Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework
A new study proposes a multi-dimensional framework for evaluating reasoning quality in large language models (LLMs). This framework assesses six dimensions of reasoning, revealing insights beyond traditional accuracy metrics. The findings highlight that correct answers can stem from incoherent reasoning, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced evaluation approach.
- ▪The study introduces a framework that measures reasoning quality in LLMs across six dimensions: Correctness, Consistency, Robustness, Logical Coherence, Efficiency, and Stability.
- ▪Experiments on seven LLMs show that the framework uncovers behaviors not visible through accuracy-only metrics.
- ▪The framework demonstrates that logical coherence is independent of correctness, indicating that correct answers can arise from incoherent reasoning.
arXiv cs.AI files mainly under ai research. We currently carry 1,128 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | arXiv cs.AI |
| Canonical URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24661 |
| Publication time | Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 -0400 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-26T04:07:43.013Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | JAsuj46utlnp |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2605.24661 (cs) [Submitted on 23 May 2026] Title:Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework Authors:Ali Şenol, Garima Agrawal, Huan Liu View a PDF of the paper titled Measuring Reasoning Quality in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Framework, by Ali \c{S}enol and 1 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) 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.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at arXiv cs.AI.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv cs.AI
