# Evaluating Chain-of-Thought Reasoning through Reusability and Verifiability

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17544 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17544/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09561/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09110/) (2022)
- [A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00559/) (2024)
- [Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11199/) (2024)
- [FinChain: A Symbolic Benchmark for Verifiable Chain-of-Thought Financial Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02515/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [An Agentic AI Framework with Large Language Models and Chain-of-Thought for UAV-Assisted Logistics Scheduling with Mobile Edge Computing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.13221/) (2026)
- [Reasoning that Travels: Dissecting How Chain-of-Thought Transfers Across Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.28913/) (2026)
- [Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04418/) (2026)
- [What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00018/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In multi-agent IR pipelines for tasks such as search and ranking, LLM-based agents exchange intermediate reasoning in terms of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) with each other. Current CoT evaluation narrowly focuses on target task accuracy. However, this metric fails to assess the quality or utility of the reasoning process itself. To address this limitation, we introduce two novel measures: reusability and verifiability. We decouple CoT generation from execution using a Thinker-Executor framework. Reusability measures how easily an Executor can reuse the Thinker's CoT. Verifiability measures how frequently an Executor can match the Thinker's answer using the CoT. We evaluated four Thinker models against a committee of ten Executor models across five benchmarks. Our results reveal that reusability and verifiability do not correlate with standard accuracy, exposing a blind spot in current accuracy-based leaderboards for reasoning capability. Surprisingly, we find that CoTs from specialized reasoning models are not consistently more reusable or verifiable than those from general-purpose LLMs like Llama and Gemma.