Cascaded Information Disclosure for Generalized Evaluation of Problem Solving Capabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While question-answering~(QA) benchmark performance is an automatic and scalable method to compare LLMs, it is an indirect method of evaluating their underlying problem-solving capabilities. Therefore, we propose a holistic and generalizable framework based on cascaded question disclosure that provides a more accurate estimate of the models' problem-solving capabilities while maintaining the scalability and automation. This approach collects model responses in a stagewise manner with each stage revealing partial information about the question designed to elicit generalized reasoning in LLMs. We find that our approach not only provides a better comparison between LLMs, but also induces better intermediate traces in models compared to the standard QA paradigm. We empirically verify this behavior on diverse reasoning and knowledge-heavy QA datasets by comparing LLMs of varying sizes and families. Our approach narrows the performance gap observed in the standard QA evaluation settings, indicating that the prevalent indirect QA paradigm of evaluation overestimates the differences in performance between models. We further validate our findings by extensive ablation studies.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2025.
Builds on
32 of 61 references.
References · 32
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,998
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
20 more
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
- 2019SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching with Graph Neural Networkscited by 1,443
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 550
- 2023MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuningcited by 487
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2023HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 341
- 2023CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-Xcited by 300
- 2021Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 232
- 2023ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Modelscited by 177
- 2024PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competitioncited by 165
- 2024GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solverscited by 158
- 2024When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboardscited by 137
- 2024Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?cited by 71
- 2024The Benefits of a Concise Chain of Thought on Problem-Solving in Large Language Modelscited by 63
- 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 52
- 2025Think Twice: Enhancing LLM Reasoning by Scaling Multi-round Test-time Thinkingcited by 46
- 2024Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklistscited by 32
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025One More Question is Enough, Expert Question Decomposition (EQD) Model for Domain Quantitative Reasoning
- 2024Evaluating LLM Reasoning in the Operations Research Domain with ORQA
- 2025MinosEval: Distinguishing Factoid and Non-Factoid for Tailored Open-Ended QA Evaluation with LLMs
- 2026Automated Benchmark Generation from Domain Guidelines Informed by Bloom's Taxonomy
- 2026RLVR Training of LLMs Does Not Improve Thinking Ability for General QA: Evaluation Method and a Simple Solution
- 2026Operads for compositional reasoning in LLMs
- 2025What Defines Good Reasoning in LLMs? Dissecting Reasoning Steps with Multi-Aspect Evaluation
- 2026Reference-Free Evaluation of Reasoning in Open-Ended Question Answering