• 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)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• SocREval: Large Language Models with the Socratic Method for Reference-Free Reasoning Evaluation [78.23119125463964]
  We develop SocREval, a novel approach for prompt design in reference-free reasoning evaluation.<n>SocREval significantly improves GPT-4's performance, surpassing existing reference-free and reference-based reasoning evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T18:25:46Z)
• Learning Evaluation Models from Large Language Models for Sequence Generation [61.8421748792555]
  We propose a three-stage evaluation model training method that utilizes large language models to generate labeled data for model-based metric development.<n> Experimental results on the SummEval benchmark demonstrate that CSEM can effectively train an evaluation model without human-labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:41:16Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Dynamic Human Evaluation for Relative Model Comparisons [8.843915018287476]
  We present a dynamic approach to measure the required number of human annotations when evaluating generated outputs in relative comparison settings. We propose an agent-based framework of human evaluation to assess multiple labelling strategies and methods to decide the better model in a simulation and a crowdsourcing case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T11:32:13Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.