arXiv:2605.06165v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) accelerates, token consumption from intermediate reasoning traces increasingly contribut...
By Richmond Sin Jing Xuan, Rishabh Bhardwaj, Soujanya Poria
arXiv:2607. 14528v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) frequently contradict themselves when the surface form of a logically equivalent question changes.
By Alexander Gu, Alan Chen
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
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. 22554v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong accuracy on benchmarks, yet it remains unclear how reliably they apply this knowledge when the same question is phrased in different but equivalent ways.
By Kazem Faghih, Yize Cheng, Shoumik Saha, Mobina Pournemat, Armin Gerami, Soheil Feizi
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.
By Daeyeop Lee, Hwanjo Yu
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
PROOF is a benchmark that profiles the reliability of object-level facts in instruction-tuned language models by converting a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts across 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question includes an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations, with 1,849 questions designed as no-correct-option traps. The study evaluates 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts, revealing wide variability in factual accuracy, sensitivity to wording changes, and the impact of decoder perturbations.
By Andrei Chetvergov, Mikhail Solovev, Timofei Sivoraksha, Stepan Ukolov, Valeriia Kuschenko, Alexander Evseev, Sergey Bolovtsov
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
LogicSkills is a benchmark designed to isolate three core logical abilities in large language models: formal symbolization, countermodel construction, and validity assessment. The dataset draws items from the two-variable fragment of first‑order logic without identity, presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce‑word language, and all instances are solver‑verified with Z3. Results show that conventional instruction‑tuned LLMs excel at validity assessment but struggle with symbolization and countermodel construction, whereas recent reasoning‑tuned models perform well across all tasks, indicating a more systematic logical skill profile.
By Brian Rabern, Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
arXiv:2608.22048v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed on local hardware for privacy, cost, and accessibility reasons. Yet many evaluations emphasize accuracy...
By Orion Powers, Daniella Seum, Khaled Slhoub
Negative Self-Distillation (NSD) is a new framework for improving large language models by encouraging them to diverge from their own flawed reasoning rather than imitate privileged solutions. Unlike On-Policy Self-Distillation, which can suppress uncertainty and exploratory behavior, NSD generates a question‑specific negative condition (e.g., a careless reasoner) and uses a dynamic gating mechanism to target only reasoning‑critical tokens for penalization. This approach preserves foundational language capabilities while consistently outperforming OPSD and other label‑free self‑bootstrapping reinforcement learning baselines.
By Rongcan Pei, Zhepei Wei, Shuyao Xu, Xinyu Zhu, Wei-Lin Chen, Yu Meng