A two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness is introduced, demonstrating that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy.
Abstract
Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors, but most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final-answer accuracy. This can obscure whether a model can verify a non-canonical but valid solution trace. We introduce a controlled linear-equation benchmark for evaluating LLMs in the evaluator role. Each instance asks the model to judge final-answer correctness, step-level trace correctness, and the first incorrect step. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art open LLMs reveals a significant robustness gap: models that accurately evaluate canonical solutions often fail when presented with perturbed but logically equivalent variants. Across GPT-OSS 20B, Qwen3-14B, and Phi-4-Reasoning, base models perform well on canonical traces but degrade substantially on perturbed traces, especially for error localization. On valid perturbed traces, base-model false-rejection rates reach 75.6-85.3%, showing strong sensitivity to canonical solution form. Supervised fine-tuning, distillation, and test-time compute improve robustness in some settings, but gains are model dependent and can trade off against canonical performance. The results show that reliable process-level verification remains challenging, and evaluator robustness should be measured separately from solver accuracy, even in a simple algebraic domain with exact ground truth.
On published benchmarks, frontier models remain far ahead of any 12B at raw from-scratch reasoning; on everything this system has solved and verified, the comparison inverts: a frontier API call pays a fresh generation pass on every query, forever, while verified reuse costs zero tokens and returns the identical bits every time.
This work studies test utilization through matched prompting controls, paired semantic interventions, and test suites selected by fault detection to make test-specified rule changes measurable alongside implementation capability and benchmark correctness.
Yun-Hao Liang, Cheng-Guang Gan, Rui-Xuan Ying et al.· 1 citation
A graded, multi-family, failure-aware framework for stress-testing reasoning models that exposes structure that an aggregate score hides and exposes consistent weaknesses across all models.
ContainmentBench, a sandboxed benchmark comprising a 504-scenario specification dataset, a shared rollout-trace schema, and stage-scoped metrics for endpoint violations, logged propagation, and explicitly authorized taint-exposed proposals that commit, is introduced.
Wen-Hao Lan, Shan Li, Meiqi Wu et al.· 0 citations
A wrong answer does not show whether the model lacked the needed information or held it and failed to use it. On an entity-obligation binding task, a language model can emit an incorrect prompt-supplied binding while a linear probe can recover the correct one from its frozen hidden state. We measure how often this occurs across 16 public checkpoints, each evaluated with three seeds. We fit a probe on a training fold, select its layer on a validation fold, and report results on a disjoint test fold. On the trials each model gets wrong, probe accuracy exceeds the strict present-obligation baseline, 1/K = 0.125, by +0.196 (95% CI [+0.101, +0.296], bootstrapped over models). A query-entity counterfactual rules out token presence and recency. A score built from the sign of probe-output disagreement improves failure detection over the model's own confidence by +0.079 AUROC (95% CI [+0.036, +0.126]). Raw probe confidence gives no measurable improvement over model confidence. Steering the residual stream toward the probe-decoded binding, with no gold label, raises accuracy on all eight models tested by a mean of +0.168 (95% CI [+0.066, +0.280]). Where recent studies report that probe-detected errors are resistant to interventions, we find that in-context binding is a setting in which probes are actionable.
Manas Venkata Sai Ravulapalli, Samrath Singh Chadha, Abhinav M. Hari· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
