mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Reference-Free Score for Detecting Silent Reasoning Failures in Large Language Models

arXiv 2607.26102 ↗First posted 28 Jul 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Mathematical chain of thought (CoT) evaluation is commonly reduced to whether the final answer matches a reference. This conflates producing a correct conclusion with producing a valid derivation an invalid chain can accidentally reach the right answer, while a valid calculation can be followed by a transcription error. We call this mismatch the reasoning answer consistency gap. This framework paper introduces the Reasoning Answer Faithfulness Score (RAFS), a reference free, instance level diagnostic of whether an emitted mathematical trace is locally credible, supports its answer, and is stable under resampling and targeted counterfactual interventions. RAFS combines step validity, reasoning to answer entailment and counterfactual sensitivity, answer consensus, and conditional reasoning stability. It evaluates transcript level agreement, not a models private computation and not factual correctness outside the tested mathematical setting. We retain a preregistered, results blind confirmatory study on GSM8K and MATH, with hypotheses, admissibility rules, calibration, and tests fixed before confirmatory outcomes are inspected. A separate feasibility pilot is specified to verify end to end execution and estimate interven tion coverage before that freeze numerical pilot claims are re ported only when trace level artifacts are available. We formalize four reasoning answer outcomes, justify the non compensatory aggregator, instantiate semantic trace distance, quantify compute and abstention tradeoffs, and define verifier independence and power analyses. RAFS is intended to complement mathematical answer accuracy with an auditable warning signal for silent reasoning failures and answer extraction errors

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

Builds on

9 of 24 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic1 May
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models5 Feb

Other references · 7

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  3. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
  4. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
  5. 2024ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoningcited by 277
  6. 2025Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithfulcited by 166
  7. 2024Towards Better Chain-of-Thought: A Reflection on Effectiveness and Faithfulnesscited by 20

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Catch Me If You Can: How Smaller Reasoning Models Pretend to Reason with Mathematical Fidelity
  2. 2026Does Inference Scaling Improve Reasoning Faithfulness? A Multi-Model Analysis of Self-Consistency Tradeoffs
  3. 2025ReliableMath: Benchmark of Reliable Mathematical Reasoning on Large Language Models
  4. 2026RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models
  5. 2025Putnam-AXIOM: A Functional and Static Benchmark for Measuring Higher Level Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs
  6. 2025Reasoning Relay: Evaluating Stability and Interchangeability of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning
  7. 2026When Shallow Wins: Silent Failures and the Depth-Accuracy Paradox in Latent Reasoning
  8. 2026LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Research-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Proof Sketches