# EvalQReason: A Framework for Step-Level Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02295 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02295/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 29 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1406.1078/) (2014)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.13138/) (2022)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.13081/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08112/) (2023)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05561/) (2024)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [A Survey of Deep Learning for Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10535/) (2022)
- [Diagnostic Reasoning Prompts Reveal the Potential for Large Language Model Interpretability in Medicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.06834/) (2023)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01869/) (2024)
- [LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05221/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05692/) (2024)
- [Are LLMs Capable of Data-based Statistical and Causal Reasoning? Benchmarking Advanced Quantitative Reasoning with Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17644/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12289/) (2025)
- [A Comprehensive Survey on Trustworthiness in Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.03871/) (2025)
- [THINK-Bench: Evaluating Thinking Efficiency and Chain-of-Thought Quality of Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22113/) (2025)
- [What Defines Good Reasoning in LLMs? Dissecting Reasoning Steps with Multi-Aspect Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20603/) (2025)
- [Why Chain of Thought Fails in Clinical Text Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21933/) (2025)
- [Logits are All We Need to Adapt Closed Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06806/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in critical applications requiring reliable reasoning, yet their internal reasoning processes remain difficult to evaluate systematically. Existing methods focus on final-answer correctness, providing limited insight into how reasoning unfolds across intermediate steps. We present EvalQReason, a framework that quantifies LLM reasoning quality through step-level probability distribution analysis without requiring human annotation. The framework introduces two complementary algorithms: Consecutive Step Divergence (CSD), which measures local coherence between adjacent reasoning steps, and Step-to-Final Convergence (SFC), which assesses global alignment with final answers. Each algorithm employs five statistical metrics to capture reasoning dynamics. Experiments across mathematical and medical datasets with open-source 7B-parameter models demonstrate that CSD-based features achieve strong predictive performance for correctness classification, with classical machine learning models reaching F1=0.78 and ROC-AUC=0.82, and sequential neural models substantially improving performance (F1=0.88, ROC-AUC=0.97). CSD consistently outperforms SFC, and sequential architectures outperform classical machine learning approaches. Critically, reasoning dynamics prove domain-specific: mathematical reasoning exhibits clear divergence-based discrimination patterns between correct and incorrect solutions, while medical reasoning shows minimal discriminative signals, revealing fundamental differences in how LLMs process different reasoning types. EvalQReason enables scalable, process-aware evaluation of reasoning reliability, establishing probability-based divergence analysis as a principled approach for trustworthy AI deployment.