The paper introduces LSR‑Ben, a benchmark designed to evaluate process reward models (PRMs) on scientific and logical reasoning tasks, addressing a gap left by existing math‑focused benchmarks. Experiments on 22 models reveal that PRMs and LLMs perform poorly in non‑mathematical domains, with LLMs tending to over‑identify errors while PRMs tend to overlook them. LSR‑Ben aims to spur research that broadens PRM applicability and improves LLM reasoning.
By Zhouhao Sun, Xuan Zhang, Xiao Ding, Bibo Cai, Li Du, Kai Xiong, Xinran Dai, Fei Zhang, weidi tang, Zhiyuan Kan, Yang Zhao, Bing Qin, Ting Liu
arXiv:2605. 24661v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks, yet current evaluation approaches predominantly rely on final-answer correctness, offering limited insight into the underlying reasoning processes that produce those answers.
By Ali \c{S}enol, Garima Agrawal, Huan Liu
The paper introduces the Token Economy Score (TES), a metric that quantifies the accuracy gain of reasoning-capable large language models relative to non-reasoning baselines, normalized by token generation cost. An empirical study across 151 runs on seven diverse benchmarks shows that task structure—such as sequential inference chains—predicts higher TES, while knowledge-recall tasks yield lower TES despite difficulty. The analysis also reveals diminishing returns at higher reasoning effort and highlights how deployment context, via Reasoning Cost Share and Deployment Cost Multiplier, can alter the economic viability of reasoning workloads.
By Sachin Gopal Wani, Ajay Dholakia, David Ellison
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song
arXiv:2608. 07885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning modes of language models outperform their non-reasoning counterparts on multi-step agentic tasks, but pay a 3-6x premium in output tokens on every episode -- much of it spent re-deriving procedures that are shared across episodes of the same domain.
By Agamdeep Singh, Srishti Gautam, Priyanshu Gupta, Nikita Mehrotra, Tanmay Bakshi, Sumit Gulwani
arXiv:2608. 13221v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search.
By Shunwen Bai, Ziping Ma, Chaoyang Zhang, Yarong Wang, Jiale Liu, Zhen Qin, Qingpei Guo
OBC‑Prune introduces an outcome‑based calibration approach for pruning large reasoning models, focusing on the causal importance of each reasoning sentence rather than uniform activation salience. By pairing correct and incorrect rollouts and using intervention‑based analysis, it assigns per‑token weights that guide one‑shot pruning methods such as SparseGPT, Wanda, and ALPS. Experiments on DeepSeek‑R1‑Distill‑Qwen models show consistent accuracy gains and shorter reasoning traces across multiple benchmarks at 40‑50% sparsity.
By Ha Lan Nguyen, Huy Hoang Tran, Trac-Duy Tran, Dung D. Le
arXiv:2602. 03061v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating mathematical reasoning in LLMs is constrained by limited benchmark sizes and inherent model stochasticity, yielding high-variance accuracy estimates and unstable rankings across platforms.
By Zihan Dong, Zhixian Zhang, Yang Zhou, Can Jin, Ruijia Wu, Linjun Zhang
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
By Manas Pathak, Xingyao Chen, Shuozhe Li, Amy Zhang, Liu Leqi
arXiv:2607. 04784v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Defining the reasoning boundaries and ensuring the reliability of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) remains a critical challenge.
By Shide Zhou, Kailong Wang, Ling Shi, Haoyu Wang
The paper proposes a unified framework for test‑time reasoning methods, framing them as recursion operators—GROW, PRUNE, and BRANCH—applied to an agent’s reasoning trace. Experiments across five benchmarks and three frontier models show that BRANCH, which samples and selects among multiple reasoning paths, consistently outperforms the other operators and a single‑pass chain‑of‑thought baseline, improving accuracy by an average of 5.98 percentage points. The study also highlights the importance of paired evaluation and careful handling of scoring‑pipeline failures, as these factors can significantly alter comparative outcomes.
By Shengxin Zhang, Xiaomin Wu, Xiyang Wu, Jing Xie
arXiv:2605. 28742v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models can use verifiable rewards to improve at a wide variety of reasoning tasks.
By Linas Nasvytis, Simon Jerome Han, Ben Prystawski, Satchel Grant, Noah D. Goodman, Judith E. Fan