arXiv:2606. 07108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable performance improvements by iteratively reflecting, exploring, and executing complex tasks, yet suffer from inefficiencies due to redundant reasoning, known as "overthinking".
By Tengyao Tu, Yulin Li, Hui-Ling Zhen, Libo Qin, Zhoujun Wei, Jinghua Piao, Zhuotao Tian, Yong Li, Min Zhang
arXiv:2511. 01650v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly entering specialized, safety-critical engineering workflows governed by strict quantitative standards and immutable physical laws, making rigorous evaluation of their reasoning capabilities imperative.
By Ayesha Gull, Muhammad Usman Safder, Rania Elbadry, Fan Zhang, Veselin Stoyanov, Preslav Nakov, Zhuohan Xie
TRACES (Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost‑Efficient Early‑Stopping) is a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps of large‑language models in real time, enabling adaptive, cost‑efficient early stopping during inference. By monitoring the types of steps generated, the method identifies when models shift their reasoning after arriving at a correct answer, allowing for interpretable stopping criteria. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, GSM8K, AIME) and knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) show token reductions of 20–50% while preserving accuracy, with more conservative thresholds needed for harder tasks such as BeyondAIME and IMO AnswerBench.
By Yannis Belkhiter, Seshu Tirupathi, Giulio Zizzo, John D. Kelleher
PetriBench is a compact, fully self‑contained, and scalable benchmark that evaluates large language model (LLM) reasoning over dynamic state spaces using Petri nets. It organizes reasoning into four task families with Easy, Medium, and Hard levels, each generated by increasing structural complexity and evaluated against exact ground truth. Experiments across proprietary and open‑weight models show that accuracy consistently drops with difficulty, revealing distinct task‑specific capability profiles, while test‑time compute and procedural generation affect performance differently across tasks.
By Pyrros Koussios, Benjamin J\"ager, John Hua Yao, Ajay Sridhar, Violet Xiang, Chenhao Li
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:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.
By Mohsen Hariri, Weicong Chen, Nahal Shahini, Vikash Singh, Kai Ye, Amirhossein Samandar, Debargha Ganguly, Sreehari Sankar, Yanyan Zhang, Shouren Wang, Jerry Peng, Biyao Zhang, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary
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:2607. 10296v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning failures in large language models (LLMs) are usually evaluated from final answers, but a wrong answer does not reveal why the model failed.
By Dongxu Zhang, Yiding Sun, Zihao Guo, Xiangyang Yang, Kai Tang, Lin Chen, Cheng Tan, Jihua Zhu
arXiv:2609.39334v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Test-time scaling has recently emerged as a powerful approach for improving LLM reasoning by allocating additional computation during inference, subs...
By Jinwoo Jeong (Korea University), Woohyung Choi (Korea University), Myeongjae Jeon (POSTECH), Jeongseob Ahn (Korea University)
arXiv:2509.24711v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's ope...
By Qingjie Zhang, Yujia Fu, Yang Wang, Liu Yan, Tao Wei, Ke Xu, Minlie Huang, Han Qiu
arXiv:2510. 11713v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world applications of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often require reasoning about changing prompts or environments.
By Tsung-Han Wu, Mihran Miroyan, David M. Chan, Trevor Darrell, Narges Norouzi, Joseph E. Gonzalez
arXiv:2608. 10928v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by allocating additional inference-time compute to generate extended chain-of-thought reasoning.
By Vaibhav Singh, Soumya Suvra Ghosal, Sarvesh Gharat, Soumyabrata Pal, Ramasuri Narayanam, Dinesh Manocha