arXiv:2607. 07391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning benchmarks typically provide all facts needed to solve each problem, while interactive benchmarks often mix reasoning with tools, retrieval, and long-horizon dialogue.
By Charbel Al Bateh, Samer Saab Jr
arXiv:2607. 06327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty estimation (UE) enables LLM-powered systems to recognize when to abstain, yet existing research has predominantly focused on English.
By Andrea Alfarano, Andrea Bacciu, Saab Mansour, Amin Mantrach, Marcello Federico
arXiv:2608. 09351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM accuracy but multiplies inference cost, making the accuracy gained per unit of compute the metric that matters in deployment.
By Nikita Kozodoi, Zainab Afolabi, Jack Butler
arXiv:2606. 10254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined.
By Yiteng Mao, Kenan Xu, Yijia Lyu, Wenhao Li, Jianlong Chen, Xiangfeng Wang
The paper presents a unified evaluation of seven open reasoning language models across four benchmarks (ARC-Challenge, GSM8K, MATH levels 1–3, and TruthfulQA MC1) using a consistent 238-example subset and three prompting strategies (zero-shot, chain-of-thought, few-shot CoT). It reports not only accuracy but also Wilson confidence intervals, latency, VRAM usage, weighted aggregate performance, Pareto-efficient points, prompt-sensitivity, and compatibility diagnostics, revealing that Gemma-4-26B-A4B tops the weighted score while Gemma-4-E4B offers a strong practical trade-off. The study emphasizes that model rankings shift with prompting strategy and that deployment trade-offs remain crucial, advocating for a deployment-aware, multi-objective evaluation framework rather than a single-score leaderboard.
By Md Motaleb Hossen Manik, Ge Wang
arXiv:2604. 01170v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While test-time scaling has enabled large language models to solve highly difficult tasks, state-of-the-art results come at exorbitant compute costs.
By Cai Zhou, Zekai Wang, Menghua Wu, Qianyu Julie Zhu, Flora C. Shi, Chenyu Wang, Ashia Wilson, Tommi Jaakkola, Stephen Bates
arXiv:2607. 09999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We show that post-training quantization can silently alter how large language models reason even when task accuracy is preserved.
By Renuka Oladri, Mohan Vamsi Varadaraju Priya, Jerry Wu
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:2602. 15327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine learning model performance improvements tend to arise from competition and application.
By Hanlin Zhang, Jikai Jin, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Sham Kakade
arXiv:2609.37647v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed...
By Tobias Deu{\ss}er, Lorenz Sparrenberg, Rafet Sifa
arXiv:2607. 14109v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding.
By Inder Preet, Shuxin Lin, Dhaval Patel
arXiv:2607.14109v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central...
By Inder Preet, Shuxin Lin, Dhaval Patel