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.
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.
arXiv:2604. 09482v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains remains challenging as intermediate steps are often not locally verifiable: unlike math or code, evaluating step correctness may require synthesizing clues across large external knowledge sources.
arXiv:2606. 04579v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in mathematical reasoning, their application in complex scientific domains-such as biology, chemistry, and physics remains largely unexplored.
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
arXiv:2607. 01431v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
arXiv:2605. 24396v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps, limiting the gains from additional test-time compute.
arXiv:2602. 09305v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable.
The paper surveys efficient reasoning in large language models, contrasting fast intuitive (System 1) and slow deep (System 2) reasoning. It analyzes why System 2 is computationally costly yet more accurate, and why System 1 is efficient but less effective. The survey covers causes of inefficiency, patterns of reasoning behavior, and potential solutions to balance performance and computational budgets, offering actionable insights and an open‑source repository for ongoing research.
arXiv:2605. 12519v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge.
arXiv:2512. 07795v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark scores for LLM reasoning systems are reported as single numbers, yet the same model, strategy, and task can produce meaningfully different answers and costs across repeated executions, even under greedy decoding (T = 0).
arXiv:2603.17815v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding and evaluating multi-step reasoning in LLMs at the level of individual steps remains a key challenge. Process reward models (PRMs) pr...