Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24661v1
• Date: Sat, 23 May 2026 17:03:42 GMT
• Title: Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework
• Abstract summary: This study proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring reasoning quality in LLMs from a behavioral perspective.<n>Experiments on seven LLMs across 975 items from four benchmarks demonstrate that the framework reveals behaviors invisible to accuracy-only metrics.
• Score: 9.601233098598456
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks, yet current evaluation approaches predominantly rely on final-answer correctness, offering limited insight into the underlying reasoning processes that produce those answers. To address this gap, this study proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring reasoning quality in LLMs from a behavioral perspective, operationalizing six theoretically grounded dimensions: Correctness (CQ), Consistency (CS), Robustness (RS), Logical Coherence (LS), Efficiency (ES), and Stability (SS). Extensive experiments on seven LLMs across 975 items from four benchmarks demonstrate that the framework reveals behaviors invisible to accuracy-only metrics. Notably, logical coherence is orthogonal to correctness (r = -0.172, ns), confirming that correct answers can arise from incoherent reasoning, while Claude-Haiku-4.5 achieves the highest multi-dimensional score (Q_bal = 0.778). Furthermore, the framework exposes critical ranking inversions: DeepSeek-V3 ranks second under accuracy-priority but fifth under legal/compliance weighting, a reversal that single-metric evaluation cannot detect. Discriminant validity confirms 11/15 dimension pairs are independent (|r| < 0.50), providing psychometric support for treating each dimension as a distinct signal. The dimensional profiles produced by the framework directly support three classes of deployment decision: identifying models whose reasoning traces would fail accountability audits despite correct final answers (LS--CQ orthogonality); preventing ranking errors caused by accuracy-only benchmarking; and ensuring that no single metric silently substitutes for the six independent signals the framework captures.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• Beyond Local Accuracy: A Protocol-Level Identifiability Audit for Controlled LLM Reasoning Evaluation [6.047519836191728]
  We formalize a protocol-level identifiability audit over a finite behavioral policy class.<n>The audit requires zero model calls and resolves our diagnostic case.<n>This case shows how evaluation-design validity can be checked structurally before model inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T14:49:47Z)
• Claim-Level Reliability Assessment for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning [9.168249719115845]
  We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR)<n>CLR reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T12:33:05Z)
• Measuring Five-Nines Reliability: Sample-Efficient LLM Evaluation in Saturated Benchmarks [45.86413490112477]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in reliability-sensitive applications.<n>Estimateing rare failure probability with tight confidence bounds requires prohibitively large LLM inference sizes.<n>We propose to learn a sampling distribution concentrated on failure-prone inputs via the cross-entropy method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T20:23:44Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Certainty robustness: Evaluating LLM stability under self-challenging prompts [0.5156484100374058]
  Large language models (LLMs) often present answers with high apparent confidence despite lacking an explicit mechanism for reasoning about certainty or truth.<n>We introduce the Certainty Robustness Benchmark, a two-turn evaluation framework that measures how LLMs balance stability and adaptability under self-challenging prompts.<n>Using 200 reasoning and mathematics questions from LiveBench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs and distinguish between justified self-corrections and unjustified answer changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T18:07:51Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• Rubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness [4.129847064263056]
  We systematically evaluate the performance of Large Language Models for rubric-based short-answer grading.<n>We find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity.<n>Experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T05:22:04Z)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference [13.59675117792588]
  Large language models are often assumed to acquire increasingly structured, generalizable internal representations simply by scaling data and parameters.<n>We interrogate this assumption by introducing a Clinical Trial Natural Language In Attribution benchmark comprising four reasoning families.<n>Each item is paired with a targeted Ground Knowledge and Meta-Level Reasoning Verification probe, allowing us to dissociate failures of factual access from failures of inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:01:10Z)
• A Confidence-Diversity Framework for Calibrating AI Judgement in Accessible Qualitative Coding Tasks [0.0]
  Confidence-diversity calibration is a quality assessment framework for accessible coding tasks.<n>Analysing 5,680 coding decisions from eight state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that mean self-confidence tracks inter-model agreement closely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T03:47:10Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)

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.