Ojasva Saxena

Arghodeep Nandi, Ojasva Saxena, Tanmoy Chakraborty

Reasoning traces produced by generative language models are increasingly used for tasks ranging from mathematical problem solving to automated fact checking. However, existing evaluation methods remain largely mechanical and fail to capture human-centric notions of reasoning quality in a way that generalizes across varied and progressively degraded reasoning. We introduce MarODE, an offline evaluation framework that assigns quality scores to reasoning traces. Its effectiveness is assessed using human-centric perturbations and human judgments, which jointly evaluate the fundamental dimensions of an evaluation metric - goodness and soundness. The approach is grounded in a Markovian formulation of reasoning progression and an ordinary differential equation based characterization of trace dynamics, enabling efficient evaluation of reasoning quality. In a large-scale evaluation, MarODE outperforms existing baselines by over 250% under Somers' D correlation. Our results emphasize the value of theory-driven evaluation frameworks as reasoning traces become central to language model-based systems.

Abhinav P M, Ojasva Saxena, Oswald C et al.

The extent to which large language models (LLMs) can perform culturally grounded reasoning across non-English languages remains underexplored. This paper examines the reasoning and self-assessment abilities of LLMs across seven major Indian languages-Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu. We introduce a multilingual riddle dataset combining traditional riddles with context-reconstructed variants and evaluate five LLMs-Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Mistral-Saba, LLaMA 4 Scout, and LLaMA 4 Maverick-under seven prompting strategies. In the first stage, we assess riddle-solving performance and find that while Gemini 2.5 Pro performs best overall, few-shot methods yield only marginal gains, and accuracy varies notably across languages. In the second stage, we conduct a self-evaluation experiment to measure reasoning consistency. The results reveal a key finding: a model's initial accuracy is inversely correlated with its ability to identify its own mistakes. Top-performing models such as Gemini 2.5 Pro are overconfident (4.34% True Negative Rate), whereas lower-performing models like LLaMA 4 Scout are substantially more self-aware (42.09% True Negative Rate). These results point to clear gaps in multilingual reasoning and highlight the need for models that not only reason effectively but also recognize their own limitations.