Automatically generated chains-of-thought (gCoTs) have become common as large language models adopt deliberative behaviors. Prior work emphasizes fidelity to internal processes, leaving explanatory properties underexplored. Our central hypothesis is that these traces, produced by highly capable reasoning models, are not arbitrary by-products of decoding but exhibit stable and practically valuable textual properties beyond answer fidelity. We apply a multidimensional text-evaluation framework that quantifies four axes—structural coherence, logical–factual consistency, linguistic clarity, and coverage/informativeness—that are standard dimensions for assessing textual quality, and use it to evaluate five reasoning models on the GSM8K arithmetic word-problem benchmark (~1.3 k–1.4 k items) with reproducible, normalized metrics. Logical verification shows near-ceiling self-consistency, measured by the Aggregate Consistency Score (ACS ≈ 0.95–1.00), and high final-answer entailment, measured by Final Answer Soundness (FAS0 ≈ 0.85–1.00); when sound, justifications are compact, with Justification Set Size (JSS ≈ 0.51–0.57) and moderate redundancy, measured by the Redundant Constraint Ratio (RCR ≈ 0.62–0.70). Results also show consistent coherence and clarity; from gCoT to answer implication is stricter than from question to gCoT support, indicating chains anchored to the prompt. We find no systematic trade-off between clarity and informativeness (within-model slopes ≈ 0). In addition to these automatic and logic-based metrics, we include an exploratory expert rating of a subset (four raters; 50 items × five models) to contextualize model differences; these human judgments are not intended to support dataset-wide generalization. Overall, gCoTs display explanatory value beyond fidelity, primarily supported by the automated and logic-based analyses, motivating hybrid evaluation (automatic + exploratory human) to map convergence/divergence zones for user-facing applications.
Becerra-Monsalve et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: