Latency-Response Theory Model: Evaluating Large Language Models via Response Accuracy and Chain-of-Thought Length . -
Open accessAbstract
The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) necessitates valid evaluation methods to provide guidance for both downstream applications and actionable future improvements. The item response theory (IRT) model with computerized adaptive testing has recently emerged as a promising framework for evaluating LLMs via their response accuracy. Beyond simple response accuracy, LLMs’ chain of thought (CoT) lengths serve as a vital indicator of their reasoning ability. To leverage the CoT length information to assist LLM evaluation, we propose the Latency-Response Theory (LaRT) model, which jointly models both the response accuracy and CoT length by introducing a key correlation parameter between the latent ability and the latent speed. We derive an efficient stochastic approximation expectation-maximization algorithm for parameter estimation. We establish rigorous identifiability results for the latent ability and latent speed parameters to ensure the statistical validity of their estimation. Through both theoretical asymptotic analyses and simulation studies, we demonstrate LaRT’s advantages over IRT in terms of superior estimation accuracy and shorter confidence intervals for latent trait estimation. To evaluate LaRT in real data, we collect responses from diverse LLMs on popular benchmark datasets. We find that LaRT yields different LLM rankings than IRT and outperforms IRT across multiple key evaluation metrics including predictive power, item efficiency, ranking validity, and LLM evaluation efficiency. Code and data used for the analyses are provided as Supplementary Material.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More recent models extend IRT logic by incorporating observable response-time measures, response latency, or available visible reasoning traces.
“More recent models extend this logic by incorporating observable response-time measures, response latency, or available visible reasoning traces [7].”
From Machine Psychometrics: A Mathematical Psychology of Artificial Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 51
- Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Ai, J., Altman, S., Applebaum, A., Arbus, E., Arora, R. K., Bai, Y., Baker, B., Bao, H., et al. (2025). gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925. · arXiv
- Anderson, T. W., Rubin, H., et al. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis. In Proceedings of the third Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 5, pages 111- 150.
- Bolsinova, M. and Tijmstra, J. (2019). Modeling differences between response times of correct and incorrect responses. psychometrika, 84(4):1018-1046.
- Camilli, G. and Geis, E. (2019). Stochastic approximation em for large-scale exploratory irt factor analysis. Statistics in medicine, 38(21):3997-4012.
- Castleman, J., Nadeem, N., Namjoshi, T., and Liu, L. T. (2025). Rethinking math benchmarks for LLMs using IRT. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 273:66-82.
- Chang, H.-H. (2015). Psychometrics behind computerized adaptive testing. Psychometrika, 80(1):1- 20.
- Chang, H.-H. and Stout, W. (1993). The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait in an irt model. Psychometrika, 58(1):37-52.
- Chang, H.-H. and Ying, Z. (1996). A global information approach to computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20(3):213-229.
- Chen, M. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374. · arXiv
- Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., and Toutanova, K. (2019). Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 2019 con- ference of the north American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers), pages 2924-2936.
- Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., et al. (2021). Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
- Delyon, B., Lavielle, M., and Moulines, E. (1999). Convergence of a stochastic approximation version of the em algorithm. The Annals of Statistics, 27(1):94-128.
- Durante, D. (2019). Conjugate bayes for probit regression via unified skew-normal distributions. Biometrika, 106(4):765-779.
- Ein-Dor, L., Halfon, A., Gera, A., Shnarch, E., Dankin, L., Choshen, L., Danilevsky, M., Aharonov, R., Katz, Y., and Slonim, N. (2020). Active Learning for BERT: An Empirical Study. In Webber, B., Cohn, T., He, Y., and Liu, Y., editors, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7949-7962, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Entink, R. K., Fox, J.-P., and van der Linden, W. J. (2009). A multivariate multilevel approach to the modeling of accuracy and speed of test takers. Psychometrika, 74(1):21-48.
- Fox, J.-P. (2005). Multilevel irt using dichotomous and polytomous response data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 58(1):145-172.
- Fox, J.-P. (2007). Multilevel irt modeling in practice with the package mlirt. Journal of Statistical Software, 20:1-16.
- Fox, J.-P. and Marianti, S. (2016). Joint modeling of ability and differential speed using responses and response times. Multivariate behavioral research, 51(4):540-553.
- Gelman, A., Meng, X.-L., and Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica sinica, pages 733-760.
- Gema, A. P., Leang, J. O. J., Hong, G., Devoto, A., Mancino, A. C. M., Saxena, R., He, X., Zhao, Y., Du, X., Madani, M. R. G., et al. (2025). Are we done with mmlu? In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5069-5096.
- Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al. (2025). Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948. · arXiv
- Hambleton, R. K. and Swaminathan, H. (2013). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
- Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. (2021). Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS.
- Hofmann, V., Heineman, D., Magnusson, I., Lo, K., Dodge, J., Sap, M., Koh, P. W., Wang, C., Hajishirzi, H., and Smith, N. A. (2025). Fluid language model benchmarking. In Second Conference on Language Modeling.
