Multi-step reasoning ability is fundamental to many natural language tasks, yet it is unclear what constitutes a good reasoning chain and how to evaluate them. Most existing methods focus solely on whether the reasoning chain leads to the correct conclusion, but this answer-oriented view may confound the quality of reasoning with other spurious shortcuts to predict the answer. To bridge this gap, we evaluate reasoning chains by viewing them as informal proofs that derive the final answer. Specifically, we propose ReCEval (Reasoning Chain Evaluation), a framework that evaluates reasoning chains through two key properties: (1) correctness, i.e., each step makes a valid inference based on the information contained within the step, preceding steps, and input context, and (2) informativeness, i.e., each step provides new information that is helpful towards deriving the generated answer. We implement ReCEval using natural language inference models and information-theoretic measures. On multiple datasets, ReCEval is highly effective in identifying different types of errors, resulting in notable improvements compared to prior methods. We demonstrate that our informativeness metric captures the expected flow of information in high-quality reasoning chains and we also analyze the impact of previous steps on evaluating correctness and informativeness. Finally, we show that scoring reasoning chains based on ReCEval can improve downstream performance of reasoning tasks. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/archiki/ReCEval

利用信息论度量和自然语言推理模型，以信息性和正确性为关键属性构建 ReCEval 框架，评估认知链作为形式证明推导出最终答案的有效性和质量，以提高思维任务的表现。

通过正确性和信息性评估推理链：ReCEval