ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods focus on whether the reasoning chain leads to the correct conclusion, but this view may confound reasoning quality with other spurious shortcuts to predict the answer. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that evaluates reasoning chains via two key properties: (1) correctness, i.e., each step makes a valid inference based on information contained within the step, preceding steps, and input context, and (2) informativeness, respectively. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates reasoning chains via two key properties: (1) correctness, i.e., each step makes a valid inference based on information contained within the step, preceding steps, and input context, and (2) informativeness, which is helpful towards deriving the generated answer. |
Similar Papers
A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Alon Jacovi, Yonatan Bitton, Bernd Bohnet, Jonathan Herzig, Or Honovich, Michael Tseng, Michael Collins, Roee Aharoni, Mor Geva
| Challenge: | Recent literature discusses automatic methods to evaluate reasoning to improve their correctness, but no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods. |
| Approach: | They propose to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question-answering settings using a dataset that includes comprehensive labels for relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset shows that verifiers struggle at verifying reasoning chains, particularly verifying logical correctness and detecting contradictions. |
Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Survey (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation practices are inconsistent, resulting in fragmented progress across evaluator design and benchmark development. |
| Approach: | a survey provides a comprehensive overview of step-by-step reasoning evaluation . existing evaluation practices are inconsistent, resulting in fragmented progress . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation criteria are based on four top-level categories . the results are presented in a systematic review of the literature. |
Step-by-Step Reasoning to Solve Grid Puzzles: Where do LLMs Falter? (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Nemika Tyagi, Mihir Parmar, Mohith Kulkarni, Aswin Rrv, Nisarg Patel, Mutsumi Nakamura, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
| Challenge: | Existing studies evaluate only the final predicted answer of a puzzle, without providing any finer metrics to evaluate them. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a grid-based evaluation dataset to evaluate LLMs' reasoning abilities and a new error taxonomy to evaluate their reasoning chains. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing prompting methods on a wide range of natural language understanding tasks previously thought to be exclusive to humans. |
Verifying the Steps of Deductive Reasoning Chains (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models have been shown to improve the reasoning capabilities of the models. |
| Approach: | They propose to automate verification of individual reasoning steps in a logical deductive Chain-of-Thought. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can detect unsound reasoning steps fairly well, but under-performs symbolic methods. |
Stepwise Informativeness Search for Improving LLM Reasoning (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models have improved multistep reasoning but they lose focus over the middle of long contexts. |
| Approach: | They propose a tree search framework that proactively identifies underutilized steps and minimizing redundant information between steps. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework generates more accurate and concise rationales with reduced errors and redundancy. |
CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation protocols for text generation suffer from rating inconsistencies . lexical overlap-based metrics align poorly with human judgments . |
| Approach: | They propose a checklist-based evaluation framework that improves rating reliability via decomposed binary questions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves rating reliability by decomposing binary questions . it improves agreement across evaluator models by 0.45 and reduces score variance . human evaluation remains the gold standard, but it #, Equal contribution. |
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
| Challenge: | Existing work investigating the logical reasoning ability of large language models has focused only on a couple of inference rules of propositional and first-order logics. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a natural language question-answering dataset to evaluate the logical reasoning ability of large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs poorly on a range of natural language questions using chain-of-thought prompting. |
CiteEval: Principle-Driven Citation Evaluation for Source Attribution (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yumo Xu, Peng Qi, Jifan Chen, Kunlun Liu, Rujun Han, Lan Liu, Bonan Min, Vittorio Castelli, Arshit Gupta, Zhiguo Wang
| Challenge: | Current evaluation frameworks rely on NLI to assess binary or ternary support from cited sources, which is suboptimal for citation evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose a citation evaluation framework based on fine-grained citation ratings within a broad context and construct a multi-domain benchmark with high-quality human annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework provides a high-quality human annotation benchmark and a suite of model-based metrics that exhibit strong correlation with human judgments. |
FACT-E: Causality-Inspired Evaluation for Trustworthy Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models generate explanations that appear coherent while containing unfaithful intermediate steps. |
| Approach: | They propose a causality-inspired framework for evaluating CoT quality using controlled perturbations as an instrumental signal to separate genuine step-to-step dependence from bias-driven artifacts. |
| Outcome: | Experiments on GSM8K, MATH, and CommonsenseQA show that FACT-E improves reasoning-trajectory selection and yields stronger in-context learning exemplars. |
How Interpretable are Reasoning Explanations from Prompting Large Language Models? (2024.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prompt Engineering has garnered significant attention for enhancing the performance of large language models across a multitude of tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a simple prompting technique that yields more than 70% improvement in interpretability. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves interpretability by 70% across multiple dimensions. |