- Jaech, A., Kalai, A., Lerer, A., Richardson, A., El-Kishky, A., Low, A., Helyar, A., Madry, A., Beutel, A., Carney, A., et al. (2024). Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720. · arXiv
- Kipnis, A., Voudouris, K., Buschoff, L. M. S., and Schulz, E. (2025). metabench -a sparse bench- mark of reasoning and knowledge in large language models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Klein Entink, R. H., Kuhn, J.-T., Hornke, L. F., and Fox, J.-P. (2009). Evaluating cognitive theory: a joint modeling approach using responses and response times. Psychological methods, 14(1):54.
- Kornely, M. J. K. and Kateri, M. (2022). Asymptotic posterior normality of multivariate latent traits in an irt model. Psychometrika, 87(3):1146-1172.
- Kyllonen, P. C. and Zu, J. (2016). Use of response time for measuring cognitive ability. Journal of Intelligence, 4(4):14.
- Lalor, J. P., Wu, H., and Yu, H. (2016). Building an evaluation scale using item response theory. In Su, J., Duh, K., and Carreras, X., editors, Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 648-657, Austin, Texas. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
- Lavielle, M. and Mbogning, C. (2014). An improved saem algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation in mixtures of non linear mixed effects models. Statistics and Computing, 24(5):693- 707.
- Li, J., Cheng, X., Zhao, W. X., Nie, J.-Y., and Wen, J.-R. (2023). Halueval: A large-scale hallu- cination evaluation benchmark for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 6449-6464.
- Li, J., Gibbons, R., and Rockova, V. (2025). Sparse bayesian multidimensional item response theory. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 1-14.
- Li, K.-C. and Duan, N. (1989). Regression analysis under link violation. The Annals of Statistics, 17(3):1009-1052.
- Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasunaga, M., Zhang, Y., Narayanan, D., Wu, Y., Kumar, A., Newman, B., Yuan, B., Yan, B., Zhang, C., Cosgrove, C. A., Manning, C. D., Re, C., Acosta-Navas, D., Hudson, D. A., Zelikman, E., Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., Rong, F., Ren, H., Yao, H., WANG, J., Santhanam, K., Orr, L., Zheng, L., Yuksekgonul, M., Suzgun, M., Kim, N., Guha, N., Chatterji, N. S., Khattab, O., Henderson, P., Huang, Q., Chi, R. A., Xie, S. M., Santurkar, S., Ganguli, S., Hashimoto, T., Icard, T., Zhang, T., Chaudhary, V., Wang, W., Li, X., Mai, Y., Zhang, Y., and Koreeda, Y. (2023). Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Featured Certification, Expert Certification.
- Liu, D. C. and Nocedal, J. (1989). On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization. Mathematical programming, 45(1):503-528.
- Maia Polo, F., Weber, L., Choshen, L., Sun, Y., Xu, G., and Yurochkin, M. (2024). tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples. In Salakhutdinov, R., Kolter, Z., Heller, K., Weller, A., Oliver, N., Scarlett, J., and Berkenkamp, F., editors, Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 34303-34326.
- PMLR.
- Meijer, R. R. and Nering, M. L. (1999). Computerized adaptive testing: Overview and introduction. Applied psychological measurement, 23(3):187-194.
- Meng, X.-B., Tao, J., and Chang, H.-H. (2015). A conditional joint modeling approach for locally dependent item responses and response times. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52(1):1-27.
- Robbins, H. and Monro, S. (1951). A stochastic approximation method. The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 400-407.
- Schnipke, D. L. and Scrams, D. J. (2005). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights gained from response-time analyses. In Computer-based testing, pages 237-266. Routledge.
- Serfling, R. J. (2009). Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
- Snell, C. V., Lee, J., Xu, K., and Kumar, A. (2025). Scaling LLM test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling parameters for reasoning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations.
- van der Linden, W. J. (2007). A hierarchical framework for modeling speed and accuracy on test items. Psychometrika, 72(3):287-308.
- Wainer, H., Dorans, N. J., Flaugher, R., Green, B. F., and Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Routledge.
- Wang, A., Pruksachatkun, Y., Nangia, N., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., and Bowman, S. (2019). Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
- Wang, C. and Xu, G. (2015). A mixture hierarchical model for response times and response accuracy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68(3):456-477.
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E. H., Le, Q. V., and Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '22, Red Hook, NY, USA.
- Xia, S., Li, X., Liu, Y., Wu, T., and Liu, P. (2025). Evaluating mathematical reasoning beyond accuracy. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 27723-27730.
- Zhang, H., Chen, Y., and Li, X. (2020). A note on exploratory item factor analysis by singular value decomposition. Psychometrika, 85(2):358-372.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Machine Psychometrics: A Mathematical Psychology of Artificial Intelligence
Bogdan, A., & de Valois-Franklin, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23952
- Authors
- Xu, Z., Liu, J., Wang, Y., & Gu, Y.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- ORCID
- Gu, Yuqi
- Venue
- The Annals of Applied Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 2026-09-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2253-2273
- ISSN
- 1932-6157 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-7330
- OpenAlex
- W7111336203
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- The Annals of Applied Statistics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- LLM evaluation, item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, response accuracy, identifiability, reasoning skills
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review