Skip to main content
Aggregate arXiv cs.AI 人工智能 15 Aug 2026 - 13:30

Reasoning Jury: Multi-Model Consensus for Evaluating Reasoning Traces

RSS 官方收录 · 可信分层展示

关键摘要

arXiv:2608.…

  • 12585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Improving reasoning LLMs requires…
  • Additionally, surfacing reasoning mistakes that the model makes would …
  • Due to the difficulty of this complex task on long reasoning traces, s…

摘要引擎:抽取

正文提要

arXiv:2608.12585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Improving reasoning LLMs requires the ability to judge the quality of long reasoning traces for effective reasoning data curation, strong training signals during reinforcement learning, and an in-depth understanding of reasoning behaviors during model performance evaluation. Additionally, surfacing reasoning mistakes that the model makes would enable improving the model's performance at runtime through providing feedback. Due to the difficulty of this complex task on long reasoning traces, single-model judges (even frontier models) do not do well at identifying reasoning defects. Additionally, leveraging frontier models during online training of reasoning LLMs is generally prohibited due to guardrails in terms of use. In this work, we introduce Reasoning Jury, a system that replaces the single judge with a jury of LLMs and a moderated consensus mechanism, to improve the fidelity of judgments for identifying reasoning defects. In reasoning jury, defects of a reasoning trace and their severity are surfaced through a deliberation where a moderator conducts a discussion amongst the jury where the jurors critique each other's judgments and get to modify their initial votes. The moderator derives a consensus through deliberation amongst jurors or consolidation of judgements. We show that Reasoning Jury with a jury of open-weight models (e.g., gpt-oss-120b) is able to significantly outperform frontier models (opus-4.6, sonnet-4.6, and gemini-3.1-pro) at correctly identifying reasoning defects. Besides accuracy performance improvements, the aggregated cost of the jury (initial verdicts, deliberations, consolidation, etc.) is a fraction (8 to 15%) of the cost of running frontier models in LLM-as-a-judge setup. We also show how these judgements can be leveraged to understand failure modes of reasoning LLMs on benchmarks, which allows much deeper understanding of a model's performance.

来源:https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12585

打开官方原文 站点原文页 可信分区 本信源更多 今日简报 分享图 RSS 稍后再看列表